The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Private Members' Motions
Reference to Main Committee
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 41(g), and the determinations of the Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Banks, Fowler and Oxley. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
BILLS
Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011
Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011
Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011
Business Names Registration Bill 2011
Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011
Reference to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON: by leave—I move:
(a) unless otherwise ordered, at the interruption of private Members’ business at noon today, the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 and the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 stand referred to the Main Committee for further consideration; and
(b) the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:
Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011;
Business Names Registration Bill 2011;
Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential
Provisions) Bill 2011; and
Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011.
Question agreed to.
PETITIONS
Mr MURPHY: On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Aviation
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of Australian flight attendants draws to the attention of the House proposals to change Civil Aviation Order (CAO) section 20.16.3 to carry one crew member for every 50 passengers.
Current law requires one crew member for every 36 passengers. The adoption and enforcement of ratio has lead to:
(a) The establishment of a safe & secure environment for passengers and crew onboard Australian domestic flights; and
(b) The ability to respond efficiently and effectively to on-board emergencies and illness; and
(c) The ability efficiently and effectively to evacuate aircraft in an emergency; and
(d) The ability to deter and respond to an adverse security event; including acts of terrorism and attempted hijackings.
These standards benefit all Australians. We therefore ask the House to:
(a) Affirm its commitment to the best and safest standards in the world; and
(b) Oppose commercial attempts by airlines to maximise profits by reducing standards and cutting costs; and
(c) Reject the proposed ratio of 1 crew member for every 50 passengers.
from 4,326 citizens
Marriage
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens, in support of marriage as currently defined in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) draws to the attention of the House:
that on 18th November 2010 the House of Representatives endorsed a motion that said "That this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents' views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage."
that marriage is currently defined in the Marriage Act 1961 (Ct h) as being "... the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
that each element of the definition of marriage is essential to its integrity, particularly with respect to the welfare and wellbeing of children;
that marriage is a "keystone" institution on which our society rests;
that marriage provides for a stable family structure and is the ideal environment in which children are raised and nurtured; and
that marriage is worthy of ongoing protection and support.
We therefore ask the House to maintain support for marriage as currently defined in the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) and reject any proposal to amend its definition.
from 5 citizens
Petitions received.
Responses
Mr MURPHY: Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Dairy Industry
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 7 July 2011 informing me that a petition regarding competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry has been received by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions.
Policy responsibility for issues related to comp etition rests with my colleague the Hon. David Bradbury MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer. I have referred your letter to him for response.
Thank you for again for your letter.
from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig
Merit Protection Commissioner
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 1 June 2011 concerning a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions about a secondary review of actions through the merit protection process. I note the concerns raised in the petition and make the following comments.
In regard to the review of employment decisions process, Section 33 of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act) and Part 5 of the Public Service Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) provide for a system of review of employment decisions and actions in the Australian Public Service (APS), including secondary review by the Merit Protection Commissioner (the Commissioner).
The statutory scheme entitles non-Senior Executive Service employees to a review of a broad range of actions related to his or her employment.
In most cases APS employees are required to have their matter initially reviewed within their agency (section 33(4)(a) of the Act). If they are dissatisfied with the outcome or if the agency considers that the matter is not reviewable, they may apply for secondary review by the Commissioner.
This is consistent with the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the Act and reinforced in practice through the Regulations and the Public Service Commissioner's Public Service Directions (the Commissioner's Directions). That is, wherever possible, to deal with an issue 'as quickly, and with as little formality, as proper consideration of the matter allows' (Regulation 5.35(1)(c)). This approach also supports the concept of an agency having, and taking responsibility for, its internal management approaches and being in a position to strategically and positively respond to issues as they arise. This includes improving future decision-making by incorporating lessons from complaints and issues into policy and procedures.
An application for a secondary review by the Commissioner is made through the agency head. Under Regulation 5.30 the agency head is required to give the Commissioner the application and any relevant documents relating to the primary review within 14 days. Should the Commissioner suspect poor administration or premeditated delay with regard to lodging a secondary review application, the concerns are usually raised with the relevant agency head and, if necessary, with the Special Minister of State (SMOS) or included in the Commissioner's annual report.
When conducting reviews the Commissioner considers evidence provided by both the agency and the employee and forms a view on whether the actions of the agency were consistent with agency policies, were fair and reasonable and were consistent with the principles of procedural fairness. Further information on the approach taken to reviews of action and complaint handling is provided on the Merit Protection Commissioner's website
(http://www.apsc.qov.au/merit/reviewactionsquideforhrpractitioners.htm).
The Office of the Merit Protection Commissioner is an independent statutory office established under section 50 of the Act. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor-General for a period up to five years and cannot be directed in the performance of his or her duties.
The Commissioner reports directly to the SMOS and if he or she is not satisfied with the response to recommendations contained in a report of a review under section 33(6) of the Act, may after consultation with the Public Service Minister have the matter reported to the agency Minister, the Prime Minister or the Presiding Officers for presentation to Parliament. These are significant powers and independence.
The devolved nature of employee powers under the Act (section 20(1)) mean that every agency has its own policies and procedures (within the parameters identified by the Regulations and the Commissioner's Directions) with regard to how they construct and implement review in their agency. A knowledge and understanding of the Commonwealth public service environment balanced with a keen knowledge and understanding of the independence and the role of a statutory office holder is a key aspect of this very important role. In 2010 employees of the Office of the Merit Protection Commissioner were recipients of an Australia Day Award. It is unclear how an external body from outside the APS would provide a better or fairer system of review given the understanding and independence of the Commissioner.
In regard to the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) merit selection process, the Finance Valued Behaviours form the basis of selection criteria and assessment framework for all selection processes. In accordance with section 10 of the Act, all candidates applying for positions within Finance are assessed on merit using the guiding principles for APS staff selection as follows:
An assessment is made of the relative suitability of candidates for the duties, using a comparative selection process.
The assessment is based on the relationship between the candidate's work related qualities and the work related qualities genuinely required for the duties.
The assessment focuses on the relative capacity of the candidates to achieve outcomes related to the duties. The assessment is the primary consideration in making the decision.
Thank you for notifying me of this petition. I trust that this information will be of assistance to the committee.
from the Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity, Mr Gray
Potato Imports
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 31 May 2011 to Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, forwarding a petition to the Standing Committee on Petitions requesting a stop to the importation of potatoes from New Zealand because of concerns around the disease 'zebra chip'. Minister Ludwig has asked me to reply on his behalf. I regret the delay in responding.
The Gillard Government is committed to a strong biosecurity system to protect Australia's enviable biosecurity status, which contributes to Australian agriculture's comparative advantage.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry completed a pest risk analysis for the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous and its vector the tomato-potato psyllid in 2009. The Final pest risk analysis report for"Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous"in fresh fruit, potato tubers, nursery stock and its vector the tomato—potato psyllid was publicly released after stakeholder comment in September 2009. The report included an assessment of potatoes as a host and recommended that potatoes be allowed into Australia subject to a condition that they are processed in quarantine-approved premises.
The department has flagged that it will formally review the import policy for potatoes for processing from New Zealand during 2011, and Biosecurity Australia has advised that the start of the review is imminent. The department's reviews of import policy are conducted in a transparent manner, and regular updates are available on its website at www.daff.gov.au/ba. You may wish to register as a stakeholder and receive notice of when the policy review for potatoes for processing from New Zealand begins, as well as notices of other new policy reviews.
I note the petitioners' request to reject the application for market access for New Zealand potatoes. However, I do not consider it appropriate for Minister Ludwig or me to interfere in the process of conducting science-based risk assessments on market access requests.
from the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Mike Kelly
Migration
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 4 July 2011 concerning a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions on the decentralisation of population from cities to towns.
The petition addresses issues related to the 1951 Convention, potential migration from the South Pacific region and settlement locations of refugees and migrants, matters which fall within my responsibilities as Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. In accordance with Standing Order 209(b), please find attached a response to Committee on the issues raised in the petition.
Thank you for drawing this matter to my attention.
Response to petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions on the decentralisation of population from cities to towns
Suggestion that the Government succeed from the Refugees Convention
Australia takes its international treaty obligations seriously and has no plans to abandon these obligations. Indeed, in 2001 Australia joined with the international community to renew its commitment to the Refugees Convention.
As a member of the international community, Australia shares responsibility for protecting refugees worldwide and resolving refugee situations through the system of international refugee protection. A total of 147 countries are signatory to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol.
Regional settlement
The Australian Government understands the importance of balancing migration across Australia's metropolitan and regional areas, and has initiatives in place to promote migration to regional areas.
The Australian Government recognises that the settlement of refugees and migrants in regional areas has benefits for both refugees and migrants and the receiving communities. Regional settlement can provide refugees and migrants with good social and economic prospects, while at the same time reduce the load on services in cities, offset regional population decline and increase community diversity in regional areas.
It is however, important to note that, like Australian citizens, new entrants have a choice as to where they wish to live, and often move to larger cities because of the employment and education opportunities that larger cities can offer.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has directly settled humanitarian entrants in regional areas for some years now. Around 14,000 new humanitarian entrants are settled in Australia each year, 15-20 per cent of whom are directly settled in regional locations. Other migrants will decide to move to regional areas to benefit themselves and their families.
While the Australian Government is seeking to increase the number of humanitarian entrants who settle in regional centres, this can only occur where there are appropriate services, support from government agencies and support from the local community. In settling new refugees, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship needs to ensure it provides the best assistance possible to each person. Some refugees, for example, experience severe torture or trauma before arriving to Australia, and therefore need to be initially settled in a metropolitan city where they can access suitable counselling services. Others have existing 'links' in Australia, such as family, friends or a proposer, and are therefore settled near their links so that they can receive valuable post-arrival settlement and social support.
The Australian Government is committed to maintaining a skilled regional migration program that meets the current skill needs of regional employers, while ensuring the sustainable development and growth of regional communities.
As part of the 2011-12 Budget, the Government announced a number of regional measures which include:
streamlining the permanent residence process for skilled migrants who are living and working in Australia on certain temporary visas;
the introduction of Regional Migration Agreements, a new migration initiative that will bring together local employers, local and state governments, and unions to cooperate on addressing local labour market needs through a labour agreement arrangement which caters specifically to the needs of a particular region (rather than an industry or project);
increasing the number of regional employer sponsored visa grants for 2011-12 to 16 000 places through the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, which represents 12.5 per cent of the overall Skilled Migration program; and
expanding the Regional Outreach Network to support a new Regional Engagement Strategy to actively disseminate information to better assist regional employers with identifying migration program options that suit their needs.
Assistance to South Pacific islanders
The Australian Government is aware of and concerned about the complex relationship between environmental degradation, climate change and migration. We note that Pacific island leaders, in The Niue Declaration on Climate Change, have made it clear that the first priority of Pacific peoples is to continue to live in their own countries, where possible, or in the Pacific region.
The Government believes that the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of climate change induced displacement is to reach a strong and effective global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, Australia is committed to playing its full and fair role in strong and decisive action to avert dangerous climate change.
Given that some impacts of climate change and other forms of environmental degradation are unavoidable and are already being felt by Pacific island countries, building communities' resilience to climate change and environmental impacts is vital. Sustainable development activities and measures directly aimed at adaptation are vital to securing livelihoods and helping people have the choice to remain in their homes wherever possible. The Australian Government provides substantial efforts to both support sustainable development while building resilience to climate change, mainly through its International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative.
There is also a long history of temporary and permanent migration in the Pacific, including between and within Pacific Island countries themselves and to other destinations such as Australia. Australia has in place policies to improve international mobility opportunities for Pacific islanders. These are not a relocation program, nor are the effects of climate change the primary reason for such assistance. Such programs are intended to bolster economic growth in the Pacific by helping to develop a more competitive regional workforce and strengthen the ability of Pacific islanders to access employment internationally, should they wish to move.
In the longer term, the possibility remains that migration could become an option for some Pacific islanders. In these circumstances, Australia would work in close consultation with the region to ensure that Pacific islanders' vital interests —economic, social and cultural— are addressed.
from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen
National Schools Curriculum
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 4 July 2011 concerning the Turkish petition received by the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the proposed languages in the draft Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages paper (Languages Shape paper).
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is currently assessing the feedback from the public consultation on the draft Languages Shape paper. The Languages Shape paper proposed 11 languages for the development of the National Curriculum. While a decision has not yet been made on which languages will be included in the Australian Curriculum, it is important to acknowledge the work of ACARA is complementing other initiatives that support the study of languages in Australian schools. For example, the Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment Framework for Languages (CCAFL) is one initiative that recognises the importance of community languages being taught at the senior secondary level, such as Turkish.
The CCAFL, administered by state and territory certification authorities, allows for the teaching, learning and examination of small candidature languages such as Turkish. The CCAFL process will continue to support languages for which the Australian Curriculum may not be developed. ACARA will work collaboratively with states and territories to ensure students have the opportunities to engage with languages as part of their schooling.
In addition, the Australian Government provides significant funding under the National Education Agreement (NEA) to states and territories for languages education in government and community schools. The NEA allows state and territory education authorities the flexibility to target resources according to individual jurisdictional priorities and educational needs. Funding can be used to support Turkish language programs. The Government is also providing $62.4 million over 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 through the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to support the teaching of languages in non-government schools.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
from the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Mr Garrett
Murray Darling Basin
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 7 July 2011, regarding a petition for consideration by the Standing Committee concerning the Basin Plan being prepared by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (the Authority). I note the petition asking the House of Representatives to ensure the Basin Plan returns enough water to Murray-Darling Basin.
The Australian Government is committed to delivering a healthy river system, strong regional communities and sustainable food production in the Murray-Darling Basin. This will be achieved through the development of the Basin Plan by the Authority and through key investments under the government's Water for the Future program.
The Chair of the Authority, the Hon Craig Knowles, has indicated that he expects work on the draft Basin Plan to be finalised by mid October for exhibition in November. Once the draft Plan is released there will be a minimum 20 week public consultation period, followed by a further opportunity for state governments to provide input. The Chair said he will work closely with communities and stakeholders throughout the process.
The government has committed significant funding to reduce possible impacts of the Basin Plan, including a commitment to bridge the gap between current diversion limits and those allowed under the Plan. Water will only be recovered from irrigators who choose to participate in the government's programs - there will be no compulsory acquisition by the Commonwealth. Furthermore, our investments in more efficient irrigation infrastructure will help place irrigators, irrigation industries and communities on a better footing to deal with reduced water availability.
I remain committed to delivering a final plan for the Murray-Darling Basin to the Parliament in 2012. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
from the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr Tony Burke
Carbon Pricing
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 7 July 2011 concerning a petition received by the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding carbon pricing and replacement of coal-fired power stations with clean energy.
Scientists advise that the world is warming and high levels of carbon pollution risk environmental and economic damage. No responsible government can ignore this advice.
The Australian Government has developed a comprehensive plan to move to a clean energy future. This plan includes introducing a carbon price, promoting innovation and investment in renewable energy, encouraging energy efficiency, and creating opportunities in the land sector.
Central to that plan is the introduction of a carbon price that will cut pollution in the cheapest and most effective way and drive investment in clean energy sources such as solar, wind and gas.
A carbon price is not a tax on households — around 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia will be required to pay for their pollution, and every dollar raised will be used to support households, jobs, and to invest in clean energy and climate change programs.
Putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is a fact that is well recognised by economists from around the world and respected institutions such as the OECD and the Productivity Commission.
Currently, releasing carbon pollution is free despite the fact that it is harming our environment. A carbon price changes this. It puts a price on the carbon pollution that Australia's largest polluters produce. This creates a powerful incentive for all businesses to cut their pollution by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating.
It encourages businesses across all industries to find the cheapest and most effective way of reducing carbon pollution rather than relying on more costly approaches, such as government regulation.
To assist households with price impacts, there will be tax cuts and increases in pensions, allowances and benefits. A significant tax reform will mean that over one million individuals will no longer need to file a tax return.
Using the revenue from carbon pricing to help families in this way does not cancel out incentives to reduce pollution. Households will still face changes in relative prices.
By choosing less carbon emission intensive goods and services, and taking simple actions to improve energy efficiency in their daily lives, households can save money. These savings will come on top of the increased tax cuts and payments that households will continue to receive.
The Government is also committed to supporting jobs and competitiveness as Australia moves to a clean energy future and has designed a range of measures for this purpose. In particular, $9.2 billion will be provided over the first three years of the carbon price through the Jobs and Competitiveness Program to support jobs in industries that create a lot of carbon pollution. This program is ongoing.
In terms of replacing coal-fired power stations with clean energy, the Government is establishing an Energy Security Fund that includes potential payments for the closure of around 2,000 megawatts (MW) of very highly emissions-intensive coal-fired electricity generation capacity before 2020. The Government will invite expressions of interest from owners of coal-fired generation capacity with emissions intensity above 1.2 tCO2-e/MWh of electricity (on an 'as generated' basis) and will negotiate with the owners of very highly emissions-intensive generators during 2011 and 2012.
The Government's plan for a clean energy future will cut pollution and drive investment in new clean energy sources, such as solar, gas and wind. By acting now, Australians can look forward to long term prosperity while protecting our environment for ourselves and for our future generations.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention.
from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet
Statements
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:03): The last time I addressed the House following the presentation of petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I commented on the very large volume of petitions that were tabled that day. Today’s announcement is in stark contrast to the previous one, with only two petitions presented. Interestingly, this lower volume of petitions tabled today is also worthy of comment.
Understandably, during a recess in the parliamentary sittings, as we had in July/August, the volume of petitions that await presentation builds—that is one reason we have ebbs and flows in the number of petitions tabled and, indeed, in the number of ministerial responses presented. However, the number of petitions presented in the House does not necessarily reflect the volume of potential petitions submitted to the Petitions Committee for consideration.
Unfortunately, a large number of petitions that are received by the committee do not comply with the House standing orders, and, as such, cannot be presented in the House—either by me, as Chair of the Petitions Committee, or by any member of the House. As an example, at its last meeting the committee assessed 12 petitions but only half of them were found to be compliant—two have been presented today and four were presented by individual members in the last sitting week in August.
Petitions found not to comply are the result of a failure to meet one or more of the standing order requirements. A commonly seen error is that the petition is not addressed to the House of Representatives but is instead addressed to a particular member of parliament—for example, to the Prime Minister or to a constituent’s local member. Similarly, petitions which make requests to anyone other than the House of Representatives do not meet the standing order requirements. As such, a petition directly requesting that the government, or a particular minister, take action on a matter would not be compliant with the standing orders, even if the petition were correctly addressed to the House.
Another frequent misconception is that the House accepts petitions sent electronically or with electronically reproduced signatures—for example, faxed signature pages, photocopied pages or emails. Quite often photocopied petition pages are sent to the committee, and, despite attempts by the secretariat to track down the original copies, the originals are unavailable. So it is very important for petitioners to remember that petitioning the House is still conducted in a traditional manner. Standing order 205(b) specifies that all signatures on a petition must be original handwritten versions—and that includes the signature of the person who is the chief organiser of the petition, the ‘principal petitioner’.
Other petitions are found to be out of order because they fail to respond to a number of standing orders, indicating the likelihood that the petitioner is unaware that formal requirements for petitioning the House exist. Naturally this is very disappointing for those who organise petitions and collect signatures. It is also frustrating for the committee—and, indeed, for all members of parliament—who receive non-compliant petitions, especially given the resources available to assist citizens in preparing a petition. Non-compliant petitions are not forwarded by the committee to relevant ministers for a response, and this means the matters raised in them may not be brought to the attention of the relevant minister and will not receive a detailed response.
The petitions committee provides various materials to assist petitioners in understanding the House's requirements—for example, we have a website which provides background material on the petitioning process, including a sample petition format, a checklist of things to consider before collecting signatures and a link to petitions previously tabled that shows in-order formats. In addition, members of the House of Representatives are provided with stocks of information sheets and brochures to assist constituents who come to them for advice on the process.
The committee secretariat is also available to assist members and the Australian public by telephone, post and email to provide information on petitioning requirements. The general public is encouraged to send proposed petition formats either electronically or by mail to the committee secretariat for information on compliance before they start collecting signatures. It is encouraging that many petitioners are making early contact with the secretariat for advice on the process before sending in a completed petition.
In the remainder of my statement today I would like to mention the ongoing stream of ministerial responses to petitions which are presented each sitting Monday. The announcement on 22 August contained 20 ministerial responses, and today we see another seven presented. Once a petition is found to comply and is presented to a House, the terms—that is, the reasons and the request—are published in Hansard. The committee also decides in most instances to refer the petition to the minister or ministers holding the relevant portfolio areas to seek their comment.
Not all petitions are referred for a response. For example, when many petitions are tabled on the same subject matter with the same terms and within a similar time frame, additional petitions on that issue are not usually referred. As can be seen from the responses tabled today, not all responses meet the petitioners' requests. For example, a number of responses today explain to various petitioners why certain post office locations could not be maintained. Sometimes the response does detail changes which have occurred in favour of the petition request, but more often the purpose of a ministerial response is to explain the government perspective on a situation or matter that has been raised in the petition.
Finally, as all ministerial responses are published both in Hansard and on the committee's website, the explanations of issues provided by ministers are available to all interested parties, not just to principal petitioners. All citizens, therefore, have access to information about petitions brought before the House.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Reid for his sterling and brave efforts and commend to him hot lemon juice and honey.
COMMITTEES
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Report
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:10): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Mr PERRETT: by leave—before I go into my response to the report, I would like to note that this report has brought people from all around Australia to the parliament. I see up in the viewing gallery Paul Kennard, Kylie Hutton and their children Ben, Tom and Sophie, who have come down from Brisbane especially to hear this response.
The Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for inquiry and advisory report. The bill proposed a number of significant reforms which are designed to streamline and modernise Australia's laws on extradition and mutual assistance processes. Policy and processes in this area must balance the interests of criminal investigations with the great need to safeguard human rights. It is a complex balance, and the committee is pleased to have contributed to scrutiny on this bill and to make a number of recommendations to the House. These recommendations have the unanimous support of the committee.
Prior to this committee's inquiry the bill went through a rigorous process of public consultation during its development. Exposure drafts of the bill were released in both 2009 and January 2011, and subsequently a number of amendments were made. Firstly, the committee welcomes the reforms in the bill to extend the availability of bail to allow individuals to apply for bail during the latter stages of the extradition process. However, there is a statutory presumption against bail which restricts judicial discretion and places the evidentiary burden on applicants to prove that there are special circumstances to justify bail. As a matter of principle the committee queries the necessity of this presumption against bail. The committee's view is that it is rightly the role of the judiciary to determine the merits or risks of bail in any given situation and so recommends that consideration be given to removing this statutory presumption against bail in extradition cases. This change could be made without impacting on Australia's treaty obligations.
A further area of concern relates to transparency. Increasingly there is a reliance on undertakings from foreign countries to facilitate the extradition or mutual assistance process. These include undertakings regarding the storage of personal information and undertakings that a person wanted for an offence that carries the death penalty will not have the death penalty imposed upon them or, if it is imposed, will not have the sentence carried out on them. The breach of an undertaking has serious consequences not only for the individuals involved but also for the bilateral relationship between Australia and the country concerned. Therefore, we recommend that all breaches of an undertaking be reported on in the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department. The committee further recommends that any significant breach of an undertaking should be immediately reported to the parliament.
The committee agrees that reforms to our extradition and mutual assistance processes are required to recognise further grounds for refusal of assistance, to clarify what constitutes political offences, to expedite processes and to ensure there is appropriate scope for the Attorney-General to exercise discretion in any decision. The bill as proposed achieves an effective balance between streamlining processes and maintaining safeguards. However, given the gravity of the issues involved, the committee recommends that any reforms to extradition and mutual assistance processes be reviewed within three years to ensure that the balance is operating effectively.
The issues that the committee has raised are designed to enhance the reforms proposed in the bill. The committee recommends the government give consideration to these additional issues and that the House pass the bill without amendment.
In closing, I thank all of the members of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, particularly the deputy chair, for their thorough approach to this inquiry, and thank all contributors to the inquiry and the wonderful secretariat under Dr Anna Dacre's leadership—especially Mei-Lin Wang, who provided specialist advice on the bill and who is here in the chamber today.
Dr STONE (Murray) (10:14): by leave—as acting deputy chair of the committee in the absence of the member for Pearce, Judi Moylan, I want to stress that the Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislative Amendment Bill 2011 is a bipartisan-supported advisory report.
While we are told that the aim of the bill is to streamline and to modernise Australia's extradition and mutual assistance law, in fact it deals with some very significant issues. It is not just streamlining; we believe it is a very significant movement forward to ensure that Australia has special measures to ensure that in extradition we uphold the rights of individuals to be treated properly before our law and also that their human rights are observed in other jurisdictions.
Particularly in relation to extradition, the bill aims to extend the circumstances in which a person may be prosecuted in Australia as an alternative to extradition. We want to allow the person to consent to extradition in relation to a wider range of offences and to modify the definition of political offence to clarify that the political offence exception to extradition does not extend to specified crimes such as terrorism.
The bill also requires that extradition must be refused if a person may be prejudiced by reason of his or her sex or sexual orientation following surrender. As we know, not all countries share the same beliefs as we do in Australia, where a person should not and may not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, their religion, their ethnicity or their age. It is essential that we cover all of the circumstances where a person may be discriminated against if extradited.
The stated purpose of other measures is to streamline the extradition process, and potentially to reduce the amount of time a person is required to spend in extradition custody while maintaining appropriate safeguards. This is very important, of course. We also want to strengthen safeguards in relation to the provision of assistance where there are death penalty or torture concerns in a particular case.
This bill aims to amend the various grounds on which Australia can refuse a request for assistance from another country. I have already referred to the case where a person may be prejudiced at their trial, or where the purpose of the investigation or prosecution is to persecute a person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. The bill also aims to streamline the process used to authorise a proceeds of crime action to allow Australian courts to register and enforce foreign non-conviction-based proceeds of crime orders from any country.
These are important changes and we believe they will better safeguard the rights of individuals and also help Australia to be a better global citizen. We were conscious when we looked at this bill not to make it more difficult than it already is for our law enforcement officers to do the work that they are often called to do in collaboration and cooperation with other governments. After speaking with the Australian Federal Police, for example, we are quite satisfied that they are comfortable with these amendments.
This is a very important bill. As our chair has said, we do recommend that consideration be given to amending the current provisions of the Extradition Act, which allow bail to be granted only in special circumstances. We believe a magistrate should be able to use his or her full discretion when it comes to considering bail.
We also believe that, since these are significant changes to the current law, we should include removing several grounds for refusing assistance in mutual assistance cases, such as the current double jeopardy ground. Given the seriousness of the issues involved in extradition and mutual assistance, the committee recommends that the government undertake to review the operation of the amendments three years after they come into force if the amendments are passed by this parliament. We think that is very important to do. The review will ensure that the amendments are operating as intended and that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect human rights.
Again let me stress that there was bipartisan supported approval of this bill, and we certainly commend it to the House.
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Mining, Petroleum and Water Resources) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Windsor.
Mr WINDSOR (New England) (10:19): I present the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Mining, Petroleum and Water Resources) Bill 2011 and the explanatory memorandum.
I think that most members in the chamber are fully aware of the debate that is occurring in parts of regional Australia between the extractive industries and the agricultural sector, and particularly where there is a collision point, in a sense, where agriculture and water intersect with the ambitions of some of the extractive activities that are being processed by state governments.
This has been particularly evident in Queensland and parts of New South Wales. One of the flashpoints is in my electorate, the electorate of New England—the area of the Liverpool Plains. I give recognition to Mr Tim Duddy, who has worked very hard in assisting with this legislation and who has worked extremely hard with many others in the Caroona Coal Action Group and other activities to highlight the potential significance of some of these extractive activities on our water resources. I would also thank the member for Lyne for his supporting and seconding this bill.
We want this bill to be taken seriously in the chamber; it is a serious issue and it does deserve serious consideration. I think we would be the last to say that this particular bill solves all the problems, but I think it gives a platform and a flight path to an issue that state governments are wrestling with and that the Commonwealth government is wrestling with, particularly given the fact that the Commonwealth and the states have come to agreement in relation to the Murray Darling Basin arrangements and that there is an earnest and honest attempt to overcome some of the issues of the Murray Darling Basin over the last hundred years that governments have not been able to correctly arrest. I think it is very important that, if we are embarking on a solution to the water issues within the Murray-Darling system, we look at the way in which the extractive activities can impact not only on the sites of those activities but also on the water resources which are part of the Murray-Darling system. Whether that occurs on the Liverpool Plains in my electorate, in parts of Queensland, on the flood plains below Moree—some of the most productive lands in Australia are in those three areas—or in other parts of Australia, I think it is time that we had a national approach to some of these activities and the impacts, particularly the potential off-site impacts, that these activities may well have on our water resources.
The state laws have simply not kept up with the environmental pressures these new developments pose, and there is a need for a nationally consistent standard to allow certainty for gas and coal companies at the same time as it protects Australia's limited water resources. If we are serious about food security, we need to protect these water resources, and equally, if as a nation we are serious about protecting the unique environment that depends on our water resources, it is time for a nationally consistent standard.
The bill captures current exploration developments and requires corporations to notify the Commonwealth if the company thinks its activity will have a significant impact on the water quality or structural integrity of water resources. The bill gives great detail to defining mining and gas actions and defining water resources and places the onus on the company to apply for a permit to proceed with its plans. Essentially, what this bill does is allow an extra trigger for the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act to be enacted at the Commonwealth level. Currently, threatened species—both flora and fauna—and some international agreements and heritage listing applications do trigger the EPBC Act. This bill would allow our valuable water resources, in certain cases, to trigger the Commonwealth's participation in the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation area, particularly where these extractive industries impact on our water—that is to say, in a similar fashion to some of the activities that are out there now where the Commonwealth becomes involved through threatened species. The Commonwealth does not become involved in every mining or coal seam gas application—that is the states' prerogative currently—but the bill would allow an additional trigger, where our valuable water resources are threatened, for the Commonwealth to play a role.
The bill requires that a constitutional corporation—the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency—must not take a mining action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the water quality, structural integrity or hydraulic balance of the water resource. One example of the sort of thing that I am talking about and that the bill addresses is the Namoi Catchment Water Study, which has been partly funded by the Commonwealth to the extent of $1½ million. There are other studies that are currently underway. The Namoi Catchment Management Authority, for instance, has a spatial planning process that it is working on at the moment to overlay the various activities and resources on some of these areas. There are also suggestions from the Minerals Council of Australia that we need some form of bioregional assessment of regions before extractive activities, exploration licences or mining or coal seam gas production take place.
So I think there is a general consensus out there that this issue has not been correctly addressed and that we do need a better approach than the one that we have. The state-based process that is currently there is more about a localised impact within the mining area where mining or coal seam gas production is to be undertaken; it does not correctly take into account the potential off-site impacts on groundwater resources and the relationship that those resources may have with other groundwater systems or, effectively, with surface water systems. That is the point that I made earlier in relation to the Murray-Darling system.
The bill allows a delegation to be granted to the states to authorise these activities through a disallowable Commonwealth instrument. I expect, as I mentioned earlier, that the approach of the Namoi catchment study, the Namoi Catchment Management Authority spatial risk assessment and modelling study and some of the sensitive agricultural land studies that some of the states are carrying out at the moment could all be part of this process. The bill will, in fact, facilitate these discussions.
The states should not fear this. This is a genuine attempt to deal with a genuine issue that is the states' prerogative at the moment. The Commonwealth, through this very same act—the EPBC Act—had to apply 300 conditions on a coal seam gas application in Queensland, essentially something that is a state responsibility. The state, I believe, had applied 1,200 conditions to the same development. To have 1,500 conditions applied to an extractive activity says to me that this current arrangement with the state legislation, the way it relates to the Commonwealth and the way the Commonwealth relates back to the state through water security et cetera—particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, as I mentioned earlier—is not working effectively.
We need to put a handbrake on this for the moment—to slow the process down and develop a process that does actually work in terms of the integrity of the water resources. The extractive activities will be there for a relatively short time in the history of the landscape in Australia; we must make sure that those activities take place only where there is a risk assessment process that delivers a real outcome that people can have confidence in. The community do not have confidence in the state-based arrangements that are currently in place, and I think we need the national government to take a lead in this debate at this time and make sure that our water resources that are potentially under threat are fully taken into account. This is not about being anti mining or pro mining or anti coal seam gas or pro coal seam gas; it is about the integrity of a process that will lead to better decisions by the mining and extractive industry companies, the agricultural endeavours that are currently on some of these landscapes, the state and Commonwealth governments and the relationship that all of those players have in relation to our very valuable water resources.
Bill read a first time.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Abbott.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (10:30): I present the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011. This is the third time that I have presented to the House what is substantially the same bill. The first occasion was prior to the election last year. Then, late last year, after the election, I presented this bill to the House. Unfortunately, because the House did not deal with the bill, it lapsed, so I am presenting it to the House for a third time. Because I have presented this bill twice before, in effect, I do not propose long to detain the House on this matter. Nevertheless I do want to stress just how seriously I take this issue and how seriously the opposition takes this issue.
This bill is about ensuring that the Aboriginal people of Cape York have more control over their land and more control over their economic destiny. This bill provides, in short, that a Queensland declaration that the relevant river is a wild river can only take effect if the traditional owners of the land consent to that declaration taking effect. We are not saying that wild rivers declarations cannot operate; we are just saying that wild rivers declarations can only operate with the consent of the relevant traditional owners. We are not saying that the environmental protections which the Queensland act purports to provide cannot operate; we are just saying that the environmental protections under the Queensland act can only apply with the consent of the traditional owners. This bill is about asserting the rights of the relevant traditional owners over their land—surely, you would think, a good thing. It is about allowing the relevant traditional owners, if they choose not to have economic development on that land, not to have that decision further complicated by a wild rivers declaration.
At the heart of this bill is my confidence that the relevant traditional owners want to protect the land in question. The idea that the Aboriginal people of Cape York would wish to despoil their own land in some reckless commercial venture is dead wrong. They have been the stewards of this land since time immemorial. The fact that we have this land in reasonably pristine condition is a function of the Indigenous stewardship of this land for tens of thousands of years. The only possible objection to this bill rests on the assumption that the Aboriginal people of Cape York cannot be trusted to know what is good for their own environment. Every day in this parliament we acknowledge Indigenous stewardship, and that expresses a confidence in the capacity of Aboriginal people to do the right thing by their land. I have that confidence. I particularly have that confidence in the Aboriginal people of Cape York. That is what this bill embodies.
I think the government should support this bill. I am extremely disappointed, and I know many of the Aboriginal people of Cape York are extremely disappointed, that the government have done everything they can to frustrate this bill, including sending it off to a committee which took rather a long time to report. The government should support this bill. I remind the House that, back in 2008, in what was perhaps his finest moment as Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, the member for Griffith, said in his national apology in this parliament that:
… unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong.
This is the substance which must be supplied if reconciliation is to be meaningful. Here is the substance—I am giving the government the opportunity to provide some muscle and sinew to the words that they are so good at uttering. That is why the government should support this bill.
I also remind members opposite that this parliament has subscribed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which provides for, amongst other things, the right of Indigenous people to 'own, use, develop and control' their lands. It was paradoxical that on the same day that the parliament subscribed to that UN instrument, the Queensland government was making a wild rivers declaration that would take away from Aboriginal people in Cape York their right to do precisely this. I say to members opposite: you have the opportunity to give substance to your declarations of fine sentiment. I say to members opposite: you have the opportunity to make the international instrument that you have subscribed to a reality in this great country of ours, and you would do so by supporting this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): In accordance with standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Debate adjourned.
Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011
Second Reading
Mr HOCKEY: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Debate adjourned.
Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011
Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (10:38): My private member's Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 and the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 will establish for the first time in Australia's history a parliamentary budget office. The office will be a new body accountable to the parliament and will have two key functions. The first and, I believe, most important function will be to provide a confidential service for costing policy proposals for all MPs and senators, including the opposition, minor parties, the Independents and backbench government members. The provision of a confidential service for costing policies is a crucial and non-negotiable element of my bill. The failure to achieve such a facility will render the PBO pointless. The policy costing service will be no different to that now offered under the Charter of Budget Honesty. Accordingly, should these bills fail to pass and the government's poor imitation of a costing service pass this place, the coalition will not submit its policy costings to either the Treasury or the PBO prior to the election. We will ask the Australian people to form a view on our policies as they stand.
The Charter of Budget Honesty was a creation of the Howard coalition government. Its primary task was to ensure that a government could not mislead the public prior to an election about the state of the fiscal position. This was put in place following the misleading pre-election statements of the Keating government in 1996. The policy costing service offered to the opposition was intended as an option. It was never intended to be a consultative service and it only applies to already announced policies. In opposition the Labor Party barely used the facility and when they did they were hardly serious about it. In government they have been even less transparent. In 2007 and 2010 they released their full policy costings the day before the election. During the last election it was a Friday afternoon press release and the Treasurer did not even bother to front the media.
The coalition's experience with the policy costing service under the Charter of Budget Honesty has revealed some shortcomings. The service is not confidential. Requests for costings are published on the websites of Treasury and/or Finance as soon as they are received. The costings of the policies are also immediately published on their websites. Members of parliament have no control over the timing of the release of policies; they have no prerogative to change a policy if the costing turns out to be substantially different to what was expected. There is no scope for the costing to be discussed or reviewed. There is no way of discussing or altering underlying assumptions for policy initiatives. The opinion of Treasury and Finance is final: the departments are not required to release their assumptions underlying the costing, but simply the costing itself.
Herein lies the difficulty. Treasury and Finance have access to information that most MPs and senators do not. For example, at the last election the opposition had estimated the interest to be saved on the debt from not proceeding with the NBN by using the Commonwealth 10-year bond rate as the discount rate. In discussion after the election it turned out the Treasury had used a different, lower interest rate, but initially in discussion they would not tell us what it was. This led Treasury to estimate a lower quantum of savings for the coalition proposal to cancel the NBN even though they would not tell us why. It was interesting that later the NBN implementation study showed that the Commonwealth government bond rate was the appropriate rate to use for the cost of funds. The coalition methodology was correct, but of course the so-called budget black hole story had already run. In post-election discussions the secretaries of Treasury and Finance made it clear to the opposition that they did not want to be in a position to cost our policies. They know that there can be legitimate bases for a difference of views and that it is impossible to arrive at accurate and agreed costings if these differences cannot be discussed.
The policy costing function under the charter was intended to level the playing field, but it appears that a new anomaly has arisen. Under the arrangements between Labor and the Greens for the hung parliament the non-Labor members who have pledged their support for the government already have access to the public sector to get their policies costed. I note, for example, that in April Senator Bob Brown produced Treasury costings that showed reductions in FBT concessions on company cars could save a billion dollars over four years. The policy was later adopted by the government in the May budget. Clearly, the Greens have access to a facility for costing policies not afforded to the coalition. This, of course, will not last. Perhaps the Greens should reflect carefully on that when they support the government's PBO bill as they have signalled they will.
My bill before the House today will address this anomaly. The confidential service for costing policies to all members and senators will allow discussion to occur and views to be challenged. Importantly, it will allow the member or senator to control the timing of the release of the policy costing as the Greens did with their FBT proposal. No longer will requests for policy costings and the costings themselves be published as soon as they are received and prepared by the departments of Treasury and Finance. My bill will ensure that the costing service for policies is not just provided to the opposition, as it is currently under the charter; under my bill the policy costing service will be available to all—Independents, minor parties, and government members and senators as well. There will be no discrimination. All members and senators will, for the first time, have equal access to quality election policy costing services during and outside election periods. I note that some of these issues were raised by the then Labor opposition and the Greens in the 1997 debate on the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill.
The second function of the PBO will be to provide objective and impartial advice on, and analysis of, the Commonwealth budget and fiscal cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements. It introduces another layer of integrity and transparency in the settings of forecasts of government finances. For this to be effective the PBO needs to have effective information-gathering powers. It must be able properly to evaluate the financial implications and decisions. My bill gives these powers to the PBO. With this power comes a heavy duty of confidentiality, and there are consequences for those who breach this trust.
Another key feature of my bill is that the PBO is guaranteed adequate resources. This has been achieved by allocating minimum funding to the PBO as a percentage of departmental appropriations for Treasury. This ensures the operations of the PBO cannot be compromised by inadequate funding. Finally, my bill provides for the PBO to be located within Parliament House, where all members and senators will be able to access it at their convenience. It will, however, remain independent of the Parliamentary Library.
We are committed to this important economic reform. We are not going to be half-hearted about it. We are not going to set up a service that does not work and is not embraced by all members of parliament. An independent body which provides assessment of the budget and fiscal cycle and of the financial impacts of policies will provide an additional layer of integrity to Australia's fiscal framework. A confidential service for costing policies available to all MPs and senators, all year round, and which allows for discussion and refining of policies will strengthen the quality of policy work and make the public discourse about fiscal policy more meaningful. I therefore commend these bills to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (10:47): I rise to second the motion on the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 and the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 introduced by my friend and colleague the member for North Sydney. These bills are about restoring credibility and integrity to the policy costings process which has been so grossly politicised and abused by the Gillard government following the 2010 federal election.
This was exposed by Jennifer Hewett in a front-page story in the Australian last September titled 'Coalition counts cost of Treasury's "political game"'. Jennifer Hewett wrote that meeting minutes revealed how the process was 'politicised and influenced by the opinions of the senior bureaucrats'. This was confirmed in the article written by Jennifer Hewett in the Australian. She said:
But the detailed Coalition rebuttal, also obtained by The Australian, demonstrates that the biggest dispute in money terms - $2.5bn over four years - was a more modest version of a similar $4.6bn change adopted by the Labor government in its own budget the previous year.
The opposition claimed $2.5bn in savings from adjusting what is known as the conservative bias allowance (CBA). This effectively meant that the opposition claimed it would be more efficient in delivering spending programs and could therefore reduce the small percentage buffer included to allow for programs going over budget.
There is no doubt that the record of the coalition government on sensible, commonsense and detailed economic management and program management far exceeds that of the Labor government. In just four short years this government has wasted tens of billions of dollars on the pink batts program, the NBN and the education revolution program. All of these things have resulted in tens of billions of dollars of overruns and yet Treasury refused, in this instance, to allow the coalition to exercise a discretion to lower the amount of money allowed for overruns.
Of course, the Treasury had a $5 billion allowance for overruns for this government. We chose to reduce that to $2½ billion because we would oversee these programs in a sensible and effective manner. In subsequent hearings the secretaries accepted that an incoming government might wish to do so as a policy measure. In other words, the same secretaries that sat with us for 3¼ hours in that politicised meeting after the federal election and before a government was formed—the secretaries who told us that they had made a decision and that that was the best they could do to justify taking $2½ billion as a so-called black hole—have subsequently, within weeks, admitted that we had that policy discretion.
This confirms, again and again, the deeply politicised nature. We have had to wear, ever since, what was a political decision by secretaries of departments who sat there and told us, 'We've made our decision,' without giving any justification. That was 25 per cent of the so-called black hole. We went through that process again and again as we challenged assumptions. My colleague mentioned one of those in relation to the interest charged on the debt coming from the NBN.
This bill aims to clear away the capacity of an incumbent government—particularly a Labor incumbent government, which is disposed to this sort of activity—to heavily politicise the nature of the bureaucratic involvement. This bill would set up an office very similar to the Congressional Budget Office in the United States, which is unequivocally independent. It is a model for budget offices around the world. It removes the opportunity for the government of the day to politicise a costing process, as this government did so comprehensively in the last election. It probably delivered them government. The way in which they politicised the process made a significant contribution and gave some of the Independents the excuse they were looking for.
These bills provide for a far more superior model for a parliamentary budget office than that proposed by the government. The government have panicked—they have introduced their own bill two days after we introduced the private member's bill in a panicked move to head off this initiative. They want to go into the next election with every possible advantage, including politicising the Public Service once again. These bills will stop that process. They will ensure that there is an independent group that will take our material—and potentially take the government's material and that of the Greens and the Independents—and will independently assess it. We will have the opportunity to look at the assumptions they make and to amend our proposals accordingly, if that is necessary. It will give this independent office access, without FOIs, which are an interminable process and are included in the government's bill to frustrate this very process.
They have decided not to have a parliamentary budget office. The government's bill, which we will debate later today, is for a politicised budget office. That is what they are looking to create. They are looking to throttle the very vehicle that has been designed to overcome the politicisation of this process. Wouldn't it be good to go into the next election and debate policy without finding ourselves on a daily basis seeking to justify leaks out of the Treasurer's office about our costing process? We spent three weeks of the campaign trying to deal with a politicised leak out of the Treasurer's office in the last campaign, until the point that we gave up any faith in that process and stopped submitting our material.
Wouldn't it be sensible, wouldn't it be the process that the community would wish to see, to go into an election after 33 days of campaigning with all of our policies having been independently and authoritatively costed by this independent parliamentary budget office, and not having to run the gauntlet of a politicised bureaucracy, a government having played tricks the whole way through the campaign? Wouldn't it be far better to go in there and debate policy? They do not want to debate policy; that is their problem. They want to frustrate and politicise the process. In doing so, they are short-changing the community.
We have to have a bill which creates an independent parliamentary budget office. Our bill, the bill introduced by the member for North Sydney, does that. It ensures that this independent office can access information and provide independent advice, with suitably qualified people running the office who look at both our work and the government's work. We will not then see the frustration arising from the nonsense that has gone on in the last 12 months or two years in terms of Treasury's spotty forecasting ability. It has been all over the place, and yet we are expected to tug the forelock and accept every word they say, even when we can demonstrate in private that their assumptions are demonstrably wrong.
There is something fundamentally wrong with this process. We need a parliamentary budget office. We introduced this notion some three years ago, under the former leader, the member for Wentworth. This process has been proven in the United States. This process was adopted by the Greens and the Independents. The government only agreed to it, in the end, to placate the Independents and the Greens—again, to get into office. They got into office, and what have they done? They have presented their own bill—and we will go through this chapter and verse later today—which totally frustrates the intention of this bill. It removes the objective and unbiased approach in the bill. What it does—you will see this bill this afternoon—is make the office just another arm of the bureaucracy, three chairs in the corner of the Parliamentary Library. It is an abuse of the process. We need a bill which establishes a well-resourced, fully independent and confidential parliamentary budget office. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Fraser—I did not want to pull up the member for Goldstein during his speech—to refer comments through the chair and not directly address the person involved.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:57): I rise to speak on the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 and the cognate bill. What an extraordinary attack we just heard from the member for Goldstein. The political party that once believed in an impartial Public Service doing the great work of the Australian people has now got that service in its sights. That is what the modern day Liberal Party thinks—that the Treasury boffins who have devoted their working lives to understanding the Australian economy, providing careful, impartial advice on where the Australian economy is going to go, are mere political footballs. Those opposite are willing to extend their attacks any way they can.
Frankly, it is not that surprising that those opposite are looking for targets in the bureaucracy as well as on this side of the House, because they know, as all Australians do, that when it comes to many of the big issues—whether you are talking about fiscal stimulus, climate change or the minerals resource rent tax—the vast bulk of Australian economists line up with the position of the Gillard government. So, of course, when you have an opposition who is led by a man who has described economics as a bit of a bore, when you have an opposition who is on record as saying that when you disagree with Australian economists you should just attack the profession, then, yes, they are going to extend their attacks to the Australian Treasury, extend their attacks to the Australian Treasurer's economic forecasting. The member for Goldstein is right when he says that forecasts are not always perfect, but the notion that the Australian Treasury's forecasts are somehow politicised is a notion that I immediately reject. Those who work in the Australian Treasury are hardworking public servants, like the many public servants in my electorate of Fraser who get up every morning thinking: 'How can I improve Australia? How can I put better ideas on the table to build a better country?'
During the last election we saw the opposition providing any possible excuse for not submitting its policies for costings. The excuse they were running on—the 'excuse du jour'—was that Treasury was going to leak their policies. This was a pretty extraordinary claim, given that this was the same opposition that had, a few short months earlier, been making hay out of leaks from Godwin Grech, but that was their claim. Of course, we discovered after the election why the opposition had been so keen to keep their costings away from the public eye; it turned out that the opposition costings were a cool $11 billion short. A series of assumptions made by those opposite were simply unfounded. The opposition's costings did not stack up.
Since then, the opposition have clearly decided that $11 billion is not good enough. They are going to go for the record, and they are now up to a $70 billion black hole. We know this thanks to leaks from the opposition's policy budget group, and we have had it confirmed by the member for Goldstein. In contrast, the member for North Sydney is still arguing that the $70 billion figure does not characterise their shortfall. I think he would like to imagine that the opposition's shortfall is maybe just $50 billion or $60 billion, but it has been confirmed by the member for Goldstein and other members of the coalition's front bench that the opposition's costings are in deep, deep trouble. There are good reasons for that, because every time they stare a hard policy choice in the face those opposite take the easy road. They want to promise everything to everyone and they are unwilling to stand up for reasonable tax savings. They are unwilling to means-test the private healthcare rebate and they are unwilling to support the fuel tax reforms that were introduced into this place by then Treasurer Peter Costello in 2003. The opposition are running from the hard policy choices.
Before the House today we have two proposals for a parliamentary budget office. We have a government bill that would allow the Parliamentary Budget Office to access information from Australian government agencies through a negotiated memorandum of understanding in circumstances where the release of information is consistent with other legislative requirements, including being guided by the principles established under the Freedom of Information Act. This is consistent with the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. The committee favoured an MOU over compulsion to provide information, on the grounds that it would facilitate more productive working relationships between the Parliamentary Budget Office and government agencies. In contrast, the coalition's proposal would give the Parliamentary Budget Officer power to direct agencies to provide information. In its unanimous report, the committee flagged concerns with providing these powers to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, including the potential for this to inhibit productive working relationships with government agencies. Under the coalition's approach, the Parliamentary Budget Officer would have power to access information despite any other law and there would be no controls over the officer then disclosing information to members and senators if it relates to their request. The joint committee said at page 76 of its report:
The committee considers that the PBO’s relationships with Government agencies will be crucial to its success. Not only will the PBO require information and data held by Government agencies, it may also need the assistance of agencies in making the best use of that information and data.
The committee went on to say:
Further, there may be instances where, by working together on the kinds of information required, the agencies can better understand the ongoing needs of the PBO. The relationships between the PBO and Government agencies might also evolve over time, possibly leading to greater efficiencies and enhanced products for Senators, Members and committees.
Essentially the opposition's approach is to create an adversarial, legislative relationship backed by criminal sanctions. By contrast, the government's approach is based on comprehensive understandings between the PBO and government agencies. Our approach will ensure that information is exchanged quickly and appropriately, in keeping with the unanimous recommendations of the joint select committee.
The confidentiality of policy costings in the opposition's bill is unnecessary. The government's bill already provides for confidentiality of non-election costings. But the opposition's agenda is clear: they want to hide costings from the public at election time. We can understand why they would want to do this. Put yourself in their shoes, Mr Deputy Speaker. If at the last election you were out $11 billion, and currently you are behind $70 billion, why would you want to put more information about costings out into the public arena?
The government bill distinguishes between policy costings during elections and those outside of the caretaker period for a general election. It will ensure that the election costing service of the PBO is transparent and consistent with similar processes under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act, with all costings, including details of the request, released publicly. This is a critical part of the election policy costing process. The public is entitled to know the cost of a party's policies. Talk should be cheap, but election costings are sometimes pretty expensive. Those who are putting forward ideas about where the country should go, those who are proposing changes in the tax system, should be subject to an independent and rigorous evaluation as to whether those costings really stack up.
As the PBO function would fully replace the current option for the opposition to submit their costings to Treasury or the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the opposition bill effectively replaces a transparent process where costings are required to be public during an election, with a non-transparent process where costings can remain confidential. This is a step back in terms of accountability, scrutiny and transparency. It unwinds a core component of the principles of the Charter of Budget Honesty.
In terms of the functions of the PBO, the joint select committee seriously considered this and unanimously recommended against it. This is about how the PBO can best serve members. The committee considered it and felt that it was not the best use of Parliamentary Budget Office resources and that it could detract from its ability to meet requests to members in terms of analysis, costings and providing information. The government bill provides the Parliamentary Budget Office with the capacity to rely on the economic and fiscal forecasts prepared by Treasury and Finance. The role for the two agencies is a longstanding and critical role. It is a role which many of us in this House respect—though not, apparently, the member for Goldstein. It provides important framing for the annual budget and related documents prepared under the Charter of Budget Honesty. The Treasury and Finance submission noted the significant resources and expertise required to undertake forecasting and questioned the need for duplication of the task. The bill before us that the opposition is proposing is a non-transparent, black hole. (Time expired)
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (11:08): I am speaking against the bill that the honourable member for North Sydney has put forward, the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011. In doing so, I will speak in some way in support of the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011—not directly, as it will be dealt with later, but in broad terms to address the whole framework—as to speak against the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill it is necessary to compare and contrast the two in some way. The only reason that I can see for the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill to be before the parliament now is to try to scuttle the PBO and the parliamentary budget officer bill. It seems to me that it is a bit reckless and that, worryingly, it looks as though it is more about hiding costings in election time than it is about budget honesty.
There is government legislation in relation to the Parliamentary Budget Office, and the government has gone about establishing the Parliamentary Budget Office in a methodical way. A joint committee of the parliament was tasked to advise on the functions and resourcing of the Parliamentary Budget Office, and the recommendations that came from that committee were unanimous. When a parliamentary committee works through the processes, the tensions, the competing issues, the ideologies and the policy directions and comes to unanimous recommendations, we know that we have something that is able to be taken up by all. The government therefore accepted all the recommendations, as reflected in its legislation.
Today we have the opposition, the coalition, ignoring the key recommendations of the committee. From everything I have read, it seems the opposition signed up to those recommendations only five months ago, and they are now walking away from them. It seems rather odd that they would do that. The member for North Sydney's private member's bill seeks to undermine what is an important institution, the Parliamentary Budget Office. The bill will weaken the government's arrangements, which seems a really odd thing to do. In establishing the Parliamentary Budget Office, we want to make sure that the governance framework and structure are as strong as they need to be. Introducing a bill that seeks to weaken that cannot be about anything to do with parliamentary budget honesty.
The bill will make the Parliamentary Budget Office accountable to ministers and not the parliament. As parliamentarians and as people who come to this place with a whole range of views, one of the things we seek to do is have decisions accountable to the parliament. That is a good thing and it is a good for democracy. The honourable member for North Sydney's bill would also weaken the resourcing of the Parliamentary Budget Office—which also seems an odd approach—and would, critically, reduce transparency and public accountability.
If the bill introduced by the honourable member for North Sydney seeks to weaken the government's arrangements, by changing the accountability mechanisms and making the PBO accountable to ministers and not the parliament, weaken the resourcing and, critically, reduce transparency and public accountability, I have to question what the bill is about. Again, I cannot get away from the idea that it is about trying to hide, trying to bury, election policy costings. We saw that happen at the last election. That was what the honourable member for North Sydney sought to do.
Under the bill proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney, the election policy costings can remain confidential and hidden from public view. This would be a major retreat from transparency. When we put our best foot forward and go out to win elections, we do not put out costings on policies and say, 'I'm sorry; they are confidential and the public doesn't have a right to know them.' That is not a good way to approach the electorates when seeking to get support. If you want to put up a policy, you cost it and then you make sure that those costings are sound and that you are happy to have them tested. That is why we come into this place—to have policies tested.
This bill would unwind the Charter of Budget Honesty, and I cannot for the life of me think why the honourable member for North Sydney would want to do that unless it comes back to the election costings. Consistent with the recommendations of the joint committee, the government's bill proposes that the election costing process will be fully transparent and that all requests and costings made during a caretaker period are to be publicly released, as they should be and as is the case under the charter process. Members can of course seek confidential costings outside of the caretaker period for a general election. I note that the honourable member for North Sydney said something about that, but it is clear that that can happen now and that confidential costings can be sought outside the caretaker period for a general election.
The bill that the honourable member for North Sydney has put forward does not distinguish between costings during caretaker and non-caretaker periods. In both periods, Parliamentary Budget Office costings could be entirely confidential. The Parliamentary Budget Office function would fully replace the current option for the opposition to submit their costings to Treasury or Finance under the charter—replacing a transparent process where costings are required to be public with a non-transparent process where costings can remain confidential. That is a massive backward step in terms of the transparency, scrutiny and accountability of policy costings during elections. Again, it unwinds the core component of the charter principles.
When in government, the coalition itself argued for the importance of transparency and accountability when it brought in the Charter of Budget Honesty. In December 1996, the then Treasurer stated in the second reading speech to the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill:
This is the kind of reform which, when enacted, will be a permanent feature, making sure that Australia's economic policy is run better, making sure that the public is kept better informed, making sure that there is transparency in economic policy in this country.
Furthermore, the charter:
… provides for more equal access to Treasury and Finance costings of election commitments by the government and the opposition during the caretaker period. This will allow the electorate to be better informed of the financial implications of election commitments.
That was said by the then Treasurer when the coalition were in government. Yet the bill that the honourable member for North Sydney has put before us seeks to unwind all of that. It will unwind the process of the parliament itself through the joint committee and the very sound recommendations that were accepted by all, including the government, and reflected in the legislation.
The only conclusion I can come to is that this bill, the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011, is designed so that election policy costings can be kept secret, as they were by the opposition during the election. It is contrary to the Charter of Budget Honesty, which everyone has signed up to, and to the system that was introduced by the coalition when in government, based on transparency, accountability and scrutiny. We now have some of the same members of the coalition, now in opposition, wanting to reverse this and have secrecy. I have to ask: why does the honourable member for North Sydney want secrecy? Is it because he knows his figures just do not add up? That has been demonstrated over and over. If the honourable member for North Sydney had confidence in his costings, why wouldn't he stick with the charter principles?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for a later hour of this day.
MOTIONS
Heavy Vehicle Regulation
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:18): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the importance of the road transport industry to Australia's economy;
(2) notes that intergovernmental agreement on heavy vehicle regulatory reform was reached at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 19 August 2011;
(3) acknowledges the significance of this agreement to Australia's road transport sector; and
(4) commends the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for his work in bringing about this agreement.
The Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform, reached at the Council of Australian Governments meeting of 19 August this year, is aimed at resolving a century of inconsistent regulatory practices between the states and territories which have constrained and frustrated transport business operating across our borders. The introduction of national laws and single national regulators for heavy vehicles, rail and maritime will generate a range of benefits for businesses. Elements of the agreement also aim to improve occupational safety in the industry by removing confusion and applying best practice across jurisdictions. Single national regulators will also enable heavy-vehicle owners and operators to conduct business with government at one place—that is, there will be a 'one-stop shop' approach. For example, heavy vehicle registration renewals and access permits would be managed through a single contact point.
The road transport industry is critical to Australia's economy. In Australia, our expansive land mass and dispersed city and regional populations require us to rely heavily on road transport. Whilst the Australian rail network is a valuable mode of transport, it is not sufficiently developed to transport goods to all places, particularly between remote areas. I understand that the majority of goods are transported within Australia by road trains, a trucking concept used to transport goods, particularly in remote areas. Australian governments have invested substantial funds in developing good roads. As part of that investment, safety barriers and other safety features are of a high standard on new roads in Australia. It has not been a simple task nor a cheap one. The total network length of all public roads in Australia is over 810,000 km—it is the most expansive road network of all developed nations.
Transport specific businesses contributed 4.63 per cent of total GDP in 2006-07. This amounted to $46.2 billion in 2005-06 prices. The transport sector provided 492,875 jobs, or 4.7 per cent of total employment in Australia, in 2007. Despite this, there are some troubling issues that need to be addressed in this sector. Around 20 per cent of workplace deaths in Australia occur in the trucking industry. Road transport results in around 300 deaths each year. Anything that can be done to address this situation should be urgently explored. The impact of deaths and serious injuries from road accidents inevitably flows on to family members, and the economic costs to the nation are also significant. A report prepared by the Hon. Lance Wright QC and Professor Michael Quinlan for the National Transport Commission, released in 2008, asserted that the high level of control exercised by clients over price, timing, destination and route means that operators have to bear costs that are ordinarily borne by customers. They sometimes attempt to recover this cost by not paying truck drivers for all of the work performed and by paying them incentive rates. In a survey of truck drivers undertaken by the Transport Workers Union of Australia two years ago, 64 per cent of respondents said that they had been pressured by their employers to use unsafe work practices. In the same survey, 29 per cent of respondents had been pressured into carrying illegal loads and 44 per cent had been pressured into driving excess hours, all of which obviously compromises the safety of truck drivers. Truck drivers are the people we rely upon to literally drive an industry that enables our economy to function.
It would be trite to say that truckers can choose not to carry illegal loads and drive excess hours as employment is often conditional on compliance with an operator's direction and client deadlines. To meet such unreasonable demands, truckers often drive tired, exceed the speed limit, take drugs and cut costs on the maintenance of their vehicles. The survey I referred to showed that 56 per cent of respondents said that, due to economic pressures, they were forced to lower maintenance standards.
Several academic and judicial reports have found a direct relationship between remuneration and safety outcomes, yet truck drivers continue to receive poor salaries for work that is a critical function of the national economy and, indeed, of the nation. Reducing their overheads and time demands through simplified compliance standards will make their lives so much better, and the agreement is a step in the right direction.
When the Australian Transport Council established a plan to reform the transport industry in 2008, one of the proposals was the establishment of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform agreed to by COAG on 19 August will overhaul the existing outdated transport regulations. I note that Western Australia did not formally sign the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform but expressed support for the reforms. I understand that the Western Australian minister wishes to consult with his government before Western Australia formally agrees to sign the heavy vehicle intergovernmental agreement. I also understand that national transport regulators should be in place for heavy vehicles by January 2013. The signing of the intergovernmental agreement represents a landmark economic reform through the establishment of national standards which, when complete, will significantly reduce the number of regulators.
There are numerous inconsistencies between state road laws and regulations that hopefully will be addressed by this agreement, which will improve safety for Australian drivers. Earlier this year I raised a private member's motion in this place about inconsistencies in our national road laws and the problems caused for all road users. The same applies with respect to the trucking industry. There are many examples that could be referred to which highlight the discrepancies between the regulations that apply from one state to another. In fact, on 22 August, in response to a question on this issue by the member for Moreton, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport referred to the cartage of cattle and how the number of cattle allowed on a truck changes as soon as you cross a border. Similarly, there are discrepancies with respect to the number of hours a heavy vehicle driver can spend behind the wheel after a rest break. If you look across the country, from Queensland to New South Wales to Victoria and South Australia, you will find that there are different regulations with respect to the rest period required—again, causing all kinds of confusion to the drivers of those vehicles. The inconsistencies cause serious problems at times because, as you cross from one state to another, whilst you have complied with the law in one state you have not complied in the next, and that leaves you in a real quandary. I am sure other members will refer to many of the inconsistencies that currently exist which they are familiar with when they speak on this motion.
These reforms are well past their time. The benefits to Australia's $61 billion transport industry that will come from the agreement will certainly be welcomed in terms of the additional productivity that will arise, as well as efficiency and safety outcomes. It is expected that the heavy vehicle regulator reforms alone will provide a $30 billion boost to the Australian economy over the next 20 years. That is a considerable amount of additional funds that will go into the Australian economy. The industry will also see the harmonisation of laws across states and, again, that is something that will no doubt be welcomed by transport operators across the country.
In closing, I commend the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The agreement is long overdue and has been talked about for years and years. I am sure it has been lobbied for by the trucking industry around Australia. It would not have happened if some leadership had not been shown, and that leadership was shown by Minister Anthony Albanese in his discussions with the states and by finally bringing about the consistencies that have been called for for a long time. They will benefit not only the trucking industry in Australia but the whole Australian economy. I commend the minister for his actions.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Saffin: I second the motion.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (11:28): In rising to speak on the motion by the member for Makin, I commend the member for his ongoing advocacy, particularly in relation to road safety matters and transport issues more generally. Members on this side of the House also recognise the importance of the road transport industry to the Australian economy. Australia's trucking industry in particular is an incredibly important part of our economy, providing a vital statistical link between the community, Australian businesses and of course our agricultural sector. Australia's freight task is estimated to triple by 2050, from 503 billion tonne-kilometres to 1540 billion tonne-kilometres, with local demand for total freight movements increasing by as much as 60 per cent by 2020. As a member from a regional area, I am sure that you, Deputy Speaker Scott, like many other members in regional communities, well understand the importance of our road transport industry and challenges it faces. One particular challenge is the confusing regulatory regime which exists. The coalition acknowledges the significant benefits that can be achieved by harmonising the many conflicting and contradictory regulations in the heavy vehicle industry. It has been estimated—and I take up the member for Makin's comments—that harmonising regulations in this area has a potential total gain of $12.4 billion. The gains to be made, particularly in terms of productivity, are quite significant. It is fair to say that, over the years, state governments have failed to respond to the industry's needs and improve their efficiencies by implementing nationally consistent transport regulations.
At the last election the federal coalition committed to pursuing regulatory harmonisation to build a truly national and seamless road freight sector. We understand the great importance of this task to the productivity of the Australian economy. Determining the appropriate parameters of such a detailed and overarching scheme, which is intended to have a broad scope, is extremely difficult and it is a necessity to ensure, through a very extensive consultation, that the right scheme is implemented and that any unintended consequences are avoided and handled quickly if they do arise. I understand, for example, that the Australian Trucking Association has identified 245 issues in the draft regulations that it would like to see resolved prior to their complete introduction.
I urge the government to continue to work with such key industry bodies. This government does not have a great record of listening to the people on the ground. I urge the government in this circumstance to actually listen to the people on the ground who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis. However, we support the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and efforts to deliver productivity improvements and the potential to cut red tape, remove inconsistencies which currently exist—obviously to save money for the operators involved—and reduce the confusion that currently exists throughout the heavy vehicle industry.
In the time that I have available to me I would also like to make some more general comments about heavy vehicles and the issue of road safety, which the member for Makin also touched on. This year the federal government released its 10-year National Road Safety Strategy. As with all such strategies the true test will be in its implementation. The strategy sets a target to reduce the annual number of deaths and serious injuries on Australian roads by at least 30 per cent. I think both sides of the chamber would acknowledge that, while that is an ambitious target, it does recognise that there are many severe road crashes which are preventable in our community. I am sure there are members on both sides of the House who are committed to the task of reducing the incidence of road trauma in our community.
Australia has a long and quite proud history of continually improving its road safety record—from historic legislation making it compulsory to wear seatbelts through to programs which have targeted drink-driving, speeding and other aspects of driver behaviour. Road crashes still cause 1,400 deaths and 32,500 serious injuries each year across Australia. The social and economic impacts are obviously devastating, and there would not be anyone in the Australian community who has not been touched by the consequences of road trauma.
I welcome the government's development, in conjunction with various organisations, of a National Road Safety Strategy for the next 10 years and acknowledge the importance that the heavy vehicle sector will play in achieving the desired outcomes I just referred to. I think one of the key issues—which is not often understood—about working to reduce road trauma is the importance of investing in infrastructure to improve the safety of the road environment itself. It has been said in the past that providing for a safer road environment has the potential to save more lives than improved driver behaviour and enforcement measures put together. It is an important point to remember when we talk about issues of road safety. Investing in safer vehicles has had some very significant impacts, particularly in reducing the severity of accidents. The road enforcement measures right across Australia are a given. We have various road blitzes by state jurisdictions, and there are community information and advertising campaigns initiated by governments across Australia which have been very successful in targeting improved driver behaviour. They all have an important role to play.
There will be no simple solution to driving down the road trauma in our nation. We need to acknowledge that humans will always make mistakes and we need to provide a transport system that is more accommodating of these mistakes. I think that is one of the most critical points in reducing road trauma—particularly in our regional communities, where the incidents on country roads tend to involve higher speeds and where the potential for severe injuries and deaths is heightened. There are infrastructure improvements which can have a major affect on reducing crashes. I believe it is up to governments of all levels to continue to invest in improving the road conditions, to work closely with industry and to consult with local communities to identify potential accident black spots. The investment will pay a long-term dividend not only in the economic sense but also in the social sense with reduced trauma in our communities.
There are a wide range of road treatments and road designs which need to specifically consider the needs of all road users, particularly the heavy vehicle industry that we are taking about today. Things like wider shoulder treatments, the tactile road edges and even the design aspects of curves, which accommodate the larger vehicles on our roads, are all very important issues which require substantial and ongoing investment right across our nation. In addition to those various road treatments, another key safety matter which sometimes escapes much public attention but is particularly relevant to our heavy vehicle operators is the need for investment in our roadside rest areas. Under the transport policy which the Nationals advocated at the last election we made a commitment in conjunction with our coalition partners to fund 500 new roadside stops for truck drivers. We understand that the nation's truck drivers are facing mandated rest breaks as a result of the heavy vehicle driver fatigue reforms and that there is a need for adequate roadside rest points. It is becoming increasingly important for the safety of drivers.
I am disappointed that Labor's current $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety Strategy and productivity package is simply not going to go far enough to bring Australia's national highways close to meeting the National Transport Council guidelines. Labor's funding for truck rest stops is simply not going to be enough to achieve this goal. In fact, the funding for the current 2011-12 financial year has already been fully exhausted. The government has a long way to go in this regard. It is all very well to talk about the heavy vehicle industry and its support, but when it comes to delivering these services and facilities on the ground the government still has some challenges it needs to meet. The coalition, to its credit, has promised to build an additional 500 roadside stops over the next 10 years at an approximate cost of $300 million to bring the 22,500 kilometres of Australia's national highways into broad compliance with the National Transport Commission guidelines. This is an issue which the Australian Trucking Association recognised in its submission to the National Road Safety Strategy earlier this year. I quote from the ATA's contribution in relation to rest areas. It says:
Appropriate rest areas, with shade, amenities and minimal noise allow drivers to comply with fatigue regulations. The Austroads' Audit of Rest Areas against National Guidelines, shows the quantity and quality of rest areas are below national standards. This is a symptom of planning and funding problems.
… … …
A further problem is the removal of existing rest areas. Rest areas that are temporarily removed due to capital works should be immediately replaced. New road planning that expects significant heavy vehicle traffic should include rest area facilities.
It is an important bit of feedback from the industry and something the government should take on board.
In conclusion, I briefly mention that I had a recent meeting in Lakes Entrance, in my electorate, with representatives from the South East Australian Transport Strategy. I commend the SEATS members for their ongoing advocacy work on behalf of their respective communities. They are taking very much a holistic view of the transport needs of their region. One of the key focuses of their work is the need to upgrade the Princes Highway in south-east Australia. This, as a policy position, is very close to my heart; it is also close to the hearts of many thousands of Gippslanders who have signed petitions, written letters and supported my efforts in this place. It is an issue that I have raised with the current Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and will continue to raise in the interests of road safety for all road users.
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (11:38): I speak in support of the motion put forward by the honourable member for Makin, and I do so because the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform at COAG in 2011 is an historic agreement that has been reached. I commend the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for the really good work that he has done to get to this agreement. Road safety is an issue that has dogged the heavy vehicle industry in Australia for a long time, and everybody at meetings at state, territory and federal levels would agree: 'Yes, we have to fix it. Yes, we have to act on it.' But everybody would go home, and it would not always bear fruit. This time it has; hence my commendation.
This agreement peels back inconsistencies across jurisdictions that seem incomprehensible to some. We live in a federation, so these inconsistencies grow up, but they cost money and time. The agreement will cut the number of transport regulators operating across Australia from 23 to three. The benefits to our national productivity are clear beyond dispute—it will boost national income by up to $30 billion over the next 20 years. It seems incomprehensible that these things have gone on for so long at such cost to our national income. It will also cut the burden of red tape on our $61 billion transport industry. I know there are issues to work through. Yes, there is extensive consultation being undertaken; but everyone is at the table and everyone is agreed that this has not come before time. Heavy vehicle operators will not have eight separate regulatory regimes—one in each state and territory—and their associated rules to deal with, and that will lead to increased productivity and efficiency for the operators.
It is an issue that is frequently talked about at many levels in my electorate. I will give an example of a case study of the inconsistencies across jurisdictions. It relates to my area. A livestock carrier transporting cattle from Queensland to a station just inside the New South Wales border faces the prospect of unloading some cattle at the border onto a second truck to complete the journey to ensure that the vehicle meets the lower mass limits in New South Wales. Not only is this inefficient but it also unduly stresses the livestock and adds significantly to cost. There are two big imposts there. One is cost, which everybody, naturally and understandably, is always looking to save. There is also the animal welfare issue. An Australian Lot Feeders' Association survey identified costs of $4 to $9 per head in additional freight and carcass value losses over a trip from the Victoria to Queensland border.
I know what this means in New South Wales and Queensland because of the agriculture industry in my area. A few months back we had discussions at the Northern Meat Co-operative Meat Company, the meatworks in Casino, and Michael Deegan was there with a group of other people having discussions on this very issue. This was before the agreement came into place. They were talking about how it would be good if we got to an agreement so that these issues could be dealt with. It is like, 'Hallelujah—it's here and they can be dealt with.' I know it will take time, but it will be such a significant boost to our national income to cut the burden of red tape that I talked about. Heavy vehicle operators will not have nine separate regulatory regimes to deal with, and that will make such a difference to how heavy vehicle operators are able to get about and do their work.
There are a whole range of areas, but in the few seconds I have left I cannot go through them all. Heavy vehicle driver fatigue, counting time, access, oversize loads, log books, multiple dealings and one-stop shops will all be dealt with. (Time expired)
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (11:43): The harmonisation of regulations, as we have heard today, is important to driving practical productivity and road safety improvements. However, the member for Makin's commendation of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport may well be premature. I note that, in relation to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform, in the 19 August communique, COAG stated that Western Australia did not formally sign the agreement but expressed support for these reforms. Subject to its concerns being addressed, Western Australia will sign the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform. So there are concerns still there and more consultation is required. The Australian Trucking Association also said the same thing: that it did not support mass-distance-location pricing for myriad reasons. Today we have heard there are 245 issues. However, I agree that the road transport industry and road safety issues are critical to the Australian economy and in particular to regional and rural Australia. This is why I will move the following amendment:
That the following words be inserted:
(5) condemns the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Gillard Government for its introduction of a carbon tax on transport fuel.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Wyatt: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Ms MARINO: As we know, one of the biggest issues that has been raised here is the issue of driver safety and issues in regional areas. We do know that the carbon tax will have a significant impact on transport costs across Australia, and that it is a major threat to the economic development of regional areas. It will apply to road, and, in particular, to truck transport from 2014. Every vehicle and every product to be received and transported will have to pay the cost of this tax. These imposts will mean higher costs and greater impacts in regional areas.
In addition, the government's proposal to slash the fuel tax credits for heavy vehicles by almost 7 cents a litre from July 2014 will cost the industry and its customers. I am very concerned about owner operators, owner drivers and those who are working on very finite margins right now. We know of the distances and we know the east to west route. I know that the member for Hasluck is aware that it could cost $3,000 to transport a load from east to west and probably another $2,800 from Perth through to Kununurra. There are going to be some major costs associated with this.
The additional cost is going to compound for regional Australia and increase the impact of road freight transport costs. It is how that comes back to the individual trucking owner operators and, again, how that may or may not be passed on to families and consumers that is the issue. The additional costs will be felt by all of those in the industry. I know that there are so many of them who are working on very finite margins and that this is a major issue for rural and regional Australia. Basically, everything that you eat, drink, use or do in regional Australia comes from the back of a truck. Any increase to the costs is going to have a flow on not only to the individual trucking enterprise but also to individuals, families and communities right across this nation.
With the additional cost that is going to be borne I am concerned that in this latest round of Regional Development Australia funding there was no funding for roads in my electorate at all. I do know that the carbon tax will add to the cost of producing those roads in rural and regional areas. This is going to be a compounding cost; I am very concerned about the issues in relation to the economics, the practical issues, and the road safety issues. Any additional cost to the trucking industry and to the individual owners and drivers either has to be absorbed by them because it is such a competitive market or passed on by them to consumers.
I am concerned about the road safety issues that go with this and the impact on the families and those who are involved in this industry. They deliver produce right around Australia on a daily basis; they do it very, very well. This country cannot do without the road transport sector, and I support their efforts for Australia. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): As the member's amendment is not in writing, signed and on the table, she leaves me in a precarious situation. I will advise that for an amendment to be considered it should be before the House so that everyone can actually read it. You cannot just spring it; it actually has to be in writing, signed and on the table. I will leave it with the clerks to determine how to go forward, but the common courtesy and the procedure is that it is on the table at the time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:49): I just heard the member for Forrest, and the point of the matter is that the Regional Development Australia funding process is opposed hand over fist by the coalition. The roads funding which she alluded to in her speech is dealt with in the nation building and the budget processes. But those opposite have voted against every road-funding project in South-East Queensland in the last term of parliament—everything from the Ipswich Motorway to the Blacksoil Interchange. They did not support the funding for that, for the nation building roads or for the Warrego Highway funding. The member for Forrest can talk about road funding, but the coalition is opposed to it.
We have doubled the road funding that is so important to the trucking industry in South-East Queensland; $8.5 billion in road, rail and port infrastructure is more than double what the previous coalition government contributed. One of the things about Australian politics is that it behoves Labor governments to make amendments to a seamless national economy: to get rid of the oddities and the stupid things that we see in terms of federation in this country. There is the eccentricity of the dingo fence, which provides such an embarrassment and an obstacle to a seamless economy. The federal minister for transport and infrastructure should actually be commended for the work he has done.
In the last couple of years I attended the Australian Trucking Association meeting at the Gold Coast, where I represented the minister. One of the things said over lunch in private discussions that I had was about the trouble that the Australian Trucking Association had with bureaucracy, red tape and difficulties in going between Queensland and New South Wales. I have five meat works in my electorate in my home state of Queensland—and, as the member for Page said, there is a difference between how many cattle you can put on a truck in Queensland and how many you can put on a truck in New South Wales. I know from speaking to meat works, farmers and people in the trucking industry in my area how important this legislation will be and how important this COAG process will be. If you have cattle in Queensland—66 cattle on a truck—and you get to the New South Wales border, where you are only allowed 60, you have to offload the beasts. These are stupid and really ridiculous differences in regulations between states. Whether it comes to business names, to a national competition policy, to national consumer and competition situations or to trade practices legislation in the 1970s under the Whitlam government, it behoves a Labor government always to support business and small business in this economy and to support the operation of the national economy. The Australian Trucking Association is not primarily made up of really big players, such as Linfox and the other big trucking associations; its members are often owner-operators. We cannot get produce—whether it is cattle, coal, food or clothing—across the country without the trucking association and the trucks.
One of the saddest things that I have seen in my time as a federal member was dealing with Lights on the Hill, the memorial in Gatton, which used to be in my electorate and is now in the electorate of Wright. I had dealings with Kathy White; Garry, her husband; Dionne, her daughter; and all those people associated with the Australian Trucking Association, and the coach drivers as well. The road deaths of the people commemorated by the memorial are such a tragedy.
One of the things about this motion moved by the member for Makin is how he has stressed the importance of the road transport industry to the Australian economy—and it is important. We cannot get that produce and those things to the markets—you cannot take things from the Brisbane Valley and the Lockyer Valley to the markets at Rocklea—without trucks run by owner-operators. You see big entities like Nolan's in the Lockyer Valley, for example, but you also see others who run trucks.
We are making a big difference here, and this will boost the national economy by $30 billion in the next 20 years. Cutting red tape will make a difference, and those opposite have constantly frustrated us. Even today, with a historic agreement made between Labor and Liberal governments at different levels, those opposite still have to politicise this. They cannot accept that Labor governments have a legitimate right to exist and to reform. We are reforming the economy. This is a very, very important measure that will improve efficiency, effectiveness and productivity in the economy. It will make a big difference to safety. It will also make a big difference to time, taking people off the road. It will make a big difference when people cross borders, because sitting there at the borders doing paperwork and red tape and dealing with those issues makes a difference to the lives of people. I support the motion. (Time expired)
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (11:54): I rise to support the first three parts of this motion. I cannot, sadly, support the fourth, which says 'commends the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for his work in bringing about this agreement', because, sadly, he has failed to put any money where his mouth is as transport minister, and regional and rural Australia, in particular, is suffering as a result. But I acknowledge the importance of the road transport industry to Australia's economy, note that the heavy vehicle regulator intergovernmental agreement was reached at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 19 August 2011 and acknowledge the significance of the heavy vehicle regulator intergovernmental agreement to Australia's road transport sector—although there is still a little bit to be worked out when it comes to finalising the agreement.
Australia's trucking industry is incredibly important to our economy, and nowhere can it be as important as in the electorate of Wannon, where we have the port of Portland and the freight task in delivering our goods in our electorate to the port of Portland, which handles 25 per cent of Australia's dairy products and 17 per cent of Australia's plantation forestry and wood processing. We have significant heavy mineral exploration, and those heavy minerals also go out through the port of Portland. One million tonnes of grain exports annually go out through the port of Portland, and 67,000 tonnes of livestock exports go out through the port of Portland. We also have aluminium heading out there. As a matter of fact, throughput and trade volumes through the port of Portland are projected to double to seven million tonnes in the next seven to eight years.
It is great that we have this agreement and can talk about road safety, but if we do not have money to put into road and rail infrastructure there is going to be a deterioration in our roads and our rail infrastructure, and that is going to harm the Australian economy. That is why it was so disappointing that we did not get one cent more for road infrastructure in the last budget. The minister, sadly, has betrayed Australia's road and rail users. There was not one single cent of extra road funding.
Mrs Griggs: Shame!
Mr TEHAN: It is a shame; it is an absolute shame because, while it is great to have the regulatory burden eased off our freight industries, it is also important that we continue to get proper funding into important road and rail infrastructure, and we have not seen that.
The minister also stands condemned for what he has done with regard to the carbon tax. I support the honourable member for Forrest's amendment to the motion because the minister has shown quite clearly that he has no understanding of the impact the carbon tax will have on Australia's freight industries. As a matter of fact, I think one of the saddest things we saw in our last parliamentary sitting week was that the National Road Freighters Association had travelled from across the country to come and oppose the carbon tax and the minister arrogantly stood up in this place and called this Convoy of No Confidence a 'convoy of no consequence'. What arrogance! It shows how out of touch this minister is.
So, while the states and the COAG process have delivered some regulatory reform, we have not seen from the minister any understanding of the importance of road and rail infrastructure. He will dismiss the highly important National Road Freighters Association as being irrelevant and of no consequence, even though they have come to him and said that his government's carbon tax will hurt this industry. He just dismisses that. When it comes to putting real money into road and rail infrastructure, what does he do? He fails to deliver one extra cent. It is so important, especially out in the regions, that we have the proper infrastructure so that we can get our goods to market and make sure that our families travel in a safe manner to and from school, to their sporting— (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2011
Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011
Assent
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting) Bill 2011
Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2011
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add:
16 After subsection 35(2A)
Insert:
(2AA) The Inspector-General must include in a report prepared under subsection (1) the Inspector-General's comments on:
(a) the employment of any person under subsection 32(3) during the year to which the report relates (whether or not the employment commenced during that year); and
(b) any delegation under section 32AA in force during the year to which the report relates.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) (12:01): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The government is responding to recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I thank the committee and the Senate on behalf of Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity, Gary Gray, for their valuable contribution to the bill. It provides that the annual report prepared by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security include comments on any matters arising during that year relating to the employment by and delegation of powers to individuals. This will provide further assurance that any delegation of power by the inspector-general is adequately reported in each annual report.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Gambling Reform Committee
Report
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (12:02): On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, I present the following reports of the committee: Final reports of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform; Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill 2008, and Poker Machine (Reduced Losses—Interim Measures) Bill 2010.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr WILKIE: by leave—In regard to the Poker Machine (Reduced Losses—Interim Measures) Bill 2010, the committee has decided to discharge this inquiry given the work undertaken in this area for the committee's first inquiry into the design and implementation of a mandatory precommitment system for electronic gaming machines. In regard to the Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill 2008, the committee has decided to discharge this inquiry given the previous inquiry conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and the bill's dependence on further legislation which has not yet been introduced.
National Broadband Network Committee
Report
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (12:03): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Rollout of the National Broadband Network—First Report.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr OAKESHOTT: by leave—Through its first six-monthly review, the committee broadly considered various issues arising from the NBN rollout, including competition issues arising from the establishment, operation and pricing of the NBN and the impact of access, service delivery and economic development on regional and remote Australians with a focus on Broken Hill and the surrounding region. The committee also briefly examined the binding definitive agreements between NBN Co. and Telstra and NBN Co. and Optus.
The political debate around the NBN is obscuring the fact that the NBN once built will be an asset in the financial books of the taxpayer. An initial spend on any asset—anything from a house to business investment— can lead to a much larger return in the future if the asset is built efficiently and effectively and if private equity is engaged in the right way at the right time. With that in mind, this report flags that the committee will be exploring this matter further—that is, the committee will seek to satisfy itself about the government's view of where the points of entry are for private investment alongside public investment and to make sure maximum return on the government's investment is secured on behalf of Australian taxpayers.
In terms of performance scrutiny, if the committee is to properly provide parliamentary oversight of the NBN, it needs to have at hand some agreed key performance indicators and measures to examine. The committee was expecting to have received in-depth NBN rollout performance information by its mandated reporting date so that it could report against them. However, on 7 July 2011, the shareholder ministers wrote to the committee advising that these performance measures would be provided by mid-September 2011. This timing is unfortunate because it means the committee is unable to report against NBN rollout performance in its first report. Some committee members, arguing the committee is akin to a board of directors, were keen for the committee to be given quarterly or monthly reports from NBN Co. The majority of committee members, however, recognised that the committee is not a board of directors, that its parliamentary oversight role is broader and that, as its reporting requirements are twice yearly, performance measures reported by NBN Co. should be likewise.
A final theme to emerge in the evidence received to date is the question of just how NBN-ready government and its agencies are. This was also a key theme of the recent report, titled Broadening the debate, about the role and potential of the NBN by the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. This committee agrees with its infrastructure and communications committee colleagues on this consideration and urges government to consider both reports with that in mind. While the focus of many has been on the nine-year complex engineering build of the NBN or on the size of the capital expenditure for the NBN, a number of critical secondary policy considerations need to be prioritised by the government for the NBN to deliver maximum value. Many of these were addressed in the infrastructure and communications committee's report and will continue to be pursued by this committee. These include issues such as: Australian content and copyright law, individual privacy and national security, taxation administration, government use of the internet generally, and timely and relevant data collection opportunities that now present themselves.
Taking into consideration these findings, in its first report the committee made five recommendations: (1) the government and the NBN Co. provide the committee with NBN rollout progress reports every six months, no later than three months before the committee is due to report to the parliament; (2) government agencies take preparatory measures for receiving and working with the NBN so that there is a streamlined transition for government service delivery with the introduction of the NBN; (3) the NBN Co. publish the impact on costs and timing of the rollout of the National Broadband Network, taking into consideration any time delays from reaching a binding definitive agreement between NBN Co. and Telstra and between NBN Co. and Optus, including the time taken for the decision to increase the points of interconnect from 14 to 121 as determined by the ACCC; (4), and importantly, the government publish a detailed statement outlining the productivity, jobs and competitive benefits of the impact of the rollout of the NBN on competition at the wholesale and retail levels, including the impact of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ruling to increase the points of interconnect; and (5) the government publish the time frames for the rollout of the NBN for regional and remote areas and investigate the impact of the transition from current technology to the NBN's satellite technology with the aim of negating any potential reduction in service, if applicable.
The committee's resolution of appointment requires it to report once only this year, by 31 August 2011, which it did do out of session. Due to the full range of issues, including the many mentioned, the committee will again report to the parliament before the end of the year. Thereafter we intend to report in June and December on a six-monthly rotation and have asked for the resolution of appointment to be changed accordingly. The committee's second report will examine the agreed performance information pending from the government, further work on private sector engagement for the NBN in both the wholesale and retail sectors, workforce issues and the government's readiness for NBN. With several critical agreements due to be resolved in the coming months, such as the NBN Co. agreement with Telstra, which at this stage is expected to be considered by Telstra shareholders on 18 October, the committee can also then examine these matters in more detail and report again at the end of the year.
The Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network is one of the largest committees in Australian parliamentary history. Currently it has 57 participating and full voting members. This sizeable membership of the committee demonstrates the commitment of all parliamentary colleagues to better information communication technology for all Australians, as well as a high degree of political interest in the NBN more specifically. I thank all committee members for, above all else, focusing on Australia's need for speed in the development of ICT over and above all other policy or political considerations. I also thank the secretariat for its work to date on what is a very challenging public policy oversight role. I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (12:11): We have before the House the government's bill to establish a parliamentary budget office. There is funding in this year's budget for the PBO, but here we are in the middle of September, 2½ months after the start of the financial year, and we are only now about to debate and vote on the necessary legislation. The parliament will be incredibly fortunate if the PBO is up and running by the end of the year. Like everything else this government does, implementation is clearly not its strength.
This bill has been a long time coming. I would suggest the government has only got to this point because the opposition introduced its own PBO bill. Establishing a PBO has been an objective of the coalition since 2007, when my colleague and friend the member for Wentworth announced coalition policy in this regard. In the last week of the winter sitting session, I flagged that I would introduce a private member's bill to establish the PBO and then followed up in the second week of the spring session by tabling my bill. That bill was debated in the House this morning after the second reading speech, but has yet to be brought to a vote, which will occur on Thursday. Therefore this place has two bills before it to establish a parliamentary budget office, but the two bills could not be more different.
To illuminate the difference between the bills we need first to revisit the impetus for the creation of the PBO. The PBO is a key reform in ensuring transparency and integrity of budget and fiscal processes. It provides services to all MPs and senators. In particular it evens up the playing field between government and non-government members in their ability to scrutinise government policy and the impacts on the budget. It also evens up the playing field in the ability to assess and accurately cost policies, both before and during elections. It should be a body which has the power and resources to provide analysis of the budgetary impacts of government policy over the forward estimates and over longer time frames.
To do this requires considerable powers to obtain information from government departments and agencies. It requires flexibility to perform whatever analysis it deems necessary. It also requires the resources to quickly assess and cost policies submitted by MPs and senators. Most importantly, it must be discrete; it must preserve the confidentiality of requests submitted by MPs and senators. It must allow requests on policies to be submitted, reviewed and, if necessary, resubmitted without going through an ongoing public debate. It must allow policies to be released at a time chosen by the relevant MP or senator. It must provide for policies not to be released at all if that is the decision of the relevant parliamentarian.
My private member's bill for the establishment of the PBO does all of these things. The government's bill before us does not. The functions of the PBO under the government's bill are severely constrained. The bill states that the PBO cannot prepare economic forecasts or budget estimates. This is an odd restriction of powers. How, then, does the government expect the PBO to prepare longer term analysis of the impact of government policies on the budget? This restriction seems to conflict with the stated purpose of the PBO which is 'to inform the parliament' through 'analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implication of proposals'.
This bill also restricts the PBO to using 'the economic forecasts and fiscal estimates contained in the most recent relevant reports released under the Charter of Budget Honesty'. In other words, the PBO can only use the economic and fiscal forecasts prepared by the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. That means it cannot use any third-party data or refer to that third-party data at crucial moments.
My private member's bill provided for much greater latitude for the PBO to do the research it needed to satisfy its mandate. Only then can it provide an effective perspective on the longer term ramifications of government policies on the fiscal position. Only then can it provide full and frank analysis of policy proposals put to it by members and senators.
The government's bill provides the PBO with very limited powers to gather information. The PBO must enter into an agreement with relevant departments to determine what information they can get and when they can get it. So let us have a little look at how this process would work. The PBO will have to negotiate an arrangement with every single government department and agency from which it requires information. These departments and agencies will not be compelled to make these arrangements. The PBO will have no leverage to compel these arrangements to be made.
It stands to reason that the arrangements which are finally made will be structured to be in the interests of the government departments and agencies, not in the interests of the PBO. So there will be no second-guessing. Therefore, if a department gets it wrong the PBO cannot dispute that because the PBO is not in a position to do its own independent analysis. For example, it is not in a position to analyse properly the information from the Reserve Bank about economic forecasts vis-a-vis the economic forecasts of the Treasury. How absurd is that!
Obviously, under the government proposal there is a significant risk that the PBO will find itself hobbled in its ability to obtain information and documents that it needs to do its job. This is obviously an unsatisfactory state of affairs for a body which requires all the relevant information to enable the full and rigorous analysis of the budgetary implications of policies.
My private member's bill provided the PBO with considerable powers to obtain information from these government departments and agencies. These powers are based on the powers of the Auditor-General. They provide protections so that information of national security importance or cabinet-in-confidence would be protected. These greater powers to obtain information would render the PBO a much more effective body.
An important function of the PBO will be to prepare costings of policies submitted by members and senators. This facility will be most beneficial to opposition MPs and senators, but also to the minor parties and Independents. I say to the minor parties and Independents: this is the chance to have a fully independent PBO available. We are providing that opportunity now. It may not come around again, but we are providing the opportunity to have an enduring, independent parliamentary budget office with guaranteed funding and guaranteed powers.
Of course, what we are offering will also be available to members of the government. This is crucially important. It may be rued, should we get into government. We may rue the day that we gave backbenchers the power to independently fully cost policies, but this is what our chambers should be doing and in my view this is appropriate policy. Backbenchers may choose to submit their ideas for costing well away from prying ministerial eyes. They may wish to get an idea costed to get more assurance of its validity before passing it up the line for consideration or releasing it to the general public within a particular policy framework. This function will be available during the normal course of the parliament and also, crucially, during the caretaker period and prior to a new government being formed.
A curious feature of the government's bill is that the policy costing facility during the caretaker period will differ to that which is available at all other times. There seems no valid reason for the difference. The standard policy costing function will be confidential unless otherwise indicated by the member or the senator outside of elections, but during election campaigns the function provided will be identical to that provided to the opposition under the existing Charter of Budget Honesty. The Charter of Budget Honesty was put in place by the coalition when it was in government.
While the charter was groundbreaking and excellent reform, I believe that the policy costing functions could be made even better. The current process provided under the charter is totally non-confidential. Requests for costings are immediately published on the websites of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, and the results of the costings exercise are also immediately published on the websites. This leads to a number of issues.
The first is that non-government parties cannot get costings done and then choose the time when policies will be released to the public. That is why, primarily, it was not used by Labor when they were in opposition. The second is that the non-government parties cannot change their minds and choose not to release policies without that reconsideration being public. There is no facility for testing the cost of a range of policies and then choosing which ones will be policy undertakings for public release. The third is that there is no right of consultation or review with the departments. There cannot be any discussion about the assumptions the departments are using. Their view is the final word. We know in government that it is not the final word. The assumption is that a political party will put forward policies on the basis that they will be able to implement them when in government.
My private member's bill provides for all requests to the PBO, for policy costing or other purposes, to be fully confidential at the request of the member or senator. This gives members and senators total control over the working-up of their policy ideas and the release to the general public. These issues should hit a bit of accord with the Labor Party and the Greens. During the Senate debate on the coalition government's Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996, Senator Nick Sherry, who was then Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, commented:
The pre-election costings regime is … deficient in a number of respects … Only costings of previously announced policies is allowed—that is, policy decisions would have to be made on the basis of incomplete information and be announced.
Yes, we agree. Senator Bob Brown commented:
I will be moving to amend the Democrat amendments so that all participants in elections can avail themselves of having their policies vetted.
I agree.
In 1997 the Senate passed 10 amendments to the charter which included: allowing the Leader of the Opposition to submit all opposition policies for costing, including those not publicly announced; requiring that information provided by the opposition to responsible departmental secretaries not to be released to third parties without the approval of the Leader of the Opposition; requiring policy costings to show what assumptions have been used in the costing process; and explaining the limitations of the process adopted in the assumptions employed.
I trust that the Labor Party and the Greens hold the same view today as they did then—but, of course, they do not. They have a different view today. Of course, the coalition had a different view then—it was under the Charter of Budget Honesty. That is why the proper format, which we have identified, is a parliamentary budget office for this process. The then Treasurer, Peter Costello, was right to say in the debate that Treasury and the department of finance are not research arms for the opposition; they are in fact there to serve the government. That is exactly our point: they are there to serve the government of the day.
Immediately after the last election campaign, when they did their analysis on our proposed policies, they were serving the government of the day in that context, and that is absolutely appropriate and right. MPs who are not part of the government are at this stage only the coalition. The Greens and the Independents have these regular meetings with Treasury, and Treasury actually serve their interests in undertaking policy analysis and costings at their request. The Treasury are serving the Independents and the Greens but they are not serving the interests of the rest of the parliament. They are serving their masters, the government. That was the same under us, and that is entirely appropriate.
So we are saying, 'Hang on, if you want to have a parliamentary budget office, it has to quack like a duck and behave like a duck,' and in many ways the Parliamentary Budget Office fulfils the key functions to the Treasury and the department of finance in relation to fiscal policy, in providing advice to the rest of parliament. I would think if Labor went into opposition one day they would rue the day that they did not support our bill ahead of their own. They will rue that day.
So there are a number of issues at play. I indicated this morning in this place that the provision of a confidential service for costing policies is a crucial and non-negotiable element of my bill. I will propose amendments to this government bill to put in place an equivalent confidential costing service. The failure to achieve such a facility will render the Parliamentary Budget Office useless. The policy costing service will be no different under that scenario to that now offered under the Charter of Budget Honesty. Accordingly, should my amendments fail to pass and the government's poor imitation of a costing service pass this place, the coalition will not submit its policy costings to either the Treasury or the Parliamentary Budget Office prior to the election. We will ask the Australian people to form a view on our policies as they stand.
It is curious that the government's bill maintains the policy costing provisions of the Charter of Budget Honesty while creating a comparable facility under the Parliamentary Budget Office—they are just duplicating it. This leads us to a situation where there are two essentially identical avenues for costing policies during the caretaker period available to non-government parties and Independents. I recognise that this is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office, which envisaged the caretaker period costing services would run in parallel. However, on reflection, I and my coalition colleagues believe that the members of the committee would see the potential for duplication and unnecessary cost.
The government's bill specifically prevents double-dipping—that is, getting the same policies costed both through the PBO and through the charter. This is not the best resolution for this duplication. It would be better to focus public sector resources on just one avenue for costing policies during the caretaker period. The government uses the Treasury and the department of finance, and the opposition, together with other members of parliament, uses the Parliamentary Budget Office.
This range of issues leave the government's bill deeply flawed. The coalition believes the bill before the House today is inadequate. Our preference is to oppose this bill and to seek to have our own bill passed in its place. However, naturally enough, we do not control the timing of the votes on legislation; that is the government's prerogative. The government has brought its bill to the House for a vote before ours, even though it introduced its bill to this House after ours. I will propose a series of amendments during the consideration in detail stage to address the flaws and to create a PBO that will better meet the requirements of the parliament. I ask that the government and the Independents consider these amendments in good faith. I also ask that the government and the Independents consider the merits of the two alternative bills. I really do believe that my private member's bill better reflects the needs of the parliament with respect to the establishment of a PBO and that it represents a more far-reaching improvement in the management of the government's finances.
The establishment and management of a PBO is a key step in the enhancement of the quality of fiscal management and discussion. It is important that we get it right. The government's bill misses the mark in establishing a truly independent PBO which would have the powers that it needs to do its job. We are offering this House the chance to have truly landmark legislation in relation to a parliamentary budget office. Members should not assume that this will be a continuing, ongoing commitment. We offer this in good faith. Should the government, in partnership with the Independents, reject our submission, then I say again: we will not be party to a process that does not allow for a fair-dinkum discussion in relation to fiscal management. Should we be elected into government, we reserve our right to take a different approach to the Parliamentary Budget Office. Under our bill, the Parliamentary Budget Office would be powerful, it would be critical of governments—and, should we go into government, it would be critical of us. We are not afraid of economic scrutiny, we are not afraid of fiscal scrutiny and we are not afraid of criticism. But we are not going to set up a white elephant that simply duplicates the existing unsatisfactory arrangements. Therefore, this is a unique opportunity to get it right. I hope the Independents understand that and support our bill in preference to that of the government.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:32): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on this bill that will greatly enhance the transparency and accountability of this parliament and its members. This bill does hit the mark. It best reflects the needs of the parliament and it best serves the needs of the Australian people. The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 will establish the Parliamentary Budget Office as a fourth parliamentary department and will establish the Parliamentary Budget Officer as an independent office of the parliament. It will mandate that the PBO will inform parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budgetary cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals; it will establish the function by which the PBO will respond to policy costing requests from members and senators in a confidential manner—and I will come to more of that later—outside of the caretaker period and in a manner consistent with the Charter of Budget Honesty during that period; and it will enable the officer to make arrangements for access to information from other government agencies.
This bill amends other acts to enable the establishment of the office. It follows the report of the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. The government has agreed to all 28 recommendations of the inquiry, the first of which is that the government establish such an office. The purpose of this office will be to provide independent analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals. The committee's report states:
In attempting to deal with these issues—
in terms of budget cycles—
many countries have found that existing parliamentary institutions have limited resources to undertake a high level of analysis on fiscal matters. To satisfy a need for greater support, many parliaments have established specialist research and analytical units such as Parliamentary Budget Offices (PBOs) which are independent from government to varying degrees and which assist parliamentarians in their consideration of government finances and expenditure.
It goes on to say:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has observed that in recent years, there is an international trend in establishing specialist budget research units. The OECD stated:
The growth of bodies to assist the legislature in budgetary matters is a strong trend in OECD countries. They take a variety of forms but their raison d’être is the same: Parliaments need specialised resources in order to carry out their constitutional responsibilities vis-à-vis the budget. The functions of such bodies include economic forecasts, baseline estimates, cost estimation, analysis of the Executive’s budget proposals and medium-term analysis. As such, they have the potential to improve transparency and enhance the credibility of the Government’s Budget and public finances in general.
The office will respond to requests from senators and members of this House to ensure that all have access to high-quality information and analysis. I am particularly heartened that this bill will amend the Charter of Budget Honesty so that all parties with at least five members will be able to request election costings from Treasury and Finance under the charter. Currently this service is afforded only to the government and the opposition. Access to this information by members will give an incredible degree of transparency and accountability for the Australian public . It is a matter of key importance.
Quite rightly, the issue of good financial management has become a central issue in the public policy debates of this country. As the inquiry noted, in the rationale for the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office, 'in Australia and internationally there has been a growing trend in examining and questioning the adequacy of fiscal management'. I believe it is appropriate that this examination continue and be enhanced through good and accurate fiscal and budgetary analysis. It is appropriate that the government of the day, its alternative on the opposition benches and those on the crossbenches have access to the best information to inform their proposals and that they be held to account for the financial impacts of those proposals. Over the last few decades there has been an unstoppable trend of reform in this area. We have seen the establishment of the National Commission of Audit and the enactment of the Charter of Budget Honesty in 1988. There have also been the reforms under the government's Operation Starlight agenda to improve the transparency of public sector budgeting. These have been landmark reforms to ensure that there is transparency in the budget and the fiscal decisions of government. It has meant an increase in the ability of the Australian public to examine the economic management of its government and to have confidence that they know how their money is being spent. However, there is more that can and should be done, and there remains a need to further enhance the ability of senators and members and, through them, the Australian people to get advice on budgetary matters. As the inquiry noted:
Despite the reforms to Budget reporting and the detail of information published in the Budget Papers and other statements and reports, submissions have raised concerns about the ability of Parliament to effectively discharge its responsibilities in relation to the Budget and other financial matters.
This legislation will be another step in addressing the concerns of the inquiry and in enhancing the transparency of financial information.
Perhaps the most significant area that this bill will amend will be to ensure that opposition members and crossbenchers will have the ability to have their policy proposals costed by this office, the PBO. Under this bill, election policy costings can be provided by either the PBO or Treasury and Finance. As is appropriate for election costings and proposals, they will be released publicly to ensure that the Australian people are appropriately and comprehensively informed about the true costs of policy agendas and the proposals being made by all members of this parliament.
This would have been particularly useful and informative during the last election, where we saw those opposite campaign on their supposed strong economic credentials while at the same time hoping to avoid the questions about where they would get the money for their proposals. They refused to have their promises costed and they refused to reveal their assumptions or any details when they had an accounting firm cost them. It was not until the conclusion of the election, at the request of members of the crossbenches, that the true nature of the opposition's policies was revealed. Only then was it revealed that their election commitments had an $11 billion black hole. Since then it has blown out to a $70 billion black hole, with no end in sight and no clear goal of how they will fix this massive gap in their spending. That is the equivalent of stopping Medicare payments for four years or stopping the age pension for two years.
The only statements that we get from the alternative Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, is for this country to obliterate entire government departments and to sack thousands of my constituents. As I have said time and again in this House, the coalition have form on this. In 1996, the Howard government sacked 12,000 public servants in Canberra and 30,000 nationwide. That sent Canberra into a recession when the rest of Australia was growing. Perhaps with the establishment of this office he can receive the advice he needs to understand that the Public Service has not grown by over 20,000 but has grown by less than half that and is the same size it was 20 years ago. Maybe then he will stop the attacks on the Public Service. Perhaps then he would not need to front the media and openly, outrageously and irresponsibly declare that he would love to sack 12,000 public servants, many of them Canberrans, and fail to provide any further detail of how this would occur. Perhaps then the people of this country could have faith that those opposite would have access to information that meant that they could understand the budget and understand the economy and not need to resort to scaremongering and just plain falsehoods to sell their message.
Their bill this morning was more of the same. While they came into this place and talked the talk about the need for transparency, openness and accountability, they failed to walk the walk. They sought to replace the openness of Treasury costings during elections with a closed process—enshrining into legislation the secrecy for which they became known during the last election. And to justify this change, they continue with their outrageous attack on the expertise and professionalism of the Australian Public Service, in particular Finance and Treasury.
There are two elements that I would like to pick up that the member for North Sydney mentioned in terms of his proposals for amendments. The first was this notion of confidentiality. I just want to clarify that the government bill already provides for confidentiality of non-election costings. It distinguishes between policy costings during elections and those done outside the caretaker period for a general election. It ensures that the election costing service of the PBO will be fully transparent and consistent with similar processes under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act. So, in terms of confidentiality, I cannot understand the concerns of the member for North Sydney.
He also raised concerns about access to information. The government bill does allow the PBO to access information from Australian government agencies through a negotiated MOU in circumstances where the release of information is consistent with other legislative requirements. The committee talked about this during the inquiry. This access to information approach is consistent with the recommendations of the committee. The committee favoured an MOU over compulsion to provide information, on the grounds that it would facilitate more productive working relations between the office and government agencies. The approach that we have proposed in this bill is for a cooperative approach, as opposed to the adversarial approach that is being proposed by those opposite. The government considers it crucial that the PBO's relationships with government agencies should be cooperative, cohesive, productive and constructive.
This bill does enhance the transparency and accountability of parliament. It does best reflect the needs of parliament. It does best reflect the needs of the Australian people. It does best serve the needs of the Australian people. It gives every member of this chamber and of the Senate access to appropriate analysis to ensure that everyone is properly informed and can debate the issues of this country correctly and truthfully. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:43): I rise to speak today on the Parliamentary Services Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend the Parliamentary Services Act 1999 to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office and position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. This was a commitment made by the government to help woo the Independents and the Greens. It is a concept—a concept, I say, in particular: not necessarily a structure, but a concept—lifted straight from coalition policy which was first canvassed in May 2009, when the member for Wentworth called for the creation of a parliamentary budget office in keeping with the US Congressional Budget Office.
The entity that would be created by this bill, sadly, ain't no Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the government would save a lot of time and effort by simply supporting the bills introduced by the member for North Sydney. Those amendments provide for a responsive and flexible parliamentary budget office that will perform a range of important functions as required, including, of course, costing policy. Perhaps most importantly, the services provided under the coalition model would be totally discreet and confidential. Instead, this bill before the House has all the look of a token effort, with many restrictions and shortcomings, perhaps intentionally so. It is, in fact, hard to believe that it has taken the government more than 12 months to get the Parliamentary Budget Office to this stage.
I cannot stress enough how critical the establishment of a proper parliamentary budget office is. We saw the highly unfortunate charade and preoccupation by this government at the last election of misrepresentation of so much of what we put before the public. We all remember the grubby way this government grossly politicised and abused the costings process during and after the 2010 election. We all remember the pathetic leak during the campaign of supposedly confidential Treasury analysis of the coalition's $2.4 billion savings measure associated with scrapping the NBN. We all remember how the Australian Federal Police were called in to investigate that leak, which so obviously had that lightweight embarrassment of a Treasurer's fingerprints all over it.
The leak was bad enough, but what made it worse was the way in which inaccurate, and later totally discredited, Treasury assumptions were used to discredit our savings measure. The coalition got fitted up with a $900 million black hole that simply did not exist—and the government knows it. Treasury used a flawed assumption to calculate the savings on cancelled borrowings. We used an interest rate of 5.5 per cent; Treasury, inexplicably, used a rate of just 4.9 per cent and refused to say how it arrived at that figure. In 3½ hours of private discussion, the best we got was, 'We've made a decision.' That was the rationale.
Of course, they were wrong and we were right, but the damage was done, with the newspaper headlines in mid-August based on the leaked material. Yet here is what the Australian Financial Review headline was on 9 September—of course, some weeks after the event: 'Analysts back Coalition's base rate assumption'. I quote from the article:
… several bond market estimates backed the Coalition assumption of a 5.5 per cent rate based on the 10-year bond rate. 'The current 10-year bond rate is as fair as anything else,' said UBS market strategist Matthew Johnson.
Meanwhile, the Managing Director of Citi Investment Research and Analysis, Paul Brennan, said of Treasury's assumption: '4.9 per cent looks on the low side to me.' Furthermore in a separate briefing note Treasury cited the government commissioned NBN implementation study as the basis for estimating that the NBN could be built for $42.8 billion. The problem for Treasury is that that study was underpinned by an interest rate of—you guessed it!—5.5 per cent, the rate that we had used earlier in our other costings document.
This is one example of why major reform in the costings process is so critical, especially when you have a desperate government that has no qualms in politicising the process. We need a truly independent parliamentary budget office that is not simply a subsidiary of Treasury and Finance. The critical need for this was starkly highlighted in a front-page story in the Australian on 7 September last year by highly respected national affairs correspondent Jennifer Hewett. The article was headed: 'Coalition counts cost of Treasury's "political game"'. Hewett reports straight out:
THE lengthy September 1 meeting between Canberra's top bureaucrats and the three independents was supposed to be crucial in influencing whether Labor or the Liberals would form government.
But previously secret minutes of that meeting … reveal how much it was politicised and influenced by the opinions of the senior bureaucrats, while some of their conclusions didn't take market impact into account.
At the same time, Michael Stutchbury from the Australian said:
… there is no $11 billion "black hole" in the Coalition's projected budget surplus … Ken Henry has found a few potholes that can be repaired without too much trouble.
The government used the work done by its Treasury to claim we had a $10.6 billion black hole. This supposed black hole came down to differences of opinion in relation to assumptions used. In a couple of the examples I have already cited, the Treasury officials could not even give a reason for the difference in assumptions, yet the marketplace accepted our assumptions and Treasury had used our numbers in other related material. The NBN example I cited earlier is a key example.
I will give you another, and it relates to something called the conservative bias allowance. Here is what Jennifer Hewett had to say about this:
… the biggest dispute in money terms—$2.5bn over four years—was a more modest version of a similar $4.6bn change adopted by the Labor government in its own budget the previous year.
Treasury and Finance secretaries decided that, because they advised against a downward adjustment of the conservative bias allowance with regard to the current government, they could not book it as a saving from opposition. But the official notes from the meeting the departmental secretaries had with the Independents, dated 1 September 2010, read:
The Secretaries indicated that they accepted that it was an option open to governments to prepare their budget papers on the basis of a lower CBA—
conservative bias allowance—
as the budget papers are prepared on the authority of Ministers.
Moreover, the Secretaries also accepted that an incoming government may wish to report this as a policy measure.
This is unbelievable given the 3½ hours of debate that we had with these secretaries who told us to our faces that they had made a decision and that this was immutable, yet there they were in a meeting a few days later with the Independents—a meeting that was structured to inform them about who was best placed to take government—saying that it was in fact a policy measure that was possible for any incoming government. This process was heavily politicised. With my colleague's amendments to the bill that was presented by the Treasurer, this afternoon we have an opportunity to remove the prospect of politicising this process.
Here is a final example of why the Parliamentary Budget Office has to be set up properly and well in advance of the next election. We identified at the last election $3.3 billion in investment expenditure to be redirected from the Health and Hospitals Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Building Australia Fund. Before the election we asked the government for the list: 'Tell us, out of those funds, what have you already contracted? What commitments have you already made?' Surprise, surprise: we were ignored. When we made some decisions, took a conservative figure that we thought would not be contracted out of those funds, the secretaries decided we could not book them because we could not identify specific Labor programs to be paid for from these funds that we would cancel prior to the election. We had asked the government for this information and we were ignored. As it turned out, the problem was that all the projects were on a secret list. I said, 'Give me a copy of the list now and I will tell you which projects we will get rid of.' Finance and Treasury could not even identify all the projects funded and contracted out of these three funds. The accounting used within the Department of Infrastructure and Transport did not allow for a quick stocktake.
Here is the clinker: the secretaries did confirm that there was more than enough uncontracted money in the various infrastructure funds to meet the spending priorities that we had identified. Our projects were called a black hole, yet the money was there on a secret list that the government would not provide and Treasury officials knew that there was still enough uncontracted money within the funds. There was no black hole. This was a politicised black hole. This was something fabricated with the use of Treasury officials to give the government a political advantage. If the PBO had been up and running it could have requested the government's project list and we would not have had the problem. One thing the Treasury secretary and the Finance secretary did verify was that under a coalition government net debt would have been reduced by at least $23 billion compared to a Labor government.
It is a bit hard to swallow claims of black holes coming from that lot opposite. I remind those opposite of what the Financial Review said in its editorial of 6 September last year about its black hole claim. I quote:
It can't necessarily be taken at face value given Treasury's own spotty forecasting record, not to mention gross errors in recent Labor policies such as the mining tax and the school halls, rooftop solar, green loans and roof insulation scandals.
It will probably pale beside blow-outs in big government Labor policies such as the $43 billion national broadband network, and the pork-barrelling demanded by the independents.
I also remind those opposite of MYEFO, which estimated a budget deficit of $41.5 billion. What was it just six months later, in this year's budget? It was $49.3 billion. That is right—a $7.8 billion blow-out in just six months, not over four years. And what about the carbon tax? There is a $4.3 billion revenue shortfall in that. That is okay in 'Wayne's World', the planet the Treasurer and Senator Wong are on. It all adds up to broadly budget neutral, they said. They are a joke. They are also dangerous. It is little wonder that the top CEOs of this country rate this government at 2.6 out of 10. I have not been to a boardroom meeting yet, out of 63 since March before this year, where they have not said that they have not seen the Treasurer or, if they have, he was underwhelming in the extreme.
Today it is revealed that they have plans to raid the Future Fund to the tune of several hundred million dollars. They have been exposed, despite Senator Wong's denials. Senator Wong's own department confirmed that in a question taken on notice, and now she is ducking for cover, in damage control. A statement said it was 'completely incorrect'. It went on to say that the government 'is not making withdrawals from the Future Fund. The Future Fund is simply making a small change to the types of assets it holds'. It does that every day! They have just sold a poultice of Telstra shares. Have they gone to the government? No, they have not. They are back in the fund. That was an asset they sold. They have brought other assets.
This is $250 million, or whatever it is—a serious sum of money—and it is the thin edge of the wedge. If the PBO as structured in the opposition's bill, or as amended in this bill according to our amendments, were up and running, there would be a 'please explain'. Under this proposed PBO the office would not dare contradict the government of the day. This is structured to intimidate and politicise the process. It will effectively be an arm of Treasury unless the amendments that we have put up are accepted by the government. This bill is deeply flawed. It will perpetuate the political process. It needs to be amended or else we will not present our material at the next election. (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:59): Over 100 years ago, Alfred Deakin could have been describing the Labor vision when he said:
We look forward to social and unemployment insurances, to improved health services, to a wise control of our economy ...
Providing support for those in need, making sure that every Australian has access to health care and the responsible management of our economy continue to be foremost for the Gillard Labor government. It is in the words, 'wise control of the economy' that I believe Deakin would have approved of the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office—an independent institution will bring greater accountability and transparency to the policy costing process and strengthen Australia's fiscal and budget frameworks. It will be an institution that stops parties avoiding scrutiny of their election policy costings as the coalition did at the last election.
We are not the first nation to establish such an institution. In the United States they have the Congressional Budget Office. Operating since 1975, the Congressional Budget Office provides congress with: objective, non-partisan and economic analysis; information and estimates for the budget process; and assistance in economic and budgetary decisions. The Congressional Budget Office also advises congress in relation to: budget, microeconomic and taxation analysis; health and human services; management and business; and national security. When in opposition, the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom made plans for an office for budget responsibility. With their victory last year the Cameron government have established the Office for Budget Responsibility. Now operational, the UK office provides economic forecasting that is independent of government.
If only those opposite displayed the foresight and economic responsibility of their conservative cousins in the UK; instead what they have to offer is a $70 billion hole from a swathe of uncosted and untested policy thought bubbles and an unwillingness to support sensible revenue measures like the fuel tax reforms, first brought into parliament by Peter Costello in 2003, and the perfectly reasonable move to means test the private health insurance rebate. This is, of course, the very same coalition that tried to conceal an $11 billion policy costing shortfall at the last election. Given that the Leader of the Opposition has been trying since that last election for a rerun of that election, it is no surprise that the member for Goldstein walked into this place deciding to refight the costings debate. The member for Goldstein just told this chamber that the work Treasury did in assessing the coalition's costings and coming up with their $11 billion hole was fabricated. That is right—when they do not like Treasury boffins, they just say, 'Their work is fabricated; they are politicised.' They do not provide a sense of respect for Treasury, which traditionally has been what conservatives have done in Australia; they attack the bureaucrats and say that they are politicising everything.
The Parliamentary Budget Office will shine a spotlight into the coalition's costings which even they will not be able to hide from. It will make sure the Australian community is better informed about the budget impacts of policy proposals and impose greater budget accountability. The Parliamentary Budget Office will prepare election policy costings upon the request of authorised party representatives and the Independent members of parliament, who played a critical role in bringing the PBO into being. It will be able to prepare policy costings outside of the caretaker period. It will prepare responses to budget-related, non-policy costing requests of individual senators and members of parliament. It will initiate its own work program with regard to research and analysis of budget and fiscal policy settings. It will provide formal contributions on request to relevant parliamentary committees. It will provide non-partisan and policy neutral analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of policy proposals. It will also help ensure the Australian public can be better informed about the budget impacts of policies proposed by members of parliament. In short, the Parliamentary Budget Office will have a busy agenda.
The Parliamentary Budget Office will promote greater understanding in the community about the budget process and fiscal policy. Accountability and transparency are at the heart of democracy and at the heart of a government's relationship with the public. This is something the United States and the United Kingdom have realised in establishing their independent budgetary offices. Accountability and transparency were the very values that the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office spoke of in formulating their recommendations for a parliamentary budget office. The committee recommended that the office have mechanisms that could ensure transparency of process, equality of access to its services and maintain the separation of the parliament and the executive. Currently there is no independent body that specialises in high quality research and analysis on fiscal policy for the parliament. That is the critical role the Parliamentary Budget Office will fill.
The joint committee also found that the election costing provisions of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act had significant shortcomings. As it stands, the act does not enable the electorate to be better informed about the financial implications of election commitments. We in this place owe it to voters to provide them with independent information that gives everyone in Australia more information about policy proposals during an election campaign. That is why the joint committee unanimously recommended measures to provide incentives for parties to use a costings process—a costings process that better informs the wider public and enhances accountability and transparency. With the Parliamentary Budget Office and the independent costing of election policies we will avoid the farcical situation the coalition found themselves in at the last election.
Rather than follow the provisions of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act ,the political party that had been relying on leaks from Treasury decided that Treasury could not be trusted. The shadow Treasurer infamously claimed: 'The coalition's numbers are exactly right.' That was despite the $11 billion discrepancy between what was being promised and how it was going to be paid. This kind of dishonesty and disregard for proper costings processes should not continue. The Australian public deserves better than having to make a judgment on the responsible management of the country's budgetary and fiscal frameworks according to figures provided by private accounting firms. That is not good enough for the Australian people; they deserve a proper, transparent and accountable parliamentary budget office.
Under this bill the election costings function of the Parliamentary Budget Office will complement that of Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. The costings service will be fully transparent and consistent with similar processes under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act. The bill also amends the Charter of Budget Honesty Act so that parties with at least five members in the parliament will be able to request election costings from Treasury and Finance. Previously only the government and the opposition were able to access this service. ,Independent members of Parliament and political parties with less than five members in the Parliament will also be able to have their policies costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. To ensure independence from the executive the appointment of a parliamentary budget officer will be made by the presiding officers following approval by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. This way the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be accountable to the parliament via the presiding officers rather than to the executive.
In respect of its annual work plan, draft budget estimates and annual report, the Parliamentary Budget Office and officer will be overseen by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit. This was the model for a parliamentary budget office and officer that was unanimously recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. Compare this to the kind of budget office the coalition wants. I spoke earlier today in this place about the private member's motion moved by the member for North Sydney, and I noted there that that model would undermine the office by making it accountable to ministers, not the parliament. It would reduce the level of transparency and public accountability that a parliamentary budget office brings to the election costings process. Under the proposal put forward by the member for North Sydney, election policy costings can remain confidential and hidden from the public. This is not the right thing to do.
This government is committed to increasing transparency and accountability, but the coalition cannot seem to kick the habit of poorly-thought-through policies—a habit that showed itself at the last election, with their $11 billion black hole, and a policy that shows itself at the moment with the coalition's $70 billion costings hole.
I also want to use this opportunity to note an additional issue which goes to the mechanics of the costings process—an issue which has not been raised in the debate so far. It is the issue of dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring has been politically controversial in the United States, where the issue of how to analyse the cost of tax policy changes has arisen. Essentially what is behind dynamic scoring is predicting the impact of tax changes by looking at the effects of individuals' reactions to policy. It is an adaptation of static scoring, which is the traditional method for analysing policy changes. The problem with dynamic scoring is that there is little agreement about how to model long-run economic growth and the effect of tax cuts on the economy. We have some reasonable estimates of multipliers as a result of fiscal policy such as the fiscal stimulus put in place by the Rudd-Gillard governments in 2008-2009, but the impact of taxation changes is highly controversial.
I draw the House's attention to the 2003 report by the Congressional Budget Office commissioned under Douglas Holz-Eakin, who worked for the Bush White House and then went on to run the Congressional Budget Office. The study that the CBO did under his direction estimated the impact of a reduction in personal taxes and the claim that some in the Republican Party were making that such a tax cut would pay for itself. The CBO concluded that the free-lunch mantra—the so-called Laffer effect, which has been around for many years—is just plain wrong. The most optimistic assumptions the Congressional Budget Office could come up with were that tax cuts might stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 per cent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 per cent in the second five. But the CBO noted that that was the most optimistic case and, on pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.
My point is that, if this legislation is enacted and a parliamentary budget office is set up, I would strongly urge that office to steer clear of dynamic scoring, to be pessimistic in their assessments of the impact of taxation changes on economic growth and not to get into the free-lunch mantra—the idea that tax cuts can pay for themselves. We have little evidence for that, and it is particularly dangerous because it sets up the potential for a government to simply suggest we can cut taxes and get the revenue back. That is not what careful economic studies have found. We have to be vigilant to the potential politicisation of the Parliamentary Budget Office in this way and in others. Its independence and its non-partisan character is paramount. By having an independent agent providing the costing and analytical services for policy proposals, I hope we can take away some of the embarrassment that the coalition currently finds themselves in with their $70 billion black hole.
It is a lot to hope for. Only last week the shadow Treasurer was telling 2GB listeners the number was not $70 billion, but at the same time the shadow finance minister was confirming that $70 billion was not a furphy. That was the gap that the coalition had to make up. This inconsistency and uncertainty does not befit a team that would like to have themselves regarded as the alternative economic policymakers in Australia. The accountability and transparency of the Parliamentary Budget Office will bring to an end this kind of deception—these kinds of attempts to claim that parties have closed the gap when, in fact, their costings simply do not add up.
A parliamentary budget office will be an important new institution. It will bring greater accountability and greater transparency to the policy costings process during election periods. I hope it will continue to draw on the academic expertise in Australia in public finance. This is an area to which I made a small contribution when I worked at the Australian National University, but, frankly, when you look at Australian economics overall, we have traditionally been stronger in macroeconomics and labour economics than we have in public finance. And the Parliamentary Budget Office will make an important contribution there. I hope they will engage thoroughly and deeply with Australian academic economists on this, as this government is seeking to do, for example, through the tax forum that will take place in early October.
The Australian people put their trust in us. They expect us to be honest with them about the policies we intend to implement that impact on their lives. Our respect for them means they deserve nothing less than a government that is accountable and transparent in presenting what Alfred Deakin called 'its wise control of the economy'. (Time expired)
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (13:14): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate and to really focus a spotlight—that seems to be the word of the day—on what this debate is actually about. We have heard very wide-ranging contributions from Labor members, no doubt shackled to the talking points that they have been given by the machine that sits behind this government to make sure all Labor MPs say exactly what they are told to say. It is their dysfunctional machine, but one thing you can be certain of is that, whilst the government is viewed as incompetent and incapable of guiding this nation, the machine can keep its members on a very tight rein to say precisely what is being asked of them in this place even if it adds nothing to the debate that is before the chamber.
We have heard some discussions about the Parliamentary Budget Office. We have heard opposition members describe what it should be: an Australian equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office in the United States, where the spotlight is not held by the government of the day and the government does not decide upon which topic it will shine but which is actually in the interests of the good governance of the nation, not in what is good for the government that is in power at the time.
Frankly, the member for Fraser belled the cat. He said—and I quote—that this bill 'aims to shine a spotlight on coalition costings'. I thank the member for Fraser for his candour, because that is exactly what the government is trying to turn this Parliamentary Budget Office into rather than something that advances the national interest and which better informs public policy debate and contributes to the battle of ideas and our hopes for a better, more prosperous and peaceful nation. It is trying to turn it into another arm of the Labor Party machinery in Canberra which it can manipulate and direct, utilise and distort to its advantage and not to the advantage of the Australian public and the good governance of Australia.
I say to the member of for Fraser: thank you for being so frank. Thank you for outlining that in the eyes of the government this bill is about shining a spotlight on coalition costings and not much else. What the bill should be about is what is in the interest of the Australian public—what will advance the good governance of Australia—not what is in the self-interest of this hopeless Labor government we have here in Canberra and not what it thinks will improve its tactical position to combat the alternative agenda that is put forward by the opposition.
That is the contest that is really being debated out here. Occasionally—and the member for Fraser did this—you will hear a reference made to the good work of the Congressional Budget Office. But he would not go further and say that in the Australian context the Congressional Budget Office could not actually do the good work he was describing. So he sought to ascribe the virtues of the Congressional Budget Office in the United States to the Parliamentary Budget Office that has been so nobbled, hollowed out and turned into yet another tool of political advantage for a Labor government that he cannot draw those parallels and expect they will not be challenged.
What we are debating today is not what the coalition proposed; today we are debating the government's efforts to do what I call its 'post-it note politics'. It wants a post-it note that it can stick on the wall and say: 'Look! There is a Parliamentary Budget Office!' Do not go any deeper than that; just use the label and the slogan and hope that people will arrive at some conclusion that the Labor government hopes they will arrive at: that it is a good thing and that it represents what was taken by the opposition to the last election.
This is an important issue. The government is not doing setting up the office because it wants to; it is setting it up because as far back as May 2009 the then Leader of the Opposition pointed to the advantages of having an Australian equivalent to the Congressional Budget Office here in Australia, and in the last election campaign there was another clear, very succinct and well understood commitment by the coalition to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office. Those two commitments from the coalition were not supported by Labor; in fact, they were ridiculed. But when it came time to negotiate with the crossbenchers and found that they saw virtue in having a parliamentary budget office, Labor came kicking and screaming to a realisation that it actually needs one. In the only area of least-touch regulation you have ever seen in Australia, it is aiming to apply the least-touch effort to its own efforts. It will not develop a parliamentary budget office with all the credibility, strength, analytical horsepower and potential to contribute to the good governance of Australia of the Congressional Budget Office, which is what the coalition proposed. Instead Labor has dreamed up and brought forward a hollowed out facsimile.
When the member for Page was challenging the opposition's vision for a parliamentary budget office in the private members' debate earlier today, one of the weaknesses she sought to identify about the coalition's proposal was that it would not be controlled by the government. But that is the whole point of it! The government has control over so many of the organs of governance in Australia—the nature of its work, the nature of its analysis and the timing of its public declarations. It can use, manipulate and misuse the release of some of that information to its political advantage and to the detriment of the nation, and that is the way the Labor government likes it.
A number of Labor members in this place have talked about the costings problem that they believe the coalition had before the last election: during the campaign and in the negotiations that followed. That is yet another grotesque misrepresentation of what took place. The coalition was up-front about the interest rate impacts on this ballooning Labor government debt; yet the government tried to talk that down and then claim that the difference of opinion amounted to a black hole. More sober analysis after the Labor Party formed government again revealed the coalition's position to be absolutely correct. But that did not stop the Labor Party then, as it does not stop it now, misrepresenting the work that may have had its original analysis undertaken by Treasury.
Then there was the conservative bias allowance issue, a key element of the budget savings that the coalition brought forward, something so horrendous that it had to go into the black hole argument only to see the Labor government go and use that same approach to achieve some of its budget savings. It was very interesting!
Then there was the issue of secondary effects, where the coalition has a very credible campaign and policy framework for bringing more people into the workforce. This would enable and support their participation, recognising that it will cost money to make that investment in people currently not able to participate but that it will generate savings down the track because those individuals will be contributing to the workforce and not receiving benefits. But the government came out and said, 'We will count the cost and we will count the investment, but we will just be completely blind to the impact and the beneficial consequences on the budget down the track as more people are able to participate.'
The context in which this debate should occur is appalling form from Labor, with grotesque examples of misusing the current processes and an effort to try to mimic the coalition's commitment to a parliamentary budget office only to bring forward a poor facsimile—a diluted version. 'PBO lite' is what we have here, and the key thing is that it is not shining a light on policies and on good governance but, as the member for Fraser said, shining a spotlight on coalition costings. So the whole ambition about better informing the public policy debate in Australia, about the virtues of the Congressional Budget Office in the United States and about the proposal brought forward time and time again by the opposition to support, nourish and inform better public policy debate and a better contest of ideas has been reduced, as it always is by Labor, down to a base political motive that suits its self-interest. That is where we have got to today.
So that is the background; that is why we are here; that is why there is a need for this extra facility to be available to the Parliament of Australia; and that is why the coalition has been advocating a genuinely resourced, properly tasked, objective and independent parliamentary budget office, while Labor wants one that it can control, manipulate and influence—and it is seeking to do that in a number of ways. My friend and colleague the shadow Treasurer has outlined where we think this hollowed-out proposal needs to be filled and needs to be remedied for it to achieve any of the ambitions of a parliamentary budget office. We have indicated that our question is: if the government is disinclined to do those things, why on earth should the opposition and the Australian public have any more confidence in a parliamentary budget office still subject to the same manipulation, control and misuse that the current machinery has? The current machinery has been used and manipulated in that way by the Labor government.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable point, and I will be very interested to hear if the government takes on board some of the very positive proposals that the coalition has brought forward, particularly when the best thing it could do is to go back to where this idea originally started—that is, with the coalition. The smart thing for the government to do would be to set aside the effort it has made to hollow out the proposal; so far it has merely come up with something it can stick a label on that sounds as if it might be a parliamentary budget office. The best thing the government could do would be go back to the coalition's own private member's bill, which picks up all of those positive characteristics and the strengths of the international models that we should be inspired and guided by, rather than to implement the stripped-down, manipulated model it has come up with. That is the challenge for the government: is it fair dinkum or is it just trying to make this parliamentary budget office another Labor plaything?
We recall that, during our last election campaign, when our material was submitted to the government, there were miraculous leaks that had the fingerprints of the Treasurer all over them. Why would you think that? Well, where else would they have come from? That is where all the material went. Then there was this dance of trying to create in the public's mind complete falsehoods about what the coalition was on about. That is the current process we have been trying to improve. There is not much hope of that, because Labor likes it just the way it is, and when there is an opportunity to do something worthwhile in a different framework it wants to nobble this as well.
There are some key differences between what the opposition is proposing and what the government is proposing. Our view is that the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Office is crucial and that it should be an independent statutory body. It should have very strong powers to obtain information from government departments and agencies even when they are not so keen to provide it, and it should be able to provide an analysis of economic forecasts and budget estimates. Otherwise, what are you actually asking it to do? If you cannot ask the Parliamentary Budget Office to have a look at the macro-economic and financial settings, is it limited to only looking at our economy and policy options through a straw so that the only thing it can look at is the little particular circle that comes through in response to a request from a member?
Is the government trying to nobble the parliamentary budget office into requiring an agreement with government departments on how, when and on what terms they can get information and documents? This has not even been teased out. There is talk in the explanatory memorandum of a memorandum of understanding that will then control, nobble, influence and restrain the activities of the PBO into some sort of agreement with the very departments it is seeking to get material from and, in some cases, challenge the analysis of. So it is rather a remarkable nobbling in the first instance. Who is to know? That memorandum of understanding from a department to the PBO—or the 'PBO lite' that the government is proposing—might well say, stripped down: 'We'll provide you with material so long as you don't criticise or challenge any of it. We'll provide you with this, but it has to stand as the gospel truth. Otherwise we reserve our right not to provide you with more material.' We have not even got any explanation of what this MOU is going to look like, but given the form of this government I am sure it will not be designed to assist the independent activity and robust work of the PBO; it will be about containing the PBO's role so that the government and government departments do not have 'please explains' or challenges to their assumptions.
There are even some issues around the work that can be carried out. The irony here is that during the election period any requests for information will be responded to by the answer being released to all and sundry. It is quite extraordinary that elsewhere in this bill there is a requirement that the parliamentary budget office push off from the annual government reporting documents that the government has produced and is happy with. The PBO cannot start anywhere else; it has to use that material. The point that is most fascinating is that it has to use the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, a document that is released in the second week of an election campaign. So you have to use that report, and if you have had some work carried out well before an election on a policy proposal then you have to take it back to get those numbers updated on the basis of PEEFO, the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook report. In getting it updated to that latest report that the parliamentary budget office is obliged to use under the government's construction, all of a sudden you are seeking a confirmation during the election period which means that all of that work is just going to be thrown open to the general public whether or not you are going to exercise that material, act on its conclusions or go forward with the policy proposal that is in it. It is out there for all and sundry. Why? Because then the government can have a crack at it. So the opportunity for considered and sober analysis is denied the opposition while the government has complete control over the machinery and the arrangements that are in place.
I think this is a great idea turned into a mess and a sham by an incompetent government—and haven't we seen that before? The best thing this parliament can do is make sure it has a genuine parliamentary budget office modelled on the successful and universally acclaimed Congressional Budget Office, with all the powers and opportunities to contribute to the good governance of the country, not a nobbled-down parliamentary budget office that is only there for the best interests and good governance of a bad Labor government. (Time expired)
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:29): I rise in support of the Gillard Labor government's Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. This bill will provide for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office and the appointment and functions of an independent parliamentary budget officer. There is no better time than this to introduce and pass this bill. Time after time we have seen the Liberal Party's lack of economic legitimacy, credibility and responsibility, such as in their $11 billion black hole during the election period and more recently and more alarmingly the $70 billion black hole they have created since. I do not think the Australian parliament or the people have ever needed a parliamentary budget office as much as we do now, with the current Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Treasurer. Of course, the opposition oppose the measures in these bills. It suits their self interest and shows their economic weakness—of which they have plenty. The bill exposes them as the economically illiterate party that they are.
The Gillard government will provide $24.9 million over four years to establish this independent—and I will keep highlighting that word—parliamentary budget office. This is based on the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. The parliamentary budget office will be independent and dedicated to serving this parliament. The committee that made the recommendations included members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and Independents. The government has accepted all of these recommendations, but now the opposition are undermining the recommendations of the committee and its own members—the work of the member for Sturt, the work of the member for Higgins and the work of Senator Barnaby Joyce, although for the last one that is quite understandable. I am sure that the members on the other side who have put in the hard work to get to this position are quietly fuming that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have thrown away this report and basically kicked all of their hard work into the dirt.
The Liberal Party are so afraid of economics that they want to hide their weaknesses under a rug and hope that no-one will notice them as they will reduce the transparency and public accountability of the election costings process. This would mean that the costings would remain confidential and hidden from the Australian public. We know why the Leader of the Opposition wants to keep those costings hidden. We have seen why on numerous occasions. Their paid parental scheme is a prime example as it alone had a half-billion-dollar gap in it. There was a failure to count the basic numbers, which is terrible. We saw an $11 billion costings blunder during the election and now, as I said, there is a $70 billion black hole. The Leader of the Opposition is not only mindlessly negative but has also admitted that economics is a bore. That is why, I guess, under the 13 years of the Liberal-led government he was never trusted with responsibility for the economy. But we know what he was trusted with—the Liberal Party seem to acknowledge that he is good with cuts and good with slashing funding for hospitals. His recklessness with the budget, jobs and household budgets shows that he does not have the judgment to manage Australia's $1.4 trillion economy. This bill further strengthens this argument because he does not have a clue. He finds it easy to dig these billion-dollar holes, but he can never seem to find his way out of them. It seems he is content to sit and try to bluff the Australian public. The Leader of the Opposition quite seriously could not even manage monopoly money, let alone our economy.
The most recent black hole, probably one of the biggest economic blunders in Australia's political history, is a $70 billion hole that the Leader of the Opposition has dug for himself. How would they pay for this black hole? They would have to manage savage cuts to services and payments on which families and older Australians depend, such as the equivalent of no Medicare for four years which would force Australians to pay for a doctor whenever they are sick and need medical attention most.
Dr Southcott: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for McEwen's speech is now entering the realms of fantasy. I ask you to draw the member back to the subject of the bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The long title of the bill states that it is for a parliamentary budget officer, the establishment of a parliamentary budget office and for related purposes. That does allow for a degree of travelling from the core subject matter of the bill. However, I do draw to the attention of the honourable member for McEwen his obligations to observe the standing orders.
Mr MITCHELL: Again, the opposition try to hide when we start talking about facts in relation to budgets, the economy and spending taxpayers' money. How would they pay for this budgetary black hole? They would have to stop assistance to people with disabilities for three years or cut family tax benefit payments. If all these different things were put in place, a parliamentary budget office would find that their numbers quite simply do not add up. That shows the importance of having a parliamentary budget officer established as an independent officer of the parliament.
Recently the shadow finance spokesperson, Andrew Robb, said that 'the $70 billion is an estimate of the sort of challenge that we will have'. The shadow Treasurer contradicted this when he told 2GB, 'Well I can say to you the number is not $70 billion'. If we had a parliamentary budget office to go through the figures we could get confirmation of what happens. That is the intent of having a parliamentary budget office—to ensure that when we had off-the-cuff comments made by the people supposedly responsible for the Australian budget if a Liberal government came to power—God forbid that that should happen—we would have some credibility of the costings for what was being done. What we continually have now is one contradicting the other. We have looked at the best possible ways of ensuring that Australian taxpayer dollars, particularly during election campaigns when we hear a lot of promises that will not be kept, will be looked after. We looked at how to make sure that money that is spent is not putting at risk every Australian family's future. We looked at how to ensure that when the spending is done we can tell that we have received the benefit of it. We looked at the stimulus package and how, if we had not had that stimulus package, there would have been greater costs to Australian taxpayers because we would have had some 200,000 extra people claiming benefits.
How do we ensure that this $11 billion black hole in the Liberal Party budget never happens again? How do we ensure that there is no risk to basic services which ordinary families rely upon in a whole range of areas such as trade training centres, super clinics or the National Broadband Network?
How do we ensure that these things are properly costed and funded so that we can get the best benefit for Australian families across the nation? How do we ensure that we do not have a risk to our cost of living through financial recklessness that would add to the price pressures on the economy—for example, average families paying some $1,300 more a year to support big polluters? We do this by establishing a parliamentary budget office that would ensure the government's framework and the staff of the PBO would be provided under the act and that the peak officer is appointed by the Presiding Officers following approval from the JCPAA. I think a four-year term with an option for one more is more than fair and reasonable to ensure open, transparent and independent advice that goes to all parties and to ensure that Australian taxpayer dollars are spent in the best interests.
While those opposite continue to dig their holes, the Gillard Labor government is getting on with the job in an economically responsible manner, working in the national interest to get things done for our country and its future. We have created almost 750,000 jobs since we were first elected, with another 500,000-odd to be created in the next two years. We have many more Australians employed today than 12 months ago. Because of the work we do in ensuring that we are financially responsible, we have created a strong economy. Among the world's largest economies we have the lowest debt. We have stayed out of recession and our economic future is very strong under this government.
We are delivering affordable, high-speed broadband that will increase the productivity of this nation. Australian businesses will certainly benefit through the National Broadband Network, no matter where they live. It will mean better education, better health care, better access for Australian businesses to the biggest marketplace in human history. We are delivering on our healthcare agreements, which mean many more doctors, nurses and hospital beds, but less waiting time and less waste. We are putting a price on carbon and making big polluters pay for the pollution they dump in our atmosphere, which in turn will cut pollution, cut taxes and increase pensions. It will create clean energy jobs and industries. We are making sure that we are giving Australians a fair share of the mining boom, as the member for Goldstein mentioned earlier. We are giving every Australian a boost to their retirement savings, tax breaks for small businesses and breaks in company tax. These things are important for the future, both for our nation and for the generations to come.
We have doubled our investments in school education, upgraded facilities at every school and provided more information for parents than ever before. We have created 130,000 training places and we have given a historic increase to the pension, because we know that for many years pensioners were not looked after. In fact under the former government, they went backwards. More and more pensioners found themselves on struggle street, but it was this Labor government that did its costings properly and delivered these pension increases. We have recorded investments of more than $37 billion in 44,000 projects across the country, infrastructure that was so severely lacking under the previous government. We are catching up and getting in front of where we should be, but we know there is a long way to go and we know that we have to keep delivering more infrastructure for people across the country.
That is why it is important to ensure that we are fiscally responsible. That is why it is important that we continue to deliver good budgets to ensure people benefit, no matter where they live. We are a lucky country, we are doing extremely well and we should ensure we pass on that wealth and growth to make life better for all Australians. We have delivered, through tough savings and the flood levy, to provide some $5.8 billion to support the flood-affected regions in Queensland, Victoria and WA. Having gone through the Black Saturday fires, I can tell you that these things are so important in getting people back to normality as soon as possible. Getting the infrastructure in place so that people can have their jobs, their homes and their kids at school are things that can never be underestimated for the health and well-being of communities. We have also laid the foundations for the nation's first disability insurance scheme. This is something I would have thought people would unanimously agree was of vital importance and should have been done a long, long time ago, but it is this government that is getting on with the job and delivering it.
We have put more than 185 bills through this place—more than the previous government could ever have managed. All of these Gillard Labor government achievements, policies and plans have been fully costed, unlike those of the opposite side, who are now running scared of any independent scrutiny of their financial management. Plagued with self-interest, the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to all Australians and a risk to the Liberal Party. No-one can take him seriously; no-one ever will take him seriously. That is why it is important this bill has a speedy passage so that by the next election those opposite will be forced to stand up and account for all the dollars they commit in their promises.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:43): In the time allowed I want to firmly put my support behind the coalition's proposal for a PBO, the very proposal that has led this scurrying government to follow up with a poorly thought out plan of their own, which effectively changes very little from what is already available in this parliament at the moment—that is, to hand over documents to Treasury and have them publicly released, as we effectively found out at the last federal election. What the coalition is talking about is based an international model of a fully independent PBO, which will allow economic forecasting to be performed. We need this budgetary analysis to be performed by an adequately resourced agency that is not present at the moment. We need something independent of Treasury and never was that more obvious than what we saw during the estimations and modelling done by TRIM in Treasury of the potential fiscal hole that was subsequent to the GFC. The Treasury's estimates were so far off it obviously led us into the spending and the GFC reaction that we saw from the then Rudd Labor government. Of course, Treasury then scurried around in the MYEFO and tried to clean it up, but it was way too late then. What we needed was a parliamentary budget office that could have looked at some of these proposals and given us another opportunity to get those estimates right. We do not need a PBO that has to go cap in hand and fill out MOUs with government agencies where those agencies have the ability to sign off on what they want and the power to distract or move away from areas where they chose. We certainly do not want to see a situation where everything is publicly released after the first tranche and there is no chance to improve these policies. We want something that suits both government and opposition—a PBO as the coalition has proposed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! It being 1.45, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Middle East
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (13:45): A little over a week ago, I joined with my parliamentary colleagues and many concerned citizens at a rally outside the steps of the State Library of Victoria. We were expressing our deep concern about the international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign targeting the state of Israel. Make no mistake: the BDS is a dangerous development that must be countered at every turn.
While the BDS seeks to damage cultural, economic and political ties with the Jewish state, its ultimate objective is to undermine Israel's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. This is what drives the campaign's proponents to disrupt an Israel Philharmonic Orchestra concert in London or to picket an Israeli owned hot chocolate cafe like Max Brenner in Melbourne. There are no limits to their tactics or their hatred.
Israel is a beacon of democracy in the troubled Middle East. Its security is under threat from a radicalised Egypt, an irredentist Turkey and an emboldened Iran. Israel needs the support of its enduring allies and friends like Australia more than ever. So it is time the Greens stood up against the BDS and the Labor Party stopped vacillating over the upcoming vote at the United Nations on the Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence. Israel will survive these trying times and, when it does, it will no doubt remember who was there when it counted.
Tasmanian Special Olympics
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): Before I start, I would like to congratulate Sam Stosur, the winner of the US Open. It is fantastic for Australia and for the world. I met Sam recently in Tasmania and she is a fantastic Australian.
I rise today to congratulate the passionate and enthusiastic young Tasmanians who participated in the recent Tasmanian Special Olympics. I attended the Special Olympics event, which was held in my electorate of Bass. I found it extremely inspiring to see so many young schoolchildren and teenagers with a disability engaging in sporting activities. The athletes participated in a range of sports, including tenpin bowling, soccer, basketball and athletics. These passionate athletes were an inspiration not only to themselves but to their friends, family and the wider community. With the London Olympic Games less than a year away, this is a timely reminder that we should consider holding the Olympic and Paralympic Games simultaneously rather than as separate sporting events.
Congratulations are also needed for the young people who organised the event and competitions with as much enthusiasm as the participants. It was a pleasure to see families, friends, school supporters and schoolteachers engaging with the athletes. Again, I congratulate all involved. It was great to be a part of such a special event.
National Service
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (13:48): Townsville has just hosted four days of celebrations to mark 60 years of national service. It was a truly great long weekend. Townsville rolled out the welcome mat for nashos from around Australia and New Zealand, in particular from Christchurch. We raised money for them for their continued efforts to rebuild—and we put no end of rubbish on them about the World Cup! There were only about 25 of them, as opposed to about 900 of us.
We enjoyed a meet and greet on Thursday night for about 800 people. There was a dinner and a community concert, including Normie Rowe singing Ooh La La and Que Sera Sera, but the Playboys were not there with him. There was a dawn service and a commemorative march through the brand-new Flinders Street and onto Anzac Park for a community breakfast and lunch afterwards.
My dad was a nasho in the second intake in 1952. He was not able to make the celebrations. My dad is getting quite old now, but he would have been very, very proud of the number of lies and stories of theft and conflagration from the men that were standing around there, remembering the good old days! It was truly something to be inspired by.
Congratulations to Warren Hegarty and his committee, who organised the celebration. We were the only celebration of 60 years of national service, and it is something of which we should all be very proud.
Domestic Animal Services
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:49): I rise today to acknowledge the great contribution that the Domestic Animal Services team make to the Canberra community. The team is devoted to providing the people of Canberra and their pets with a range of animal control services. They also provide a safe and sociable environment that they can share. The team actively works with the RSPCA to ensure that the animals receive the best care possible. They also offer a range of services to the Canberra community by assisting in the registration of dogs and the issuing of licences. Staff and volunteers work tirelessly to ensure that the many lost or unwanted dogs in Canberra go to new homes or are reunited with their families. This can often mean working with regional and interstate rescue groups to find suitable homes.
I recently visited the facilities at Mugga Lane in Symonston, where I met with dedicated staff and volunteers. There are many volunteers who walk these dogs each day and take time out of their very precious days to do this, and I commend their efforts. During that meeting we discussed a variety of issues and the many results from their exuberant fundraising efforts. I saw firsthand some of the important work that the team is doing there.
The facilities play a vital and often an invisible role in the Canberra community. To all Canberrans, if you love dogs, have a bit of spare time, want to get fit and want to do so by walking lovely critters, then I encourage you to sign up for the Domestic Animal Services. (Time expired)
National Stroke Awareness Week
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:51): Today marks the first day of National Stroke Week, which is organised by the National Stroke Foundation. Sadly, one in six people will suffer a stroke in their lifetime and, according to the National Stroke Foundation, every six seconds someone somewhere, regardless of age or gender, will die from stroke. It could be someone close to any one of us, and this is why it is so important for people to recognise the signs of stroke.
Today I would like to speak on the importance of recognising those signs. The FAST test is the Stroke Foundation's national identifier for the signs of stroke. It is an easy way to recognise and remember the signs of stroke: 'F' stands for 'face' and urges the individual to check for a drooping of the mouth; 'A' is for 'arms' and requires the person to see if they can lift both arms; 'S' is for 'speech', to check for slurring; and 'T' is 'time', as it is most critical to get emergency access to medical services if the signs of stroke are present. Locally on the Gold Coast, stroke survivor Colin Oxenford has been running the Gold Coast Stroke Support Group to help locals who have suffered a stroke or brain attack. Today Colin will be hosting a barbecue luncheon to launch the official awareness week. I am sorry I could not be there today to support this localised organisation and I would like to congratulate both Colin and his fellow members on their efforts in fundraising and promoting the signs and awareness of stroke. (Time expired)
United States of America: Terrorist Attacks
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:52): I want to take this opportunity to speak today in remembrance of the victims of the events 10 years ago on September 11 in the United States. I pay respect to those who lost their lives in the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania and those who died or were severely injured as result of assisting in the aftermath of the attacks.
At the time of the attacks I was working in the UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo and I recall watching with other colleagues the footage of the first plane strike, with people thinking either that it was an elaborate hoax or that it was a freak accident and then seeing in real time the second plane strike the other tower and the joint realisation it was no hoax and no accident. UN colleagues from New York were understandably distraught and remained so for a long time afterwards, yet they never lost their dignity or their sense of perspective about the necessary response to such an horrific assault.
There is no doubt that the events of September 11 had profound ramifications for much of the world, among other things the heightened focus on security and counterterrorism and corresponding reductions in personal liberties. Many countries, including Australia, have also been engaged in war for the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, at enormous cost to civilians and to soldiers. I want to pay tribute to all of those lives as well and to offer the hope that the next decade will see greater peace, prosperity, tolerance and global cooperation in tackling not only the perpetrators but also the root causes of terrorism.
Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (13:54): I rise to urge the government to listen to the tourism sector in relation to the specific Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme. In an article last week, Malcolm Farr highlighted that the skills shortage in hospitality is a problem of Labor's own creation. Eighteen months ago, Labor thought it was fine to transfer workers from the bars and swimming pools to the draglines and trucks of the mines.
In a speech to the Sydney Institute entitled A New Age of Energy, the Minister for Resources and Energy told a resources-energy sector audience: 'Why shouldn’t Cairns be considered a mining labour resource?' This of course has created a hospitality industry skills shortage exacerbated by Labor removing chefs and cooks from the business migration list of skills. Labor's solution today is to import foreign workers to fill vacancies. A solution is long overdue, but we remain unconvinced by this idea.
We are prepared to consider Labor's expanded scheme but we await the detail. I would also urge the government to ensure that the scheme (1) does not disadvantage Australians seeking work in the tourism sector, (2) attracts the right candidates for a jobs base geared towards emerging industrialising markets such as China, India and Russia, (3) is subject to review, to ensure it does not become a backdoor option for migrants not interested in hospitality and (4) does not replace longer-term labour-force planning.
Death Penalty
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:55): I rise to acknowledge the dedication to the cause of social justice that is alive and well in the schools and community of the seat of Robertson. Today I want to particularly single out one school in my electorate, St Edwards Christian Brothers' College in East Gosford. I particularly acknowledge Mr Pat Dell, a fine teacher under whose energetic and compassionate guidance senior students have been activating their citizenship.
The senior students of St Edwards recently brought a petition to my office regarding the impending execution of Australian citizens Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, members of the Bali nine. The petition states their strong opposition to the death penalty and I will be presenting it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is also my strong conviction that we must always advocate for this fundamental human right to life. This position is based on our shared beliefs and values in this country about the preciousness of human life and the fallibility of the justice system.
While Australians do not condone the drug trade and we acknowledge the criminal actions of these men, I, like the students of St Edwards, do not feel Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have forfeited their right to life. What this petition shows is that young Australians are certainly capable of judicious and fruitful participation in our democracy. I commend the students of St Edwards college for their passion and awareness of issues of social justice. I congratulate them on taking the initiative to show that they are good people and that they want to see fairness and mercy prevail in our global community.
Moorebank Intermodal Freight Terminals
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:57): I make a personal appeal to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities that ,when exercising your responsibilities under the EPBC Act in regard to the Moorebank intermodal freight terminals, you have these developments assessed by the most stringent level of assessment available—a public inquiry with the appointment of an independent commissioner given the broadest terms of reference, including a health-risk assessment.
Overseas studies have found that intermodal terminals are hot spots for diesel emissions, adversely affecting local air quality and health. The American Heart Association stated that exposure to diesel emissions contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The Children's Hospital Boston has stated that there is a strong and consistent correlation between diabetes and particulate air pollution. Numerous studies have also linked elevated risks of diesel emissions to asthma attacks, yet this proposal has some 10 schools, 19 childcare centres and 3,000 family homes within a two-kilometre radius.
Sydney's south-west is already more prone to air pollution than other areas of Australia. For example, a resident of Liverpool aged between 16 and 24 is 50 per cent more likely to suffer asthma than the average New South Wales person in the same age group. Minister, you will be failing in your duty of care to the residents of south-west Sydney if this development is assessed by anything less than a full public inquiry.
Australian Maritime College
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:58): I rise to congratulate the Australian Maritime College in Launceston, which is situated in the great electorate of Bass, for recently being acknowledged by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council for two outstanding contributions. The first is the Educating Engineers at Sea program conducted on the Bluefin. This is a hands-on problem-solving experience whilst at sea. The other award was for Dr Anna Carew, who was recognised for her work with undergraduate engineering students.
The Australian Maritime College has been focused on students and is a central part of what they do. The AMC website says:
… we recognise that our primary purpose is to equip them with the skills, knowledge and attributes that they will need to be successful in their working lives.
The AMC's commitment to student learning is demonstrated by this recognition, and I would again like to congratulate Dr Carew and all those involved in the Bluefin program at the Australian Maritime College on their wonderful work.
Stosur, Ms Samantha
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:59): On behalf of all proud Gold Coasters, I wish to acknowledge the great work of Samantha Stosur. In 1995, at just 11 years of age, Sam Stosur wrote a letter which she put in a time capsule. I was privileged to be at her school, Gaven State School, when that time capsule was pulled out. In that capsule she wrote about her joy in looking forward to winning a grand slam.
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
United States of America: Terrorist Attacks
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): Before question time today, the House is going to engage in some reflections on the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9-11. Last night I and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as a large number of others from the parliament, gathered for a commemoration of that event. It was cold and it was wet and the mood was necessarily sombre as we reflected on the lives lost in 9-11, including 10 Australian lives, and of course the lives lost over the decades since in Bali, in London, in Mumbai and in Jakarta. There was a sombre mood of reflection and a sombre mood of grief, but there was something else there last night apart from that sombre mood of reflection. I detected defiance and I detected resolve. People joined together because they wanted to say: 'Even as we mourn what we have lost, we are defiant and we will continue to live our lives in freedom. We are resolved to do everything necessary to ensure that we continue to live those lives in freedom.'
Last night at the same event I received, in person from the US Ambassador, a letter to me as Prime Minister from the President of the United States, President Obama. They are words of reflection for all of the Australian people. It is my intention to table in the House today a copy of the letter I received last night. President Obama reminded us of Prime Minister Howard's presence in Washington on that fateful day and how important his words of comfort were to the American people. President Obama said:
Australia's quick declaration that these attacks were an assault on the values and freedoms shared by our two countries comforted us; your invocation of Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty strengthened our resolve to prevail over this menace. Americans were moved by the expressions of sympathy from so many Australian citizens, and we shared your grief at the loss of ... Australians in the September 11 attacks.
President Obama went on to say:
In the decade since the attacks, we have had no more steadfast partner than Australia in our effort to defeat terrorists in Afghanistan, in Bali, in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia. Australia's robust cooperation in these efforts has made a tremendous contribution to achieving the alliance goals we share, and has won the lasting affection and gratitude of Americans.
I bring those words to the House because I believe they are important words of reflection on the bond between us and our friends in the United States of America. They are also important words of reflection on our shared resolve to keep combating terrorism in Afghanistan, ensuring that it is no longer a safe haven for terrorists and doing what we need to do in this country to keep our people safe and secure. I table the letter.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): The 11 September 2001 atrocity was not just an attack on America; it was an attack on civilisation everywhere. On that day America was under attack not because of its faults but because of its virtues—because of its democracy, because of its pluralism, because of its diversity and because of its decency. America was under attack on that day because of the respect it accorded to women, to minorities, to different religions and to people who challenge social norms. Since September 11, America and its allies have made some mistakes—how could we not?—but we have not surrendered the values that made our civilisation a target. Most importantly, we have appreciated that, though the terrorists acted in the name of religion, our enemy was not religion; it was terrorism—it was not Islam; it was extremism. We never made the mistake of thinking that Islam was incompatible with democratic pluralism or blamed all Muslims for the madness of a few. It is this good sense and insight which has enabled the pluralist civilisation to flourish through the war on terror.
I venture the hope that the values that were under attack that day, the values we uphold now and the values we will always uphold are not just Western values but universal ones. They are the better angels of all people and all cultures. I close with an example of the magnanimity of which all peoples and all cultures are capable. When Tariq Jahan lost his son, who was senselessly murdered by rioters in Birmingham last month, he did not react by calling for vengeance. He said:
… I don't blame the government. I don't blame the police. I don't blame anybody.
… … …
This is not a race issue. The family has received messages of support from all parts of society. I lost my son. Blacks, Asians, whites—we all live in the same community.
That was a marvellous message from a true Muslim, a true Briton and a true member of the civilised world. We all live in the same world. Yes, we must confront evil. We must be defiant in the face of evil, of course. We must be resolute in the face of evil, but we must be generous too and we must seek everywhere the sparks of common humanity if we are to make our world whole and safe.
The SPEAKER: As an indication of support of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition's statements and as a mark of respect to those that lost their lives, I ask all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH: by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the 10th anniversary of terrorist attacks in the United States of America on 11 September 2001 be referred to the Main Committee.
Question agreed to.
Stosur, Ms Samantha
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): On a far, far happier matter, I am sure the House will want to join as one to congratulate Sam Stosur on her remarkable win. I had the opportunity of speaking to her not that long ago. She is heading for a well-deserved celebration and I think we can all imagine that she will very much enjoy that with her team and with her people who are accompanying her. I assured her that the nation was going to be celebrating with her. This is a remarkable sporting triumph, the first Australian woman to win a grand slam event since Evonne Goolagong won Wimbledon in 1980, and the first Australian woman to win the US Open since Margaret Court in 1973. It is an event to truly be celebrated. I am sure that Sam is already celebrating in her own way, and for a moment or two here in this place we celebrate with her.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): I would join with the Prime Minister and with millions of our fellow Australians in celebrating this terrific win. I think all Australians rejoice in the triumph of this terrific young sportswoman; certainly, all tennis lovers in this country so rejoice. May this be not simply a one-off, not simply a throwback to the glory days; may this be the harbinger of a real renaissance in Australian tennis.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:10): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on Sam Stosur and the US Open to be referred to the Main Committee.
As a 35-year member of the Marrickville and District Hardcourt Tennis Club, I associate myself with the congratulations offered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:10): I table for the information of the House a revised ministry list. The list has been updated to reflect the appointment of the Hon. Mark Butler MP as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform.
The document read as follows—
SECOND GILLARD MINISTRY
12 September 2011
Title |
Minister |
Other Chamber |
Prime Minister |
The Hon Julia Gillard MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government |
The Hon Simon Crean MP |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister for the Arts |
The Hon Simon Crean MP |
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Minister for Social Inclusion |
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information |
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
The Hon Kate Ellis MP |
Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity |
The Hon Gary Gray AO MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC |
The Hon. Warren Snowdon MP |
|
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform |
The Hon.Mark Butler MP |
|
Cabinet Secretary |
The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
|
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
|
Treasurer (Deputy Prime Minister) |
The Hon Wayne Swan MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation |
The Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer |
The Hon David Bradbury MP |
|
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
The Hon Simon Crean MP (Jobs and Workplace Relations) The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP (Tertiary Education and Skills) |
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth |
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare |
The Hon Kate Ellis MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development |
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations |
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
|
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Minister for Trade |
The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade |
The Hon Justine Elliot MP |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs |
The Hon Richard Marles MP |
|
Minister for Defence (Deputy Leader of the House) |
The Hon Stephen Smith MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs |
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel |
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Defence Materiel |
The Hon Jason Clare MP |
Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence |
Senator the Hon David Feeney |
|
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship |
The Hon Chris Bowen MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs |
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy |
|
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (Leader of the House) |
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport |
The Hon Catherine King MP |
|
Minister for Health and Ageing |
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Indigenous Health |
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing |
The Hon Mark Butler MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing |
The Hon Catherine King MP |
|
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs |
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Minister for the Status of Women |
The Hon Kate Ellis MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness |
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers |
Senator the Hon Jan McLucas |
|
Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services |
The Hon Julie Collins MP |
|
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities |
The Hon Tony Burke MP |
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
|
Minister for Finance and Deregulation |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
The Hon Wayne Swan MP |
Special Minister of State |
The Hon Gary Gray AO MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
|
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP |
Minister for Small Business |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
The Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Attorney-General (Vice President of the Executive Council) |
The Hon Robert McClelland MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery |
Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig |
|
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Justice |
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
The Hon Tony Burke MP |
Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry |
The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP |
|
Minister for Resources and Energy |
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister for Tourism |
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism |
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
|
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency |
The Hon Greg Combet AM MP |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency |
The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
|
Minister for Human Services |
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Ea ch box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio and a Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government in the Prime Minister’s portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cas es.
Ms GILLARD: I also inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Trade and acting foreign minister will answer questions on his behalf.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order! Order, the member for Canning! Order, the member for Kooyong! Order, the member for Casey!
Ms GILLARD: The opposition, as ever, is focused on the big picture! I inform the House that the Special Minister of State and Special Minister for the Public Service and Integrity will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Home Affairs, Justice, Privacy and Freedom of Information will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by her pre-election commitment that she would never send boat people to any country that had not signed the UN convention on refugees?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): To the Leader of the Opposition's question I say that, as usual, he has missed the point. The point before this parliament today, and what the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer as a test of leadership, is whether he will join with the government in amending the Migration Act so that the government can pursue its determined arrangement with Malaysia to transfer asylum seekers. That is the question before the parliament today.
Coming into the parliament today, I did expect to see these kinds of tactics from the opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition has to face up to a test—whether or not he is just full of slogans and sound bites or whether he will take seriously questions of Australia's national security. That is the key question after the High Court case: whether or not the Leader of the Opposition will pursue a strategy to wreck in his political interest or whether he will seek to work in the national interest. That is before the parliament for consideration and something the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer.
On the question of refugee signatory countries, as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, the government has entered into an arrangement with Malaysia. And in entering into that arrangement we have negotiated—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: on three occasions in this answer the Prime Minister has tried to redefine the question she was asked. It was a very straightforward question: does she stand by the commitment she made before the last election not to send boat people to any other country that had not signed the refugee convention? That is the question that the whole parliament and the country wants an answer to.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister must directly relate her response to the question.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In direct answer to the question: as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, the government has negotiated an arrangement with Malaysia where the refugee convention obligations this nation has freely assumed will be honoured in respect of the people that we transfer. This is the arrangement, which we have the most clear advice from experts within the Public Service, that will act as the clearest possible deterrent for people smugglers.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition who asked this question: I detect hypocrisy here. This is the Leader of the Opposition who, during the election campaign, said his policy, if he were Prime Minister, would be a 'boat phone'—that is, he would make calls to patrol boats as he sat at the Lodge or Kirribilli requiring them to turn boats around. He knew that was not possible, but he was pretending to the Australian people that he would tow those boats back to Indonesia, which is not signatory to the refugee convention. As to the outcome for the people on those boats, he was never going to worry himself about that.
So the Leader of the Opposition in the last election campaign marketed a sham policy behind a three-word slogan. If he had been able to implement it, it would have taken asylum seekers to a non-refugee convention signatory country with no protections. The issue now, post the High Court case, is: will the Leader of the Opposition finally deal with the facts of this policy debate and will he ensure, by working with the government to amend the Migration Act, that the government of the day can make the decisions it needs to make to have asylum seekers processed offshore or will he just go on wrecking? This is the test for the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Randall interjecting—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask that the member for Canning withdraw his interjections.
The SPEAKER: Order! I am unaware of what the member for Canning has said, but usually when somebody has risen to their feet with an objection, it is an indication to me that something may have been said that deserves withdrawal, and it may assist the House if the member for Canning withdraws.
Mr Randall: I withdraw.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:18): Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Given that Nauru has signed the refugee convention and Malaysia has not, why is the Prime Minister persisting with a policy that has been rejected by the High Court—and many in her own party—and which offends every principle that she has ever espoused? Further, why didn't the Prime Minister talk to the President of Nauru, when she sat next to him last week, about re-opening the Nauru detention centre that is the one proven success in the fight to stop the boats?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:19): To the Leader of the Opposition I say this: we made available to him a briefing so he could get the facts. He has the facts now. He has the facts from the experts who also served the Howard government. Coming into this parliament and trying to twist the truth just will not cut it. Those experts who sat with the Leader of the Opposition advised him that Nauru will not work. That is what they told him and he screams, 'Give it a go!' He has been told by the best advice available to government that Nauru will not work. He has been told by the best advice available to government that it will cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. So the policy proposition he is now putting before the Australian people is that he will rip money off Australian taxpayers to fund a solution that experts have told him will not work. Those same experts told him that Malaysia will send a hard-hitting deterrence message. You cannot have it more simply than that. It is clear that Malaysia will send a powerful message to smash the people-smugglers' business model. It is clear that Nauru will not work.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, just as he does when he is dealing with climate change, it may be that he wants to go before the Australian people and argue in the face of expert advice. He does that with climate change, where he says, 'Don't listen to the scientists.' He does it with climate change where he says, 'Don't listen to the economists.' And now in this area of policy he may well be saying to the Australian people that he rejects out-of-hand the advice of the Ambassador for People Smuggling Issues, the advice of the secretary of the department of immigration. That is a matter for him. He can go and argue that in the Australian community. What he ought not to do is to come to this parliament and not support legislation which would put executive government in the position of being able to make its best decisions about offshore processing.
I freely accept that there is a difference between me and the Leader of the Opposition. I have absorbed the facts and the advice and I am acting on them. Those facts and that advice spell out to me that we must do the Malaysia arrangement. The Leader of the Opposition, in denial of the facts, in denial of the advice, insists on Nauru. That is as it may be, but the proposition that will come before this parliament will be a proposition that will put executive government in the position to implement the policy that it wants to implement. We will implement Malaysia; we will implement a complementary centre in PNG. If the Leader of the Opposition is ever Prime Minister of this country then he can implement Nauru. But what he should not do, and this is the test for him, is to deny executive government the legislative authority to make that decision. Ironically, if he goes down that path of wrecking and denying the national interest, he is actually going down a path which would deny any future Liberal government, if it were ever elected, the ability to implement the solution it argues for. It is this point of national interest that the Leader of the Opposition must answer.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:23): I acknowledge that we have in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Peter MacKay, the Canadian Minister of National Defence, who is here for bilateral defence talks. Minister, you are accompanied by a fine array of braid! But on a more serious note, as we remember those victims of September 11, we note that there were 24 Canadian citizens lost. On an ongoing basis we note that Canada, as part of its contribution to ISAF in Afghanistan, has suffered 157 fatalities. You are a welcome guest today here in the chamber and Canada is a welcome ally.
Honourable members: Hear, Hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline for the House what steps the government is taking to combat people smuggling?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:25): I thank the member for Blair for his question. As the House is aware and the member for Blair is aware, the government determined a number of months ago to commence negotiations with Malaysia. We did that because we wanted to have a policy with the maximum deterrence effect. We wanted to have a policy that would work to smash the people smugglers' business model—a policy that would work to deter people from getting on leaky boats and potentially losing their lives at sea; a policy that would build on what was achieved in the regional forum at Bali; a policy that would make possible bringing 4,000 more genuine refugees to this country from Malaysia, many of them people who would have waited years and years for an opportunity for a new start and a new life; a policy so that we would not see people losing their lives, but we would smash the people smugglers' business model and take more genuine refugees. That was the right policy then and it is the right policy now.
In order to implement that policy, given the view taken by the High Court, we are determined to come to this parliament and seek to amend the Migration Act. The amendment that we bring to this parliament will be a broad amendment. It will enable this government, as it will enable any government in the future, to implement the policies and plans it believes best in relation to offshore processing. I understand that there is a difference between the government and the opposition on which policy and plan is the best one. The opposition has determined to support as its primary policy a processing centre in Nauru. That is despite the fact that we have clear advice that a centre in Nauru will not work. That is despite the fact that we have clear advice about the hundreds of millions of dollars of cost. That is in defiance of the advice that says people smugglers now know, because of processing on Nauru in the past, that people come from Nauru to this country. People smugglers now know that, of the people who were processed and resettled from Nauru, more than 90 per cent of them came to Australia, and so they are able to say to asylum seekers, whom they seek to prey upon and whose money they want to take, 'If you go to Nauru, you will get to Australia.' I want to send a very different message. I want to send a message which says, 'If you get on a boat then you will go to Malaysia.'
We have made a different decision from the opposition, based on facts, based on advice and based on reality. We are not out there trying to pretend that black is white the way that the Leader of the Opposition is. That debate can continue but what is vitally needed in the national interest is putting the Migration Act in a form that puts executive government in the position it believed itself to be prior to the High Court case—that is, that it can implement decisions as it sees fit about offshore processing. We await to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, in this vital area of national interest, whether he will continue with sound bites and slogans or whether he will stump up and work with the government on a solution to the legislative issues that we face as a nation following the High Court case. We await the answer.
Asylum Seekers
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:28): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement that Labor would end offshore processing:
… because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle.
Given your announcement today of a planned processing centre for asylum seekers on Manus Island, on what basis can the Australian people ever believe anything you say?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:29): Once again we see that when the opposition has a choice between talking about the future or talking about the past they always live in the past. The Leader of the Nationals seems to be unaware that the policy that he referred to was announced by the government in May. If he is interested in that policy I suggest he catch up with the policy announcements made at that time.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:30): I inform the House that we have in the galleries today a group of Indigenous students who are here in Canberra under the Work Experience in Government program of the Learn Earn Legend! program. They will be doing work experience in members' offices. On behalf of the House I wish them a warm welcome. Hopefully, for them—as for me—the day will get better after question time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. What is the most effective deterrent the government can put in place to deter people smuggling and irregular migration to Australia? What other options have been put forward and what would their impact be?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for Robertson for her question. The answer to the question is that the most effective deterrent for people smuggling is the arrangement negotiated between Australia and Malaysia.
The advice received by this government has been made available to the opposition. That advice is clear. The advice is that to break the people smugglers' business model you have to take away the product they sell. That advice says—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is not necessarily the hardest person to hear in this chamber, but on this occasion there was so much other noise it was difficult to hear even his voice. The chamber will remain silent. The minister has the call; he will be heard in silence.
Mr BOWEN: The advice is clear. The advice has been made available to the opposition. That advice is that to break the people smugglers' business model it is necessary to remove the product they sell. The product they sell is a better chance of resettlement in Australia. Well over 80 per cent of the people who arrive in Australia by boat begin that boat journey from Malaysia. The most important and clearest message we can send is to return them to where they began that boat journey—not to Nauru, where they will be processed and the vast majority resettled in Australia. This is an arrangement which was been negotiated with Malaysia in consultation with the UNHCR. It involves an increase in our refugee intake and improved protection outcomes across the region.
The very clear advice has now been made available to the Leader of the Opposition. We know the Leader of the Opposition is not big on experts. He does not like climate change experts, he does not like legal experts, he does not like experts when it comes to people smuggling. But the advice has been made clear: an outcome which involves Nauru alone, which would involve over 90 per cent of the people who are resettled from Nauru being resettled in Australia or New Zealand, is no disincentive at all.
We know Nauru will not work. We also know that it is an expensive option. The member for Cook said earlier this year that Nauru would cost 'significantly less' than the Malaysia arrangement. The opposition leader said that Nauru could be up and running 'at a relatively low cost'. We know costings are not their strong point but they got this one particularly wrong, because advice released by me on the weekend shows my department's estimate of the cost of a detention facility at Nauru over four years at just under $1 billion.
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan is warned!
Mr BOWEN: If you disagree with that, release your own costings. If the opposition do not agree with that they are free to release their own costings, but I doubt we will see that. This is just the operational cost, not the capital cost. Here is a test for the Leader of the Opposition. Last week the Leader of the Opposition said:
I think that our country should have the best border protection policy that the government of the day thinks that it needs and I’m prepared to work constructively to give the Government, to restore to the Government, the option of third country offshore processing which it says the High Court and the Solicitor-General have denied to it.
The situation is clear. The government believes that it needs the Malaysia arrangement. If the Leader of the Opposition is good to his word and is prepared to work for the national interest he will support legislation to enable the government to break the people smugglers' business model by the arrangement with Malaysia.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Since the decision of the High Court two weeks ago, has the minister sought to have the government's people-swap deal with Malaysia amended to remove the 800-person cap on asylum seekers to be transferred, or does it remain fixed at 800 persons? Given that 400 people have already arrived illegally by boat in recent weeks, since the agreement was signed, won't this cap soon be exhausted by the people smugglers?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:36): The situation is clear. There is an agreement with Malaysia for the transfer of 800 people. That remains. We believe the advice to us, which is that this is the best and most effective way to break the people smugglers' business model.
The member for Cook argues that Nauru would be a more effective disincentive. He says it is clear that Malaysia does not work because of the number of people that arrived after the announcement. If that logic applied it would apply to the Nauru announcement of the previous government. It is interesting to look at the figures: 1,998 people arrived after the announcement of Nauru in the same period—
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked whether the minister had contacted the Malaysian minister to see if he had changed the arrangement to deal with the policy flaw that he knows exists in his own policy.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member is now debating the point of order. The question has been asked, the minister is responding and he knows he has to respond in a directly relevant manner.
Mr BOWEN: The situation remains as it has been previously outlined—that is, the governments of Australia and Malaysia have agreed to the transfer of 800 people. The government of Malaysia has made it clear that they would review that arrangement at the end of the transfer of the 800 people, and I welcome the implication from the shadow minister's question that the opposition are prepared to support the government's legislation.
Cyclone Yasi
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:38): My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that it has now been eight months since Cyclone Yasi devastated Mission Beach and Cardwell, both totally dependent for economic survival to access to the sea, islands and reef? In eight months not a single action has been taken to restore this lost access. This has left 300 kilometres without any safe harbour. The federal government's quick and serious commitment in earmarking $950 million for North Queensland has not been matched by the moribund Queensland flood—not cyclone—recovery authority. In light of this, could the Prime Minister assure the House that this blatant neglect will be addressed and that the PM will make good the government's much appreciated commitment to essential safe harbour facilities at regular intervals along our major recreational asset, the Great Barrier Reef, its islands and seas?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:39): I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to travel with him to cyclone affected areas and we actually met with a number of people from Mission Beach, who talked to me about the safe harbour arrangements that he describes in the parliament today and which he certainly described to me during the course of that visit. So I do thank him for continuing to represent very strongly and continuously the needs of people in the local area.
What I believe the member for Kennedy would agree with is that the reconstruction work from the cyclone is progressing and that funds have been flowing to North Queensland, just as they are flowing in other parts of Queensland. The Cardwell Esplanade and Marine Infrastructure Recovery Project has been officially launched, marking an important step forward in plans to reconstruct Cardwell after the devastating effects of the cyclone. The local mayor, Bill Shannon, who the member for Kennedy and I had an opportunity to talk to when I travelled with him, said on 19 August this year that the launch of that project symbolised a new phase of recovery work for the region and that it was building something new and better for those towns.
All of that work has been possible because of the $15 million the state and federal governments have made available. Bill Shannon also said that he felt that restoring Cardwell foreshore to its former beauty and functionality was the best thing that could be done for the town, considering its importance as a tourist attraction and as a recreation and relaxation area for local residents. A 1.4 kilometre section of the Bruce Highway, part of the Cardwell foreshore, and the Clump Point and Dunk Island Jetty will also be reconstructed through this package.
Regarding the building of marine infrastructure, as raised directly by the member's question, I am aware that he is championing the cause and that he is passionate about building a safe boat harbour at Mission Beach. Earlier this year, he will remember, when he raised the matter with me I said the government would create an interdepartmental committee to look at these issues, and I understand the chair of the committee has met with the member for Kennedy. The committee will report back to the government and inform our consideration on this matter. In the meantime, of course, we will continue to deliver the $5.6 billion that is being provided for reconstruction after the summer of natural disasters and we will continue to work strongly with the cyclone affected communities. I thank the member for his question.
Economy
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (14:42): My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on the latest national accounts and what these accounts say about the strength of the Australian economy?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:42): I thank the member for Oxley for his question. The national accounts which were released last week show the underlying resilience of the Australian economy. The June quarter national accounts show that the economy grew by 1.2 per cent in the June quarter. What they showed was a strong bounce back from the natural disasters in Queensland of earlier this year, which the Prime Minister was just talking about—the impact of the floods and the very substantial impact of Cyclone Yasi. Also, they show that there is an underlying strength more broadly right across the Australian economy. What we see is rising incomes, very strong investment and also very solid consumption. Those are the building blocks of a strong economy.
If we go through the figures we can see that repeated time and time again. Corporate profits are growing strongly. There is also very solid wages growth. Businesses are investing with confidence, with strong growth in business investment: 1.7 per cent in the quarter and 10.2 per cent through the year. What this shows is an unprecedented investment pipeline that we have been talking about in this House through the past year. We also see that household consumption has been very solid: three per cent plus at trend. You would not necessarily think that was the case when you listen to some of the public commentary. Of course, some areas of the economy are soft, especially in retail, but overall Australians are still spending. Yes, they are saving more, but because their incomes are growing they are still spending at about trend. That was what was so pleasing about those figures.
We have seen the unemployment rate tick up a bit, to 5.3 per cent. That is still remarkably low considering what we are seeing elsewhere among developed economies. But the interesting thing in the figures of last week is that we saw that hours worked also went up. If we were to recalculate what that meant in terms of new jobs this year alone, if those hours had gone to new jobs, there would be 110,000 additional jobs created this calendar year. So, once again, we are seeing the underlying strength that I was talking about before. We have seen 140,000 more Australians in jobs over the past 12 months and we have seen three-quarters of a million new jobs since the government came to office. That is supported by everybody on this side of the House.
What all these figures confirm is that the Australian economy continues to outperform the economies of the rest of the developed world. We have done that despite the impact of the natural disasters which had a very big impact on our economy, and we have done it despite the fact that we have had continuing global instability over the past 18 months. I think these figures do serve as a reality check, particularly for those opposite who continue to talk the Australian economy down. For our part, what we celebrate with these figures is that the Australian economy has underlying strength. The Australian economy is one that can show strength despite everything that the world has been throwing at us.
So we do have a bright future. We should look at the Australian economy and say that it is like a glass that is more than half full. We should not be saying that the glass is less than half full. These are strengths that serve our country well and that give people the confidence and the security that they can earn a decent income and take home a pay cheque to their family each week. This country has come through the biggest economic crisis we have seen on the globe for 75 years and it has come through with strength. That is something we can all be proud of.
Asylum Seekers
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Since the decision of the High Court, has the minister sought any additional protections for asylum seekers to be transferred to Malaysia under the government's people-swap deal? If so, what additional protections have been secured?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:46): The answer to the honourable member's question is no, because the government is satisfied with the protections negotiated painstakingly with Malaysia over six months.
Employment
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government continue to ensure that Australians have both the benefit and the dignity of work in a changing but strong economy?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:47): I sincerely thank the member for her question. It enables me to advise the House that on 6 October the government will host a future jobs forum. It will follow the tax forum. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer has just outlined to the House, the fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong. Indeed, our economy is the envy of the world. We saw a good growth number. We continue to see unemployment at a far lower rate compared with countries like the US and the UK. We need to remind ourselves that we went into the global financial crisis with an unemployment rate around the same as the American unemployment rate. We have come out of the global financial crisis and into these days beyond with an unemployment rate that is pretty close to half the unemployment rate in the United States of America. So we are able to offer people the benefits and dignity of work, we are able to see growth in our economy and we are seeing rapid growth—turbocharged growth—in our resources sector, with more than $400 billion of investment in the pipeline.
We understand that this also means that our currency is very high. Our Australian dollar is high and will be high for some period of time to come. That does put pressure on other sectors of the economy—what we have referred to as patchwork pressures. I therefore believe it is important that we bring together representatives of business, of unions, of representative employer organisations and academics to talk about jobs for the future. Our economic fundamentals are strong today, but there is nothing more important to this government than Australians having jobs, which is why we acted so quickly and effectively to support jobs during the global financial crisis. It is why we continue to work to support jobs today. It is why we have put in place the policies and plans that will enable us to see jobs in the future. This includes our work in skills and apprenticeships; our work in human capital generally; our work in rolling out infrastructure in roads, rail and ports; our work in building the National Broadband Network and bringing that new technology to Australia because it will equal new jobs; our work in pricing carbon and the creation of a clean energy future and clean energy jobs; our work with the manufacturing sector to ensure that we continue to be a country that makes things—and we will continue to resist the opposition's calls to take hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars away from our manufacturing sector. We will resist the opposition's calls to do that because, unlike them, we want to see a country where we continue to make automobiles and engage in high-value-added manufacturing.
We believe it is an appropriate time, particularly following the tax forum, to bring together representatives to talk about jobs for the future. The government will be there and will be vitally interested in jobs. Of course, I expect the opposition to ignore the whole event because they are not interested in ensuring that Australians have the benefits and dignity of work.
Asylum Seekers
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that almost 30,000 non-residents in Malaysia have been caned between 2005 and 2010? In the wake of the High Court decision, why didn't the government seek new protections for asylum seekers transferred to Malaysia? Will the Prime Minister guarantee that none of the 800 asylum seekers to be transferred to Malaysia under the government's people-swap plan will be caned?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:51): In relation to the question, as the member may well know, we worked hard with Malaysia to negotiate a set of protections for asylum seekers who were transferred to Malaysia or who will be transferred to Malaysia under this arrangements. We negotiated protections in relation to their human rights and we certainly negotiated protections in relation to caning and other human rights questions. But can I also say to the member that I understand that, for political reasons, the opposition will continue to dispute the government's arrangement with Malaysia. I understand that. I understand that the opposition will continue to do that, even though they have now had access to the same advice available to government. That advice has told them—and this cannot be denied; this truth cannot be twisted by the opposition—that the Malaysia arrangement has the best deterrence effect. That advice has told them that Malaysia is the best option. There is no twisting and turning that gets away from that. That advice is in front of the opposition.
They may choose to walk away from that advice. They may choose, in the face of the best possible expert advice, to say: 'We choose the costly solution that won't work. We reject the solution that the experts say will work.' They may choose to send to people smugglers the message that says, 'Go to Nauru and you'll get a ticket to Australia.' They may choose to criticise the government as it sends a message that says, 'If you try to come to Australia, you'll go to Malaysia.' They may choose to play that wrecking politics. That is what we expect from this opposition. We expect them to act as a party of protest.
But the question before this parliament is not whether they will continue to play reckless, negative politics—because we know they will. The question before this parliament is whether the words of the Leader of the Opposition can be relied on. He has said, and I quote his words—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: The opposition are always very keen to get into questions of honesty.
Mrs Andrews: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. My question was very specific. It was in relation to caning of nonresidents in Malaysia and whether or not the Prime Minister was prepared to guarantee—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will relate her material directly and relevantly to the question.
Ms GILLARD: The question of course can only be properly answered in this way: the government will be bringing legislation to this parliament to give executive government the power it needs to have offshore processing. We will be relying on the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he said:
I think that our country should have the best border protection policy that the government of the day thinks that it needs and I’m prepared to work constructively to give the Government, to restore to the Government, the option of third country offshore processing which it says the High Court and the Solicitor-General have denied to it.
The real question before the member is whether she wants to join with the Leader of the Opposition in playing reckless politics or whether they want to act in the national interest and amend the legislation. The question is whether or not they are in any way serious about stopping the boats.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the government's clean energy future plan? Why is it important to take action on climate change now and what are the impediments to this?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:56): I thank the member for Petrie for her question. Two months ago the government released a plan for a clean energy future for Australia, and of course there has been considerable discussion of the plan since its release. It will ensure that Australia takes action to tackle climate change in the most economically efficient and environmentally effective manner. We developed this policy because the science on climate change is clear: climate change is occurring; human activity is contributing; and if it is left unchecked the Australian economy and our environment would be severely affected. No government acting responsibly can ignore that advice. A government must act, and this government has acted.
A carbon price is the cheapest and most effective way to cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy. It will create innovation. It will drive productivity improvements in our economy. It will reduce the emissions intensity of our economy. It will improve our long-term competitiveness. The carbon price will allow us to fulfil our obligation to future generations and to meet our responsibility to do a fair share to tackle climate change within and in partnership with the international community—and we must never lose sight of that responsibility as parliamentarians.
We released draft legislation last month and we have received over 300 submissions in response. We will be introducing the legislation to this House tomorrow. We have been debating these issues for decades. There have in fact been no fewer than 35 parliamentary inquiries into climate change since 1994. So we have been debating this now for 17 years in our parliament. The time for inaction has passed. It is time for the parliament to take the practical steps to cut pollution and drive the investment that we need in clean energy and energy efficiency. It is extremely important for the business community, because business needs the certainty over climate change policy. Business needs the certainty of the carbon price mechanism and what the carbon price will be so that it can invest in long-lived assets, in particular in sectors like the energy generation sector.
Notwithstanding all of the inquiries, all of the evidence, the science and the imperatives to act economically, the Leader of the Opposition opposes action on climate change. He attacks the scientists. He attacks the economists. He runs a baseless fear campaign in the community. He talks the economy down. He undermines consumer sentiment. He creates insecurity amongst working people about their jobs. He goes around terrifying pensioners. He makes false claims designed to frighten small business people, falsely claiming cost increases that will never materialise. The Leader of the Opposition should stop his baseless fear campaign and support an important reform.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Herbert again!
Mr COMBET: Let's not forget that John Howard, the former Prime Minister, supported a carbon price through emissions trading and took that policy to the last federal election that he contested, in 2007. Of course, in the last parliament, the government reached agreement with the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, about this policy issue. It has fundamentally been the destructive and opportunistic behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition that has impeded this parliament dealing with this issue—and deal with it we will. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. At any stage of his discussions on his five-for-one people swap deal with Malaysia, did the minister request the Malaysian government to change their laws or ratify any international conventions to specifically provide protection to refugees and asylum seekers sent to Malaysia? Was any indication ever given that Malaysia would be prepared to change these laws before he signed Australia up to it?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:01): Isn't it interesting: the more advice the opposition get that Malaysia is the most effective deterrent, the more they are determined to undermine it. I suspect the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cook are worried that it will undermine their cheap slogan business model.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. My question was: did the minister even bother to ask about protections?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Trade and the member for Flinders! Their bonding experience must have gone very well last sitting week. They will sit there quietly. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, having made his preamble, will now respond to the question.
Mr BOWEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we negotiated with the Malaysian government was a commitment to nonrefoulement, the fundamental principle of the refugee convention. What we negotiated is work rights for the people transferred. What we negotiated is that people will be treated with dignity and respect in accordance with human rights standards.
The member for Cook knows this because he went on a little fact-finding mission to Malaysia. He went on a little trip and took a little home video, which was very thoughtful. He stood outside a detention centre and said, 'This is where people will be sent.' Wrong. He said, 'People wouldn't have work rights.' Wrong. He was proven wrong on every single point. The negotiations resulted in the arrangement as announced and as outlined.
Mr Morrison: Did you ask them to sign the convention? Answer the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cook has asked his question.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Trade! The member for Fadden! The minister for immigration in response directly to the question.
Mr BOWEN: That was what was negotiated by the Australian government with the Malaysian government, in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, despite all of Morrison's myths. That is what was negotiated with the government—those protections for the people transferred. I think the government was more successful than the member for Cook would have been in his negotiations with President Ahmadinejad on his swap agreement with Iran.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Home Affairs and the member for Melbourne Ports are denying the member for Moreton the call.
Carbon Pricing
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (15:04): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of a carbon price in supporting the jobs of the future in this country? How has this approach been received and what is the government's response?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:04): I thank the member for Moreton for a very important question. The top priority for this government is to build a strong economy that provides high-value, high-paid jobs to Australians. In the 21st century, those economies that will be successful, those first-class economies, will be those that are substantially driven by clean energy, and most particularly renewable energy. That is the importance of the package that we are putting before the Australian people. The clean energy package that we are putting forward will provide the certainty to invest.
Dr Jensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Tangney I do not have to warn him!
Mr SWAN: We are firing the starter's gun for the investment across a whole new lot of areas of innovation, particularly clean energy jobs, which will come across wide sectors of our economy.
This initiative builds on what we have been doing so far. It builds on putting in place the NBN, another very important initiative to lift the productivity of our economy. It builds on the $3 billion package which was at the core of our recent budget to invest in the skills, education and training of our people. And, of course, it builds on what we are doing in taxation reform to make sure we give a tax break to those 2.7 million small businesses out there and to make a cut to the company tax rate.
This is a fundamental reform and it is in the tradition of the other big fundamental reforms that have made the Australian economy much more resilient. As I was saying before, the Australian economy is resilient, and one of the reasons it has been resilient is that governments in the eighties and the nineties in this country put in place a raft of reforms that have built that underlying strength. This is one of those reforms—a reform that we need to stay ahead of the game, to get the investment going into clean energy technologies to create the jobs of the future. Under our clean energy package there will be 1.6 million jobs created over the period to 2020. They will come from very important projects such as our investment in solar power up in Chinchilla or at Moree—very important projects not just in terms of construction but in terms of how they will drive the innovation for the future. All of these projects are a small step but an important step in making sure that we grab the opportunities of the 21st century in clean energy, just as they are doing it in other countries right around the world—in Denmark, in Germany, in China and right around the region. We must make this reform so we are not left behind. What that really means is that decision makers have to front up to their responsibilities. They cannot ignore the facts. They cannot ignore the case for investing in clean energy through putting a price on carbon and the fact that it is the most efficient way to do that. Those on the other side of the House want to deny the facts. They want to put their heads in the sand. They want to reject the 21st century. They do not understand the importance of clean energy. We on this side of the House understand the importance of getting the economic settings right so we can be prosperous in the 21st century and deliver the high-value, high-paid jobs all Australians deserve.
Asylum Seekers
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Former Prime Minister Mr Rudd stated in 2007 that the government needs to be willing to turn back boats on the high seas if it is to discourage people smugglers. Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement of the member for Griffith?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:08): Of course, what we want to achieve is effective turnarounds. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition must know is that the people smugglers' business model has changed. They do not sit in the boats now enabling our Navy and patrol boat personnel to turn the boats around. There is not a way of going out to sea and turning the boats around and taking them to Indonesia, for two reasons. Reason No. 1: the transnational crime of people smuggling, like other transnational crimes, mutates in the way that it goes about its business, depending on enforcement techniques. Knowing that boats are at risk of being turned around, what happens now is that people disable boats. So you are left with a stark choice: do you leave people to drown at sea or do you go and pick them up? Well, we are Australian. We go and pick them up—of course we do. Then, of course, the attitude of Indonesia has changed. Indonesia does not take boat returns.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition claims some expertise in foreign affairs. I know the Leader of the Opposition doubts it and he is looking to the member for Kooyong to take her job, but she must know that Indonesia does not take boat returns any longer and she must understand the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition pretending that Indonesia will take boat returns, pretending that boats can be turned around and taken to a non refugee signatory country, with no protections negotiated. And then they come in here and bleat—
Ms Julie Bishop: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a simple question. I asked if she agreed with the statement of the member for Griffith. Does she agree with his statement?
The SPEAKER: As in the past, there is no way that the chair can dictate the way in which the response is made, whether it is made by one word or by many, but the main thing is that the answer must be directly relevant. The Prime Minister is responding directly to the question.
Ms GILLARD: I was asked about the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs about turning boats around and I am explaining the factual circumstances. I know the opposition does not like facts, but facts are important. We have heard bleating today about human rights issues—bleat, bleat, bleat from the opposition—when the policy that they went to the last election with was that the Leader of the Opposition would direct patrol boat commanders to take boats to Indonesia, not refugee signatories, and he would not have cared less what happened to them afterwards—men, women and children. To pretend that he did is absurd nonsense. The hypocrisy of this is truly remarkable. The shadow minister for immigration is on the record saying he does not care less about refugee signatory countries.
So the answer to the deputy leader's question is this: I so much agree with the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that turning boats around is effective deterrence that I have worked with the minister for immigration in the modern circumstances where the crime of people smuggling has changed and where the attitude of Indonesia is different—I have worked with the minister for immigration to create a circumstance where, in effect, we are turning boats around—that is, people come here and they end up on a plane. It is the same process. They believe they are coming to Australia but they end up somewhere else. It is a virtual turnaround of boats. If the opposition had listened to the facts—
Mr Tony Smith interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Casey is warned!
Ms GILLARD: And screaming abuse does not make the facts any different. I do not know when the opposition will ever learn that screaming abuse does not change the facts.
Mr Tony Smith interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Casey will leave the chamber under 94(a) for one hour, having been warned.
Ms GILLARD: The opposition was advised that turning the boats around in the past, when it was possible, did work as a deterrent. They were advised that in the modern age Malaysia is the best deterrent. Why do they come into this place and play cheap politics with national interest questions? That is what the Australian people are entitled an answer to. What a ridiculous— (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (15:13): My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, how will the government support pensioners under its plan to put a price on carbon pollution? What are the risks to this support? How is the government responding to this?
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Herbert is now warned!
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (15:13): I thank the member for Shortland for her question. She knows that this government has been very active in supporting pensioners to make sure we can do everything possible to help them balance their budgets. Of course, we intend to support pensioners again by providing real and permanent increases to the pension as we put a price on carbon. By contrast, of course, this Leader of the Opposition is determined to do everything he possibly can to leave pensioners behind in his desperate scramble for the Lodge. Of course, we know it was this Leader of the Opposition in the previous Howard government that let the pension decline over 12 years that they were in government. It was this Leader of the Opposition, when he was a member of the Howard cabinet, who actually refused to increase the pension—refused and opposed a proposal to increase the pension that came before their cabinet. Now this Leader of the Opposition is proposing to leave pensioners behind yet again. He wants to claw back the pension increase that this government will deliver to pensioners as part of our carbon reforms. It was this Leader of the Opposition who, when asked at a doorstop in Perth whether he would claw back the pension increases that we are delivering, said, 'I make no apologies for saying "yes".' This Leader of the Opposition, as he wanders off, does not care two hoots about pensioners. He is the one who is going to claw back the pension increase that we intend to give to pensioners.
Under our plan we intend to deliver an increase to 3.4 million Australian pensioners to make sure that they get the protection and increases they need in their pensions. Pensioners will actually get, through a new Clean Energy Advance, a lump-sum payment which the opposition intends to claw back—to take back—from pensioners. There will be an increase of $250 for single pensioners, which will be clawed back by the Leader of the Opposition, and an increase of $180 for each member of a couple, which of course will be clawed back by those opposite.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite think it is a joke that pensioners are going to be frightened by their ridiculous behaviour here today. This government will deliver to pensioners. Those opposite will do what they always do, frighten pensioners and claw back the increases, which will then see pensioners go backwards.
Asylum Seekers
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm in this House that all the terms of the agreement with Malaysia, written and unwritten, on a people swap have been publicly disclosed by the government? Prime Minister, were there any other matters agreed with Malaysia during the negotiations for that agreement?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:17): We published our arrangement with Malaysia. We published the Solicitor-General's advice post the High Court case. We have made available to the Leader of the Opposition a briefing from experts. We will make available a briefing on the legislation. What we now need is the opposition to absorb the facts and to stop pretending they do not exist.
Climate Change
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (15:18): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. What action is the Australian government taking with the international community to ensure the reduction of carbon emissions from ships? Minister, what evidence is there that the world is acting to address climate change?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:18): I thank the member for Fowler for his question. Indeed the world is acting on climate change, contrary to what those opposite have to say. On 15 July maritime countries agreed to the first ever shipping emissions regulations. Fifty-five of the world's biggest seafaring countries agreed at the International Maritime Organisation to reduce climate emissions from shipping with a global agreement to reduce energy use in new vessels from 2013 onwards. Of course, Australia as a founding member of the IMO was a key player in this action.
This agreement represents the first ever mandatory global greenhouse gas reduction regime for an international industry sector. It is an international industry sector that has come together, regardless of nationality, to put in place an international regulatory regime to take action on climate change. The agreement will force all ships over 400 tonnes built after 2013 to improve their efficiency by 10 per cent, rising to 20 per cent between 2020 and 2024 and 30 per cent for ships delivered after 2024. This agreement is expected to lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions in shipping of 45 to 50 million tonnes a year by the year 2020. We know that there are economic productivity gains from good action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as is the case with shipping. There will be savings of some $5 billion a year by 2020, once again reinforcing this government's view that good environmental policy is also good economic policy.
Shipping currently accounts for about three to four per cent of man-made CO2 emissions worldwide. This figure is expected to rise by six per cent by 2020, with emissions doubling by 2050 if no action is taken. It is consistent with this government's view, which is why we have also promoted a shipping policy that will support coastal shipping and support greater use of shipping as the most greenhouse-gas-efficient transport mode around our coast. This is another example of the government's good environmental policy. Taking action on climate change is consistent with international action and is good for jobs and good for our economy.
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister detail the inquiries she or her office have made into the almost daily revelations in the media of the misuse of union members' funds by the leadership of the Health Services Union including by the member for Dobell? If she cannot tell the House what inquiries she or her office have made, how can she then assert that the member for Dobell continues to enjoy her full confidence?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:22): I am not surprised we have ended up here. My answer to the member for Sturt is exactly the same as it was in the last sitting fortnight, when the opposition was out there trying to profit through smear and mud. I presume we will see it during this sitting fortnight as well. My answer in relation to matters that the member for Sturt refers to is there is a Fair Work Australia investigation in progress. That proper process should work through to its conclusion. I will continue to take that view consistently about Labor members in this parliament and about Liberal members in this parliament. Of course, the member for Sturt, the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition generally are stuck in hypocrisy on this question.
Environmental Conservation
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (15:23): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Would the minister update the House on the government's recent actions to improve the protection of Australia's unique environment. How have these been received and what is the government's response?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (15:23): I thank the member for Capricornia for the question. During the parliamentary break over the last fortnight I was able on behalf of the government to sign off on the largest ever National Heritage listing on land in the West Kimberley. What we have done there has been consistent with a long legacy of environmental protection, whether it be going back to the Franklin River, Kakadu National Park or the Daintree Rainforest. In the Kimberley with the National Heritage listing we have some of the most spectacular parts of our continent: the Buccaneer Archipelago, with some of the highest tides in the world—there were 11-metre tides on the day I was there—where waterfalls are formed between the islands simply at the change of tide each day; the magnificent gorges in that great pathway along the Gibb River Road; and the Mighty Fitzroy River. For 200 kilometres, stretching alongside that West Kimberley coast, we have the most extraordinary trail of dinosaur footprints. We have an internationally regarded, extraordinary trail of dinosaur footprints which go to a level of heritage not found elsewhere on the continent.
There are great stories of Indigenous cultural heritage: as well as the battle at Noonkanbah Station and Jandamarra, we also have the extraordinary story there of Fossil Downs Station and the pastoral industry, the largest overland droving expedition in the history of the nation. Unsurprisingly, when environmental outcomes of this nature are happening, they met with an objection from the Liberal premier. Forgetting that this originated from an agreement with the WA government—that was how it all started—we had objections from the Liberal premier claiming that we were going to jeopardise petrol stations, towns, camps, rubbish tips and bottle shops with a heritage listing. I make clear, in case the WA government has not caught up with it, that no garbage tips and no bottle shops or petrol stations were heritage listed. But some of the most extraordinary and special parts of Australian history and Australia's heritage formed part of that heritage listing.
A heritage listing of itself is not a lockup—it does not mean that development cannot occur. But it does mean that, when development does occur, it has to take account of the values which have formed part of that listing. Across the 19 million hectares of the West Kimberley there are values which should properly be borne in mind in any future development applications. It does mean that the aspirations of some, including the WA Premier, who have talked about Broome becoming a future Dubai, will not see wholesale development throughout the Kimberley. It does mean that the area will not be wrecked. It does mean that the Kimberley will not—and the WA Premier has suggested that this would be a good thing—end up looking like the Pilbara. But it does mean that, within the West Kimberley, the values that should be protected will be protected.
Just as when we protected the Franklin, the Liberals opposed it; just as when we protected Kakadu, the Liberals opposed it; just as when we protected the Daintree Rainforest, the Liberals opposed it; so, too, when we protect the West Kimberley, the Liberal premier opposes it. When the Libs win, the pathway is the same: the environment always loses. Whether you are looking at the national parks at the moment, where they are trying to turn them into cattle farms or turn the river red gum forests into places that are simply there for the collection of firewood, the pathway is the same. Good environmental outcomes only come when government is on the Labor side of the House.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:27): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: An article in the Age today—'Reef safeguard cut back'—purports to make a suggestion of a change in policy which is in my area and names me. The government does not, of course, comment on the content of classified US cables; however, the position has not changed since the policy in question was introduced in 2006. Between 1 January 2007 and 31 March 2011, 4,197 ships transited the Torres Strait. 4,197 of them had pilots onboard.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
The SPEAKER: I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports No. 3 —Therapeutic Goods Regulation: Complementary Medicines, No. 4 —Indigenous Employment in Government Service Delivery, and No. 5 —Development and Implementation of Key Performance Indicators to Support the Outcomes and Programs Framework.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
The SPEAKER: After discussion with members of the Speaker's panel and the whips towards the end of the last parliament, I agreed to allow members defeated at the last election to submit a statement of thanks and appreciation relating to their service in the House. I present to the House a copy of the statements I have received.
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. I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—Funding agreement 2010-14 between the Commonwealth of Australia and Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited.
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Civics and electoral education—Government response.
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Committee—Report 421: The role of the Auditor-General in scrutinising government advertising—Government response.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:30): by leave—I move:
That the time and order of business for the sitting tomorrow, Tuesday 13 September 2011, be as follows, unless otherwise ordered:
(a) the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 12 noon; and
(b) government business have priority from 12 noon until 2 pm.
As agreed with the opposition and notified publicly, this is in order for the clean energy bills to be introduced into the parliament tomorrow.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
United States of America: Terrorist Attacks
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (15:30): by leave—As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition noted earlier, yesterday marked 10 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States of America. Even 10 years on, the events of that day are difficult to comprehend. The death and destruction caused by those acts of premeditated terror must always be remembered for what they were—horrific crimes committed against innocent people. We must remember the victims and the loved ones left behind.
We should also remember the extraordinary courage of the police officers, fire fighters and other emergency responders who risked, and in many cases gave, their lives to rescue others. The memory of those who lost their lives and the pain of their families strengthens our resolve to protect our communities from terrorism and to stop the spread of ideologies of hate and violence.
Remembering the victims of terrorism
The 10th anniversary of September 11 is a time for our nation to remember not only the victims of those attacks but also the victims of terrorism around the world since then. Sadly, we have seen terrible events in the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, the United Kingdom, Spain and many other parts of the world. The recent July 2011 attack in Norway reminds us that terrorism is an international crime and that no country is immune from this threat. Indeed, Australians have been directly affected by terrorism and violent extremism over the past decade.
Since 2001, more than 110 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks overseas, including 88 people in the first Bali bombings of 2002. In pausing to reflect on the decade that has passed, we remember these Australians who lost their lives in these senseless acts of violence. We must honour these Australians by learning the lessons from the attacks that caused their untimely deaths, so we can reduce the risk of further attacks, both within Australia and overseas.
Australia’s National Security— a decade after September 11 2001
The September 11 attacks on the United States changed the global security environment probably forever. While terrorism continues to threaten peace and security, Australia is better equipped to deal with it now than we were a decade ago.
The Australian government’s highest priority must always be to protect the safety and security of its citizens. In partnership with our international friends and allies, we have acted decisively to strengthen our national security and reduce the risk of terrorism and extremist violence. We have done this by identifying and addressing our vulnerabilities, and creating effective layers of security both domestically and globally.
Since September 11, spending on national security has increased significantly in response to this challenge. Investment in national security (including defence) has increased from approximately $18 billion in 2001-02 to over $33 billion in 2011-12, around $7 billion of that on domestic security matters. The government has adopted a comprehensive, holistic counter-terrorism strategy which is essential to these efforts. We have enhanced intelligence, investigative and law enforcement capabilities. We are building strategic partnerships with businesses and the broader community to protect critical infrastructure, including technological and cybersecurity.
We are ensuring we have strong laws to deal with those who prepare for or carry out acts of terrorism. We are continually improving international legal cooperation and intelligence sharing in relation to counter-terrorism. And we are strengthening preventive measures to counter violent extremism before it takes seed.
Intelligence
Effective intelligence, information sharing and law enforcement are essential in the effort to defeat terrorists. Domestically and overseas our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies have worked together tirelessly to detect and disrupt threats to our national security. This collaboration, perseverance and vigilance have averted tragedy on our own shores.
Since 2000, four major terrorist plots have been disrupted in Australia. To date, 38 individuals have been prosecuted as a result of counter-terrorism operations and, while some matters are still before the courts, 22 have been convicted. One can only imagine what might have happened if the plans of these individuals had been successfully carried out, not only in personal injury, death and destruction to property but also the damage that it would have done to our vibrant multicultural community and culture of tolerance. Our response to the threat of terrorism involves every level of government. This approach reflects the shared understanding of all levels of government that national security is not simply a Commonwealth policy issue.
Countering violent extremism and building resilience
The Australian government, like its counterparts in the United States and United Kingdom, understands that addressing the causes of radicalisation that lead to violent extremism is crucial to tackling terrorism in the future. Immediately after the September 11 attacks there was much focus on international law enforcement, tough terrorism laws, and physical security measures, all of which have delivered results through the detection and deterrence of terrorist activity. What was less appreciated was that a strong counterterrorism response is needed, and that strong counterterrorism response requires strategies to lessen the appeal of extremist ideologies that fuel terrorism in the first place.
While terrorism seeks to divide and destroy by raising fear, it fails when communities work together to build upon and adhere to our shared principles and values, and remain united and resilient in partnership. Security experts warn that the greatest threat to Australia is, in fact, home-grown extremism. Agencies like ASIO and the Australian Federal Police do an excellent job in helping to keep Australia safe. But they can't do it alone. The government's Countering Violent Extremism program works with these agencies and local communities to prevent radicalisation of those in Australia who are targeted by extremist messages.
All community leaders have a responsibility to assist in building our tolerant and inclusive society that is itself a powerful tool against the emergence of extremism. Communities have many roles to play, including identifying and supporting vulnerable individuals who may choose a path away from violence, and developing localised solutions to address vulnerabilities and grievances, and the government expresses its appreciation for the support it has received from relevant communities.
Laws and enforcement
September 11 showed us we must be prepared to identify and combat threats to our national security that are within and extend between nations, economies, businesses, communities and individuals. We need to continually examine, review and calibrate our laws and practices to ensure we properly equip our security and intelligence agencies and that we focus their efforts appropriately to meet the challenges and threats within Australia and also internationally.
In 2010 and 2011 the government amended national security legislation to ensure that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools that they need to fight terrorism, while ensuring the laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and accountability measures. These amendments were also designed to ensure these agencies are better able to assist each other and share information and to have secondment between agencies of relevant officers and employees—while at the same time maintaining the principle of privacy and respect for personal liberty.
The appointment of an Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Mr Bret Walker SC, reflects the Australian government’s commitment to ensuring our national security and counterterrorism laws provide a balanced and proportionate response to the threat of terrorism. And because we live in a highly globalised environment which makes it easier for malicious actors to operate from overseas, the government is strongly focused on enhancing international legal and law enforcement cooperation—so laws designed to counter terrorism are connected and harmonised between nations.
Conclusion
While the attacks of September 11 2001 killed thousands, the decade that has followed shows us that terrorism has not and cannot undermine our way of life. Osama bin Laden’s death was an important milestone in the international fight against anti-Western, transnational terrorism, and a blow to the morale of al-Qaeda and those it inspires. But as President Obama reminded us:
… his death does not mark the end of our effort.
In concluding today, let me say that terrorists can kill, maim and destroy property, but no-one can weaken our values of humanity and freedom, or our belief in democracy and the rule of law, and this is unquestionably the greatest weapon we have against terrorism.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Stirling to speak for 10½ minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr McCLELLAND: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Keenan speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 10½ minutes.
Question agreed to.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:42): I thank the Attorney for his statement. Today being the 10th anniversary of the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, it is very appropriate that the parliament mark and acknowledge the event, as we did at the start of question time today. On this anniversary it is particularly appropriate that we remember the thousands of innocent people killed and their loved ones who are left behind. We should particularly remember the Australians who were amongst those killed in this tragedy. We should also remember the incredible courage of those police officers, firefighters and emergency personnel who risked—and in some cases lost—their lives trying to rescue others. The coalition joins with the government in asserting that the memory of those who lost their lives only strengthens our resolve to protect Australians from terrorist attack and to stop the spread of ideologies of violence and hate which breed such attacks.
As was noted by President Obama of the United States in his letter to the Prime Minister today, former coalition Prime Minister John Howard was in Washington when the terrorists struck the US on September 11. From that time, the former coalition government provided over $10.4 billion of funding up to the 2010-11 year to enhance Australia's national security and counterterrorism capabilities by: increasing the capacity of our intelligence agencies; boosting Australia's aviation, maritime and border security; and enhancing our capacity to respond to and manage emergencies. In government, the coalition increased regional and global cooperation in law enforcement, customs activities and legal assistance to boost the fight against terrorism and transnational crime. The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on Australian soil and few involving Australians abroad testifies to our substantial success.
In this vital area, it is important that the Gillard government continue to build on the good work of its predecessor. Keeping the Australian people safe is the most basic task of government. It was my great privilege to be a member of a coalition government which left Australia economically, militarily and diplomatically stronger than it had ever been. The coalition agrees that antiterrorism intelligence operations are indeed a vitally important element of our national security infrastructure. Thanks to the hardworking men and women of our law enforcement and security agencies, Australia's counterterrorism capability is extensive and the public can be confident that any terrorism incident can be responded to and dealt with effectively.
On the 10th anniversary of September 11, we reflect on the thousands of lives that were lost. As former Prime Minister John Howard said:
Terrorists oppose nations such as the United States and Australia not because of what we have done but because of who we are and because of the values that we hold in common.
These values of freedom and democracy are values that are worth fighting to protect. Mr Howard's trip to Washington on 11 September 2001 had been timed to mark the 50th anniversary of the ANZUS military alliance which commits Australia, New Zealand and the United States to come to the support of each other if their countries are attacked. The decision of the Australian government to invoke article 4 of the ANZUS Treaty following the 11 September attacks was a testament to the closeness of the relationship between the United States and Australia. The coalition strongly believes that the ANZUS Treaty is of fundamental importance to both our countries, and the goodwill and mutual support implicit within it should never be taken for granted.
Former President Bush, speaking at the Ground Zero commemoration service earlier today, quoted the words of Abraham Lincoln over century and a half ago when he sought to console a mother who had lost all five of her sons in the Civil War. President Bush, who was president on 11 September, said Abraham Lincoln 'understood the cost of sacrifice, and reached out to console those in sorrow as best he could'. In a November 1860 letter to Lydia Bixby, Lincoln wrote in one passage quoted by Bush:
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
The remark follows another moving passage Lincoln wrote:
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save.
For the surviving members of the families of the victims of 9-11 these are moving words, particularly so for the literally hundreds of firefighters and police who died running into the burning twin towers that day.
It is important that we remember that no terrorist act large or small will weaken our commitment to democracy and freedom. Nobody should underestimate how much the world has changed since 11 September 2001. However, it is vital on this anniversary that we reaffirm and remind ourselves that the terrorists have not and will not succeed in their goals. We have faced their challenge head on and we continue to prevail. On this anniversary I thank all the hardworking men and women of the Australian security, intelligence and military agencies who have protected our freedom since that day.
(Quorum formed)
BILLS
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (15:51): I rise to speak in support of the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. The bill provides for the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office and the appointment and functions of a parliamentary budget officer. The bill is based on the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office.
The Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office was established shortly after the swearing in of the 43rd Parliament and was charged with the objective of examining the proposal to establish a parliamentary budget office, to report no later than 31 March 2011. The committee made 28 recommendations, from the broad recommendation to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office dedicated to serving the Australian parliament through to detailed recommendations as to how the Parliamentary Budget Office should be established to ensure appropriate authority, independence and accountability. The role of the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office, along with resourcing and physical location, was also dealt with in the committee's recommendations.
As a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office, I congratulate the government for acting promptly on the recommendations of the committee and for having this matter now before the parliament for legislative consideration. I heard the member for Goldstein complaining earlier in this debate that it has taken a whole 12 months to get to this point, but the fact is that within a matter of weeks after the parliament was formed this committee was established and it handed down its report at the end of March. In fact, it has only taken a matter of months for this legislation to be drafted to ensure that we can get the Parliamentary Budget Office up and running.
This bill seeks to amend the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, which governs the parliamentary departments, and other acts to establish the Parliamentary Budget Office and the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as well as the purpose, functions and governance of the Parliamentary Budget Office. The bill covers the PBO, as it is known, to ensure that it will be independent and dedicated to serving the Australian parliament through the provision of non-partisan and policy neutral analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of policy proposals. Through the PBO, the bill will enhance the credibility and transparency of Australia's already strong fiscal and budget frameworks and it will promote greater understanding in the community about the budget and fiscal policy. Most importantly, it will ensure that the Australian public can be better informed about the budget impact of policies proposed by members of the parliament, particularly during elections. The PBO will also help ensure that the Australian people are never again put in the situation they were at the last election when we saw the Liberal Party try to hide its $11 billion budget black hole.
It is important to take the House through some of the key elements of this bill. Firstly, the bill will establish the Department of the Parliamentary Budget Office as a fourth parliamentary department. It was noted by the joint select committee that the majority of proponents for a PBO strongly support establishing, through dedicated legislation, the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as an independent officer of the parliament, similar to the Auditor-General. The government supported this view. The functions of the Parliamentary Budget Officer are outlined in the bill's proposed new section 64E, which prescribes:
(1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer has the following functions:
(a) outside the caretaker period for a general election—to prepare policy costings on request by Senators or Members of the House of Representatives under section 64H;
(b) during the caretaker period for a general election—to prepare policy costings on request by authorised members of Parliamentary parties or independent members under section 64J;
(c) to prepare responses (other than policy costings) to requests relating to the budget by Senators or Members of the House of Representatives;
(d) to prepare submissions to inquiries of Parliamentary committees on request by such committees;
(e) to conduct, on his or her own initiative (including in anticipation of requests referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d)), research on and analysis of the budget and fiscal policy settings.
Proposed section 64F outlines what the arrangements will be for obtaining information from Commonwealth bodies. This bill will allow the PBO to access information from Australian government agencies through a negotiated memorandum of understanding in circumstances where the release of information is consistent with other legislative requirements, including being guided by the principles established under the Freedom of Information Act. This is consistent with recommendation 13 of the joint committee. The committee favoured a memorandum of understanding over a compulsion to provide information on the ground that it would facilitate more productive working relationships between the PBO and government agencies.
We have heard that the coalition is proposing amendments and that it has also submitted a private member's bill to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer power to direct agencies to provide information. The committee flagged concerns with providing these powers to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, including the potential for this to inhibit productive working relationships with government agencies. The coalition would give the officer powers to access information despite any other law and there would be no controls over the officer then disclosing information it receives to members and senators if it relates to their request. This is, of course, quite contrary to the coalition's arguments that there should not be costings released in relation to publicly released policy commitments during an election or policy costings requested by various members and senators, as outlined in the proposed bill. However, when the coalition talks about the powers of the PBO to get information from departments it is a very different story. It wants to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer full powers to investigate and to have no restrictions on disclosure of that information.
The committee considered that the relationship of the Parliamentary Budget Officer with government agencies would be crucial to its success not only because the PBO would require information and data held by government agencies but also because it may need the assistance of agencies in making the best use of that information and data. This is outlined at paragraph 4.103 of the committee's report. The committee goes on to state at paragraph 4.104:
Further, there may be instances where, by working together on the kinds of information required, the agencies can better understand the ongoing needs of the PBO. The relationships between the PBO and Government agencies might also evolve over time, possibly leading to greater efficiencies and enhanced products for Senators, Members and committees.
Despite this being the unanimous view of committee members from both sides of the parliament we have seen opposition members come before this chamber today arguing the complete opposite and putting up no argument as to why the comments, findings and recommendations made by the committee should not be followed.
Other key provisions proposed in this bill, importantly, go to costings. The first one is 64J, which deals with requests for costings of policies during caretaker mode. There has been a lot of discussion from opposition members who have spoken on this bill in relation to 64J and the public release, 64L. Clause 64J extends rights to have policies costed during an election. It allows for minor parties and Independents to get their respective publicly announced policy commitments costed by the new Parliamentary Budget Office. And 64L applies in relation to a policy costing request that is made under 64J before polling day during the caretaker period for a general election. Proposed section 64L(2) states:
As soon as practicable after a policy costing request has been made, and before polling day for the election, the Officer is required to release publicly the request and the policy costing.
This is the point that the opposition are so opposed to and are seeking to amend.
They believe that there should be an independent body. They believe in election costings, so they say, but they are arguing that these costings should not be publicly released. This goes against what the Liberal Party have believed in in previous decades, including when they were in government. In fact, in the explanatory memorandum for the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill circulated by Mr Costello on 11 December 1996, Mr Costello stated, in relation to the importance of transparency, 'The intention of part 8 of the charter is to make available to both the government and the opposition, resources of the departments of the Treasury and Finance during the caretaker period to cost election commitments so that the public can be made fully aware of the fiscal impact of such commitments.' Mr Costello also said:
This is the kind of reform which, when enacted, will be a permanent feature, making sure that Australia’s economic policy is run better, making sure that the public is kept better informed, making sure that there is transparency in economic policy in this country.
The member for Goldstein has argued today about what happened during the 2010 election. The Liberal Party's view is that the methodology of the costings was flawed and that they came under scrutiny through the media as a consequence of their costings. But the fact is that they are not standing here today arguing about the methodology of the costings, which is dealt with in a number of sections in this bill. They could have argued about the methodology and said what they believe in, despite what is set out in 64G relating to approaches et cetera to be used in preparing policy costings, but they are not. This is not about costings; this is not about methodology. This is about the costings of the Liberal Party's policies being released to the public. They believe in accountability and transparency when it suits them but when it comes to election time they just do not want anyone to know.
I have outlined some of the key reforms. There is some argument from the opposition in relation to policy costings outside of the caretaker mode. A number of members of the opposition have stood in this House today and tried to argue that requests by individual members and senators will be publicly released so that there is no confidentiality at all. They have argued around why this is wrong but they have completely ignored—I would say it is deliberate and if it is not deliberate they have not read the bill—the fact that the bill clearly states, consistent with the recommendations of the committee, that prima facie the Parliamentary Budget Office will release costings and requests publicly, but that is unless the member or senator makes a request that it be kept confidential—
Mr Briggs: Outside caretaker mode.
Mrs D'ATH: outside of caretaker mode. I hear the member for Mayo interject. The fact is that there are members, including the shadow Treasurer, who have stood here today at the dispatch box and tried to argue that no such provision exists. The shadow Treasurer tried to argue here that even outside of caretaker mode these things would be released. In fact, that is ignoring what the bill actually outlines.
The fact is the bill makes provision, consistent with the recommendations, for confidentiality. Those confidentiality provisions do not exist in one area, and that has to do with caretaker mode. Why? Because the government believes that it is extremely important that all parties who release their policies while we are in caretaker mode should also publicly release the costings for those policies. Major parties cannot run around and announce policies during caretaker mode and then not have to explain the costings to anyone. The public has a right to know what those costings are. The fact is that time and time again opposition members have stood up in this House today and argued that that information should not be publicly released. Why? They do not like what happened in 2010, when they were shown to have a massive black hole.
They do not ever again want to have their black holes shown up in relation to budget shortfalls or anything else. The fact is that the public have a right to know. The government is more than happy to put its costings up in relation to its publicly announced policies, as should the opposition. They should stop trying to use this bill, and their private member's bill, as a way of getting around that. This is not an opportunity. They should stand by what Mr Costello said when he introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty and looked at this area. He said that it is important to have this part of public policy be transparent. It should go on indefinitely. It does not matter who is in government it should be the practice that these costings are publicly released.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (16:07): I enjoy following the member for Petrie and her contributions to this place and working with her on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. But I will just bring her up on a couple of points that she made in her contribution to the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. She made the point at the end of her contribution about the Charter of Budget Honesty and black holes. Of course, that was born of the great, famous Labor black hole from the 1996 election campaign, when the former Labor government did not tell the truth about the state of the budget leading into the 1996 election campaign, leading to the need for specific legislation to deal with the dishonesty of the former Labor government and to ensure that an opposition coming in to government would at least know before an election what numbers they might be dealing with, rather than being faced with a $10 billion black hole following an election, as the Howard-Costello team were when they were elected in 1996—as colleagues on this side of the chamber well remember.
The member makes an interesting point when referring back to former Treasurer Peter Costello and trying to make the political point that the Labor Party are somehow the holders of all virtue when it comes to pre-election costings of their policies. It was not so in government up until 1996, and it certainly was not so when they were in opposition.
This is an extremely important bill for the well-functioning operation of our democracy. It is very difficult on the opposition side of the chamber to undertake and develop significant policy reform in this country without understanding the fiscal costs of the policies. There is no doubt about that. I see the shadow minister for the environment sitting at the table. He of course has a very significant responsibility in a difficult area, and it is only fair and right that he, like other members of this place on this side, should have access to detailed and comprehensive information relating to the policies being considered for putting before the Australian people.
If we want to put the reforms into place in this country which will help our next generation and will help us all achieve what we wish—which is to leave this place in better shape than what we found it—we should be arming MPs on all sides with the tools to be able to do so, in my view. Such a reform was announced by the former Leader of the Opposition in a budget-in-reply speech some time ago. That reform is long past being necessary—it is now time for it to be enacted. It is a pity that it has taken the opposition moving a private member's bill in this place today for the government to finally get its act into gear. It has been a long time waiting for this bill, and the one we see before us today is a flawed version of what it should have been. Fundamentally and essentially what a parliamentary budget office should be able to do is provide independent and genuine third-party analysis of the fiscal impact of parties' policies, not just leading into an election campaign, in a caretaker period, but during the term.
The media and the general public are increasingly demanding, particularly right now, that those of us engaged in the policy debate begin to outline how we think the economic future and wellbeing of our country will be managed. That is an important debate for us to have, and it is an important duty of an opposition to outline its alternative. It is not possible to outline your alternative in a genuine, detailed fashion if you do not have the numbers—the advice, such as economic projections and modelling of the impact of your policies.
A political game is played on budget costings in this country in election campaigns, and we all partake in it. It happens at the federal level and at the state level. Inevitably, incoming governments find black holes. Inevitably, outgoing governments claim they are not there. People in general shake their heads in bewilderment. But if we want to have a stronger policies, if we want to have more discussion about necessary reforms—and I think right now we are at the beginning of a period where we are going to need substantial reforms to remain competitive in our country—we need the tools in this place to be able to operate effectively as members of parliament, as oppositions, as Independent members of parliament and as third parties, as well as the executive of government.
The executive of government has the high-quality tools available to it to do that job. We know the Treasury department is full of very competent, very smart people who understand the budget and the impact of fiscal policy very well. They do not always get it right, it must be said. Many times their projections are off; they are either short or long on the projections for revenue or expenditure—which is to be expected in a budget of some $350 billion. It is right and proper for a government to engage with its Treasury department, with its finance department, to get advice on policies that they are considering implementing through the executive process of government.
But, equally, it makes sense for oppositions to be doing the same with policy development. You do not get these things right at first blush; you need to go back and reconsider, to look at numbers and impacts. Things change. Numbers change. Forecasts come out half yearly about fiscal numbers and impacts of policies. So it is right that oppositions should be able to engage with an independent budget office and get the best information available and the best policies to present to the Australian public—because, ultimately, that is in all of our interests.
So the provision in this bill to take away confidentiality of requests for members of parliament when it is in caretaker mode is nothing but short-term politics by a government who desperately want to use the politics costing at the next election campaign without thinking through the impact it will have on their own political organisation when they will inevitably go into opposition in some stage in the future.
Reflecting upon this debate prior to speaking today, I was drawn to something that the shadow Treasurer and member for North Sydney made a reference to earlier, and that is that each of us in this place, on the Labor side and on the Liberal side, try and make it harder for the opposition—no doubt about that. I notice that Senator Nick Sherry, when he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate when Peter Costello first moved the Charter of Budget Honesty, said:
The pre-election costings regime is … deficient in a number of respects … Only costings of previously announced policies is allowed—that is, policy decisions would have to be made on the basis of incomplete information and be announced.
That is exactly what the Labor Party is seeking to do with this bill, in that they are refusing confidentiality during an election campaign for their own political purposes—as if all policies are held in perpetuity, as if things do not change. They want to release all the information, even if it is a policy that you decide not to proceed with because maybe the information you have got from the Parliamentary Budget Office tells you you cannot afford to do it this time. In the future, with at least the next election campaign and most probably the ones post that, we will have policies from both major parties, I presume—certainly from our side—which will be about reducing the expenditure of government. They will be about reducing how much the government spend on programs. They will be not so much about more expenditure and spending promises, as we have seen in election campaigns in recent history. With the Greens, of course, we will have a whole series of policies which will spend a lot of money. It will be fascinating to see if the Parliamentary Budget Office can even estimate how much money some of their policies will actually cost.
Mr Fletcher: There may not be enough zeros.
Mr BRIGGS: There may not be enough zeros and there will certainly not be enough ink in the money-printing machine at the Reserve Bank to keep up with what the Greens would like to do with the Australian budget. But, equally, I think that we should enshrine in this place the right of the Greens to get advice on their policies—and we should have done so by now.
This bill is flawed, however, and there are very good proposals by the member for North Sydney on how we can improve this bill. They are simple amendments which do three important things in the main, if we go back to the fundamentals of why we want a parliamentary budget office in the first place. The first area is to strengthen the functions of the PBO. I quote: 'These amendments seek to broaden the functions of the PBO to include preparations of economic forecasts and budget estimates. This will essentially broaden the scope of the PBO.'
Of course the Parliamentary Budget Office needs to provide economic data to the opposition, to the Independent members, and even to the Greens, on the state of the economy, on the impact to the budget of different decisions and different plans and the impact of decisions made by the Reserve Bank—because they are rightfully respected as an independent institution. These are all decisions which should be made on the best advice available. I think we all agree on that. The government's bill is flawed because it does not give the PBO enough room, enough scope, in that respect.
The second amendment by which we seek to improve this bill is to improve information-gathering powers and secrecy. Our amendments will strengthen the information-gathering powers of the government's bill and affirm the independence of the PBO. How can they get the information to do their job? If you have got a health policy with significant expenditure off the Commonwealth budget, and which will have big impacts on your fiscal decisions, the PBO must have the power to go to the health department and get the relevant information. It is quite clear and simple. If it is to be an independent and effective and genuine third-party analysis, that is an absolute requirement—it is a must. In that respect, this is a very good amendment being proposed by the member for North Sydney.
The government's bill requires the PBO to establish memorandums of understanding with every government department and agency. The PBO has no leverage over these agencies and departments and therefore it may compromise the PBO's access to the most up-to-date information for the costings of these policies. At the end of the day, we in this parliament should be the masters of our own destiny. I have heard the member for Lyne, who is in the chamber, talk about the sanctity of the member of parliament. If we are going to encourage this right and ensure this right—not only for the executive of the government but also for members of parliament, the Parliamentary Budget Office needs to have the powers so that they can do so. I say to the Labor Party: if you really think, 'This is a good idea in government,' think about it as if you were in opposition, because the wheel does turn in Australian politics, and rightly. It is a good thing that governments change from time to time, because it brings about a new generation of thinking and leaders. It has not been so great for the country since 2007, but that is the decision of the Australian people. Ultimately the powers that will be enshrined in this legislation will be for all of us into the future. With this bill we should be trying to put aside, as much as we can, the partisan nature of the politics of costings, and think about how we as political organisations can get the best available information so that we can put it to the Australian people.
The third area where we seek to improve this bill in a substantial way is by restoring the confidentiality to costings policies during and after the caretaker period. That is the point I was reflecting upon before. If you take away that confidentiality and you just plaster it all up on the internet, it is not something that you are doing to the executive. The executive will not be required to publish the considerations of the policies that they may be thinking about prior to an election. If you were intending to take to an election a tax cut which has a major fiscal impact over a long period of time, and if you are seeking this detailed information, and you put different scenarios to the Parliamentary Budget Office—like the government does with Treasury and Finance—that information would obviously show quite large differences, depending on the percentage cut that you wanted to offer. If that information or advice is not going to be confidential—whether it is given to the member for Lyne as an Independent or to an opposition party, or even the Greens—we should not participate in it. Why would you allow the potential situation where the other side of politics could use the information as a tool for their political quests rather than a genuine effort by elected members of parliament to try to find the right reform mix for the future?
This is a good idea. This is an idea which is well over its time. The former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, first proposed this. It is not a new idea. It happens in the United States with the Congressional Budget Office. I am pleased that the Independents in their negotiations put emphasis on this idea, and I think it is something we should be putting in place. But this is flawed in three significant ways, and we can improve this bill. We can improve it not just for those of us who are currently occupying the seats that we do in the parliament but for all the Australian people and for the benefit of decent economic reform for our country for the future. I urge the government to think about, to take on board and to consider the amendments we have put in place, because they are good amendments to what is a good piece of legislation.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (16:22): I, like the former speaker, certainly welcome debate today on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 and the Parliamentary Budget Office. I think the process over the last 12 months has been important in seeing parliament being able to, as best as possible, from here on make the best decisions based on the best possible advice. And the bipartisan agreement of 12 months ago is important in getting a parliamentary budget officer in place to allow that to happen. To enable parliamentarians to make the best possible decisions, we need to empower each other through a due and proper process. The process through which we have gone to get to where we are today has had elements of consensus about it, but today those elements seem to be fracturing a little bit and, for some reason, are being denied.
The agreement reached 12 months ago was important, and it was not just about whims. I certainly appreciate the pat on the back from the former speaker, but this was something that was agreed by all members in this chamber. It was an agreement made prior to the formation of government, on the 16th day after the election, that involved the Liberal and National parties, the Labor Party, Greens members and also the crossbenchers. So we all own this Parliamentary Budget Office and the Parliamentary Budget Officer when appointed some time soon. I think that is important. I would be concerned if this were getting positioned—as I have heard in some of the debate—as some sort of agreement struck with the Independents or the crossbenchers. It is not; this is very much a House of Representatives office and has that independent status, separate from Independent MPs.
An important part of the process was the committee inquiry that took place over the last 12 months. The committee involved representatives of all members of this chamber. I was involved in that committee. The National Party had a representative, with Senator Joyce. From memory, the Liberal Party had several representatives, led at the time by the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, Christopher Pyne. The government chaired the committee through Senator Faulkner, a longstanding member of the other place. Like his politics or not, I would hope that there would be agreement that he is someone who has a good, thorough and detailed understanding of parliamentary processes. There was agreement reached by all parties and the committee made some unanimous recommendations. What I see now turning into legislation today through this bill is a reflection of that bipartisan work that was done over the last 12 months.
I am therefore somewhat surprised by the private member's bill that has been introduced in parallel to this. I am surprised that we are going to see amendments to this from the coalition. I am deeply concerned by the words of the member for North Sydney, which could be taken as a threat to the Australian people, that if the coalition do not get their way today with respect to amendments or if they do not get their way with the private member's bill, they are not going to play anymore and that the issues that are of concern to the Australian people at the next election will not be costed and those costings will not be available. That should be of deep concern to all members in this place, particularly those who have invested heavily in the process of trying to get consensus on an independent parliamentary budget office as an arm of this chamber for members of parliament to reach sensible decisions for the long term.
We have lived through this. During the last election, one of the key issues in forming government was in trying to get access to election costings through the Charter of Budget Honesty process, introduced in 1998 with all the good intent in the world—but at the last election we saw the Australian people denied the opportunity pre election to see the true costings of election promises. One of the tests to form government was to break caretaker conventions post election and ask for the costings done by the independent Treasury and independent Finance and get them looked at. That is a process that should have happened pre election, but it did not. The Australian people therefore went to the ballot box blind to the true costings of both sides.
I have not heard anyone criticise the independent Treasury advice, nor have I heard anyone criticise the independent Finance advice at the time. In fact, even today, a year after that process, the shadow minister for finance said—I think these were the words—'Treasury identified a few potholes to repair.' That is an admission that there were potholes. That is an admission that this whole process needs to happen pre election, not post election. The Australian people deserve to know where the potholes are that need to be repaired.
If we are investing well in Australian people being allowed to participate in this process in caretaker times around elections, preferably before elections, those costings should be public. This was discussed at length through the committee process and was unanimously agreed upon as a sensible contribution to better policy outcomes and more consideration for the Australian people. I therefore do not know what is going on in the mind of the member for North Sydney in trying to build an argument that this is somehow a fix on the coalition or the opposition. I do not understand what is going on in the mind of the member for North Sydney when he threatens the Australian people by saying, 'We will not submit our costings to anyone—neither the Charter of Budget Honesty nor the Parliamentary Budget Office—if the coalition does not get its way today to have confidential conversations and costings in that four-week caretaker election period.' I hope the Australian people rally strongly against that.
Outside the caretaker period, by all means, as per the legislation before the House today, those conversations for all members can and should be confidential, but when we are in pre-election mode it should be honesty tested in the public domain to ascertain what is being promised and what the true cost is to the Australian taxpayer. I think that is fair and sensible. I never thought I would hear myself saying it: in defence of Senator Joyce and Christopher Pyne, I hold true to what the committee that they were part of agreed on and uphold the principle that the costings at election time should be in the public domain. Indeed, going back another step, in defence of the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, in defence of Christopher Pyne and in defence of the group hug, I hope we accept that what is contained in this bill is essentially what, in a consensual, bipartisan way, was agreed upon by all members or their representatives through the process to date.
The bill before the House is sensible. I would have thought that it had the broad support of the members of this chamber. I would have thought the real challenge is to make sure that we get a parliamentary budget officer who has gravitas and the strength and independence of mind to make sure that they deliver on behalf of all of us, whatever our political bent. I would hope that we keep the Presiding Officers honest in the selection process, get a good job description in place and make sure the terms and conditions of that appointment are really in the interests of the parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I hope the member for Lyne is not reflecting on the Presiding Officers.
Mr OAKESHOTT: No, I am not; in fact, I am trying to endorse the status that you hold. I want the office of the PBO to be one that has gravitas within the processes of the parliament.
It is concerning that, as soon as the legislation hit the House, the smear campaign seems to have begun.
Mr Hunt: This was going to be 10 minutes!
Mr OAKESHOTT: I will finish. We seem to be hearing the suggestion that this is some sort of sleight of hand by the government to stitch up the opposition in election time. That is not the case. This has been through a thorough process with coalition members, crossbenchers, the Greens and the government. I hope that is now reflected by broad support for this bill, with amendments being withdrawn and the private member's bill also being withdrawn, and that we allow this office to have the gravitas that it deserves to do the job on behalf of all of us so that we get the best possible policy with the best possible advice from the PBO that we seek.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (16:33): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. This bill amends the Parliamentary Service Act and the Charter of Budget Honesty Act. The question before the House this afternoon is not whether it is a good idea to have a parliamentary budget office. We are all united in the view that to have a parliamentary budget office is a good idea, and I am very pleased to join the member for Lyne in saying that. Nor is the question whether there is a good case to have an extra source of independent advice to the parliament on financial and budgetary matters. That is clearly a good idea.
The question before the House is simply this: does the bill before the House contain practical measures which live up to the principles that we have all expressed our support for? Establishing a parliamentary budget office was, after all, a key election commitments by the coalition. On this side of House we are very clear in our support for the principles. Those who have not had painful experience with this government might naively assume that, because this government has brought forward a bill purporting to establish a parliamentary budget office, this government is also committed to the principle and has implemented through the bill detailed measures which will give effect to an independent source of advice to the legislative branch of government in relation to financial and budgetary matters. Some might say that this is a case of the marketplace of ideas at work—the coalition's idea of a parliamentary budget office being taken up by the government consistent with the agreement that was reached with the Independents approximately one year ago.
I am sorry to say, however, that long and bitter experience of dealing with this government, particularly this Treasurer, requires very detailed scrutiny of the measures contained in the bill before one can be satisfied that those measures do indeed, in their totality, give effect to a scheme which will implement the principles that have been agreed to. It is noteworthy that we have had a series of speeches from Labor members of the House about the principle of a parliamentary budget office. That is not the question before us. Nobody is disputing the principle. The question before this House is whether the specific measures contained in the legislation we are considering will be of practical utility in providing effective independent advice to the legislative branch of government in relation to budgetary and financial matters.
I am sorry to say that there are good grounds for believing that the government's strategy here is to roll out something which claims to achieve worthy objectives but, on closer scrutiny, does not do so. One might well ask why it has taken a year before this legislation was introduced when an agreement in principle was reached between the government and Independents one year ago. Certainly that delay in timing adds to the degree of intelligent scepticism which we on this side of the House bring to our consideration of this bill.
I want to make three points in the brief time available to me. The first is to endorse the principle that a parliamentary budget office can improve the functioning of the legislative branch of government. The second is to point out that on the details of this piece of legislation there are specific flaws in what has been proposed. Third, I want to make the point that the coalition has suggested specific changes which could be achieved through either supporting the private member's bill introduced by the member for North Sydney or by accepting amendments to be moved by the coalition.
Let me turn to the first point, that as a matter of principle a parliamentary budget office can improve the functioning of the legislative branch of government. The executive branch, the Prime Minister and her ministers, have all of the resources of the bureaucracy available to them—all of the great departments of state, with their many thousands of employees. Those resources, when it comes to financial and budgetary matters, and when it comes to other matters, are not available to the legislative branch. That is so under the separation of powers doctrine which governs the operation of government in Australia and that of other countries derived from the Westminster system. Yet the legislative branch has crucial functions in our system of government. If it is to discharge those functions effectively it makes sense for it to have available to it expert advice on budgetary and financial matters.
If legislators, if members of parliament, do not have available to them an authoritative, a trusted and a confidential source of advice to assist them in understanding the costs and revenues associated with proposed and current policy measures then they are operating at a significant disadvantage. The establishment of a parliamentary budget office could cure that disadvantage. It is for that reason that in jurisdictions such as the United States and Canada there are similar offices in operation. One need only look at the broad range of issues confronting this parliament today to identify many areas where it would be enormously helpful to have available independent and impartial advice on such matters. It would be enormously useful to know whether the accounting treatment of the National Broadband Network, under which some $19 billion is to be spent by 2015—none of which is included in the published budget deficit figures—is in fact a valid accounting treatment. It would be of enormous value for the legislature to have available to it independent advice on that matter. It would be of great utility to have independent advice as to the credibility of the projected $3.5 billion surplus, which we keep being told is something that we can confidently expect to roll around, not this financial year but next financial year, following only four years of yawning, gaping and repeated deficits. It would be of tremendous value to know whether this claimed sliver of a surplus, promised in the future, is in fact something to which any credibility at all can be attached. It would be of enormous value to know whether the extraordinary increase in tax revenues projected in the documentation issued by this government is credible, because of course if it is not credible then every aspect of this government's fiscal strategy is shown to be deeply wanting.
Such advice would be of great value to all parties but particularly of value, first of all, to the opposition and, second of all, to the Independents and minor parties who may not otherwise have available to them credible advice on these kinds of matters. If a parliamentary budget office is to be effective in achieving its stated objectives, then there are certain key requirements that must be met. Its independence must be beyond question and any parliamentarian who goes to this office seeking advice must have confidence that the advice that he or she requests will remain confidential. If there is any degree of suspicion that the request for advice or the substance of the advice that was provided is going to end up on the front page of a newspaper the next day, then all confidence in that office and in reliance upon it will be lost.
This office and the services provided by it must be available at all stages of the electoral cycle, including most importantly during the course of elections rather than, as is mysteriously proposed, having the availability of confidential advice turned off during the caretaker phase—that is to say, during the election process. This office must have the resources and powers available to it to get the information that it needs. Finally, if it is to be meaningful, it must do more than simply replicate arrangements which are already available—for example, under the Howard government's path-breaking Charter of Budget Honesty reforms.
I turn to the next point I wish to make, which is that there are key flaws in what is proposed in the legislation before the House this afternoon. The Parliamentary Budget Office will not have real independence from Treasury and Finance—those great departments of state—because the Parliamentary Budget Office will be required to make arrangements in writing under section 64F to obtain information from those departments and others. Remarkably, the Parliamentary Budget Office is prevented from preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates. This is a truly novel and ingenious approach to the concept of a parliamentary budget office—it is not allowed to prepare budget estimates! It would open exciting new possibilities in legislation if we were to replicate this approach in other areas. We could establish a defence department which was not allowed to defend Australia, a health department which was not allowed to take action to promote health or a department of veterans' affairs which was not allowed to deal with anybody who is a veteran of war service! These suggestions are as self-evidently ludicrous as it is self-evidently ludicrous that a parliamentary budget office would be specifically prevented from preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates.
I have already spoken about one of the other gaping flaws in this legislative scheme—that is, there is no confidentiality connected to the advice provided by this office during election periods. This is the very time when it is most critical to ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Office is available to serve as a trusted resource to parliamentarians. If we are to improve the quality of policy proposals put forward by non-government parties, which is surely an important objective in having a parliamentary budget office, then preserving confidentiality is an absolutely critical requirement. Of course, there are also serious flaws in the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Office is limited in its powers to obtain information. It is required to make arrangements in writing with the head of a Commonwealth body to get information and documents. What is left unclear and unspoken is: what is to happen if the relevant body refuses or imposes unacceptable terms? I want to put to the parliament the not-particularly-surprising suggestion that departments may well be resistant to providing information on an open-book basis. Therefore it is important to have appropriate measures in this legislation to ensure that the Parliamentary Budget Office can get the information it needs to do its job properly.
The third point I wish to make in the time remaining to me is that the approach proposed by the coalition in the private member's bill introduced by the member for North Sydney and, alternatively, in the form of the amendments which we are going to move is much more sensible. Under our model, the Parliamentary Budget Office is an independent statutory authority with strong powers to obtain information from government departments and agencies and the power to provide analysis of economic forecasts and budget estimates. There will be no need to sign memoranda of understanding with government departments. We are empowering a parliamentary budget office under our model to provide objective and impartial advice and, most importantly, to maintain confidentiality during election campaigns so as to ensure its effectiveness as a source of objective and reliable advice and in turn to improve the quality of policy proposals that come forward.
The issue before the House is not the principle; we are all in support of the principle of a parliamentary budget office. The issue is the specific deficiencies in the bill before the House. The coalition has brought forward changes to correct those deficiencies. (Time expired)
Dr STONE (Murray) (16:48): I too rise to speak on the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 and the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011. The aim of these bills is to establish, for the first time in Australia's history, an independent parliamentary budget office. As our previous speaker most eloquently said, 'The coalition is not against the notion of a parliamentary budget office, a PBO.' We see it as a very important part of any Westminster system. Of course, an opposition is as good as its information and access to confidential advice. We are most concerned that in its present form the proposal being put forward by this government does not in any way serve the Westminster system or the democracies as we know them in Australia.
While the Independents and Greens might at the moment enjoy the luxury of having access to confidential, informative and expert advice, under the proposal before us in this bill, an opposition of the day unfortunately would not. That might make sense while this Labor government is in the Lodge. But they need to think forward—perhaps not too far forward—and see a time when they, in opposition, would very much want to have access to confidential, expert budgetary information, costings and assessments. Their information and requests would not become a political plaything of the government of the day.
We have had some extraordinary examples in very recent times when we, the opposition, estimated the debt from not proceeding with the NBN by using the Commonwealth 10-year bond rate as the discount rate. Everyone will remember that that information was then made much of by the Labor benches, who said that what we had indicated was an enormous 'black hole' and that this had to go to the credibility of the coalition and our capacity as economic managers. In fact, it turned out in discussions after the election that Treasury had used a different, lower interest rate; but they did not tell the coalition at the time that their interest rate assessments were different to those used by the coalition. This led Treasury to estimate a lower quantum of savings for the coalition proposal to cancel the NBN. At the time Treasury officials would not explain to us what they had done. All we had was the media feasting on the notion, fed to them by the Labor Party, that we had a 'black hole'. That is an example of how politics can make use of—for example—an inadequate parliamentary budget office. We do not want to see that happen in Australia. We think it is a cheap stunt, and it does not do any great credit to the government of the day. There are in fact two bills before the House to establish a parliamentary budget office. The coalition introduced a private member's bill through the shadow Treasurer on 22 August this year. The government then introduced its own bill on 24 August 2011. The government is urgently trying to bring this bill forward to a second reading before our private member's bill has been put to a vote. I am sure that, if the Independents and the Greens looked hard at these two bills and compared the safeguards that are built into both, they would really understand that what we are proposing is a great step forward in real budget honesty. A government member, an opposition member, an Independent or, indeed, a private member would be able to use a confidential parliamentary budget office with confidence if it were constructed as we proposed in our private member's bill. What they put to the PBO would not simply become a political plaything of the government of the day.
This is a very serious matter. We have a need for confidential service that one can take whether one is in opposition, a minor party, an Independent or a backbencher—a PBO where you can take a request for assessments and comparisons and where the timing for the release of that data is still with the requestor of information. The new body that we are proposing would be accountable to the parliament, not hostage to government departments. We see that as a very important component of our shadow Treasurer's motion.
I am very concerned. I mentioned before that our estimates made before the last election were used as a political plaything when we did not have the best advice from Treasury about how they had dealt with the assessments made and published. I very recently had cause for great concern in my electorate, where we had exceptional circumstances: exit grants for drought relief. We were told that these were fully costed. They were a carefully budgeted program. We were told that, due to the demand for these exit grants, the program would be extended to July next year. We trusted that this government had got good advice from Treasury and the appropriate department to know that it had the funds to take through to July next year this program of support for farmers forced to leave their farms.
Farmers, particularly in my area, where they have survived seven years of drought and now a year of floods and an extremely financially stressed situation were told by Centrelink and by their accountants, who in turn were consulting Centrelink, that they had until next July to put in their applications for exit grants which would give them retraining through some $10,000 of support and also some $150,000 to try to re-establish beyond their farms. As a result of being told that they were not only eligible but had been granted this exit fund, some farm families then sold their properties at less than what they should have—in some cases, $80,000 less—because they understood that the $150,000 grant was literally a cheque in the mail. You can imagine the horror when they received phone calls from the local Centrelink officers in Echuca, Shepparton and Bendigo. They were being told over the phone: 'Sorry—we know that we had led you to believe this grant was forthcoming. It was budgeted through to July next year, but it is now summarily ceasing. In fact, as you receive this phone call it is all too late.'
This is an example that asks how that budgeting was done. How was Centrelink communicating with the department of agriculture in saying this number of grants had been deemed eligible and then granting the $150,000 plus the other $10,000 for training? Clearly we need much better budgeting and budgeting information for the government of the day. I hasten to say, though, that no coalition government would get anything as wrong as the EC exit grants debacle. I have in my electorate now farm families who are destitute as a consequence of selling their properties, having their clearing sales and ordering alternative accommodation—in some cases, caravans—to live in. They cannot pay for those caravans and are left literally destitute because of bad government policy reckoning and the extraordinarily difficult problems the government have created for their own Centrelink officers, who are now being accused of literally, in some senses, driving families to suicide.
I have to say that this particular PBO—parliamentary budget office—is an excellent idea but only if it operates in a way which delivers confidential service. If it leaves the call of when information is released up to those who have requested that information, does not become a plaything of the government of the day and does not mean that an opposition, Independent or backbencher would hesitate before using the PBO, this excellent idea will become an excellent reality. But we are so concerned about the PBO as a coalition that, should our bills or our amendments fail, our shadow Treasurer has already put on notice that the coalition will not submit its policy costings to either the Treasury or the PBO during and after the election period if the PBO is constructed in the way this bill proposes. It is that serious to us. We are very serious about good, independent, confidential Treasury advice.
We believe that a good PBO is part of good government, and we feel that this is an incredible example of how this government fails to understand the basics of proper budgeting, of proper ethical behaviour in the Westminster system and of the opposition's right and democracy's need to have a strong, well-informed opposition. I strongly recommend the government consider very carefully the amendments which we will be putting and also the private member's bill which now may be rushed out of the way by the government's bill. The PBO as proposed is just not good enough for a country like Australia.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (16:59): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 because this is a very important matter for this parliament. The creation of a Parliamentary Budget Office is something that the coalition took to the last election, noting that it was critical that we have world's best practice here in Australia. This is something that the rest of the world has embraced an independent body that can look properly and closely at budgets and provide impartial advice on them along with major policy announcements and costings. We knew it was necessary for this country, which is why we took it to the last election.
We took it to the last election and it was embraced, as we know, by the Independents, who made an agreement with the government to ensure that the government would bring forward a parliamentary budget office. The Independents understood that it was important that there be an independent body that could provide impartial advice and analysis. It would be a body through which we would be able to look very deeply at the Commonwealth budget, major policy announcements and costings; a body which would have the power to get the information to be able to provide those appropriate costings; a body which would have appropriate funding to do all of those things.
The members for Lyne, New England and Denison as well as the Greens agreed that setting up a parliamentary budget office was an appropriate course of action. Of course, the government did nothing on this even after the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office delivered 28 unanimous recommendations for the implementation of a parliamentary budget office. The shadow Treasurer was forced to bring forward his own bill on this matter on 22 August, which of course then spurred the government into action.
The shadow Treasurer's Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 seeks to establish a parliamentary budget office that would be:
a new body, accountable to the Parliament rather than the Executive, much like the Auditor-General or Commonwealth Ombudsman;
independent, to enhance the transparency and accountability of the budget process, and help deliver better policy and financial outcomes for Australian taxpayers;
well resourced, to ensure it is effective;
tasked with providing objective and impartial advice and analysis across the parliament on the Commonwealth budget and budget cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements; and
headed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who will be appointed by the presiding officers of the parliament on the advice of a committee of senior government officials, with an office of highly trained staff, whose calibre will reflect the Office's status as an independent body.
This was the bill that we brought forward, and the government then brought forward its own bill to establish a parliamentary budget office. Sadly, the government bill is not sufficient to provide an independent parliamentary budget office which has the appropriate powers to do its job.
Today I take the opportunity in the time available to go to the very heart of the key differences between the government's bill and the bill that was proposed by the shadow Treasurer.
First and foremost is the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Office. It is incredibly important that the Parliamentary Budget Office be entirely separate from and not dependent on the advice of the Department of Treasury or the Department of Finance and Administration. Under our bill it would be. We would establish a parliamentary budget office that would be very much separate from the departments of Treasury and finance.
By contrast, the government would establish a parliamentary budget office that would require the Parliamentary Budget Office when making requests for information to formalise those requests in writing in order to be able to get the appropriate information and documents. The government's bill would prevent the Parliamentary Budget Office from preparing its own economic forecasts and budget estimates. However, under our bill, the Parliamentary Budget Office would be able to prepare its own forecasts and budget estimates, and it would have the power to compel the production of the information it requires in order to do that. There is a very serious difference here in the independence of the parliamentary budget offices that are proposed. We believe that, if the aim is to have an appropriately independent budget office, our bill is superior to that of the government.
The second issue goes to the powers granted to the Parliamentary Budget Office to obtain information. The government's bill requires the PBO to stipulate what information it may require, and under it the PBO would rely on the departments of Treasury and finance in order to obtain that information. Under our bill the Parliamentary Budget Office would be able to obtain that information and not be constrained by government departments wishing to protect their positions or agreements.
Under our bill we would have the opportunity to have full, frank and fearless advice from the Parliamentary Budget Office. Under the government's bill it would not be full, it would not be frank and it would certainly not be fearless, because it would be reliant upon the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. This would not provide the independence that a Parliamentary Budget Office would require if indeed it were to be anything other than a Parliamentary Budget Office in name only.
The government's bill restricts the functions which can be performed by the PBO. It specifically prevents the PBO from preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates. It seems at odds with what the minister himself said in his explanatory memorandum—that is, that there was an established mandate of the PBO:
… to inform the Parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals; …
So the government bill seems to be at odds with the explanatory memorandum that has been brought forward. There is no such problem with our bill.
The coalition's PBO would be able to provide objective and impartial advice on the Commonwealth budget and the budgetary cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements. This is critical, of course, because it goes to costings, to the announcements made by the government and to the impact on the budget bottom line.
The next point is about the confidentiality of the costings performed during an election period, after an election period and about when the issue of costings is raised with the Parliamentary Budget Office around major policy announcements. Under the government's proposal, there will be no confidentiality safeguard imposed, which means that, when the second a member requests information regarding costings, that information will be made public with no opportunity for discussion or to understand exactly how the Parliamentary Budget Office has arrived at its costings conclusion. This is important, because if we seek to have good policy in this place then it is important to understand the position that has been arrived at, to ensure that appropriate costings are brought forward and that they reflect the full policy position of the member or party that has brought forward those costings. They should be released at a time when the member or the party itself believes it is appropriate to release those policy costings. Under the government's bill, this would not be the case. Under the coalition's bill, confidentiality would be preserved, which would mean again that a full and frank exchange could take place with the Parliamentary Budget Office until such time as the costings were done in an appropriate and rigorous manner which reflected the announcements made by either the member or the party concerned.
These are a number of aspects of key differences between the proposal that has been brought forward by the government and that brought forward by the coalition. It is critical that we build on the Charter of Budget Honesty, which was a great measure brought forward by this side of the House to have full and transparent policy costings on the budget process. Indeed, we believe that the Parliamentary Budget Office will build on those very strong foundations. But the only way that it can build on strong foundations is to ensure that it is independent and has appropriate ability to obtain information—appropriate powers so that it can perform its functions—and to preserve confidentiality so that people will in fact use the Parliamentary Budget Office in the role for which it is intended. These are the reasons we support the coalition's bill rather than the government's bill. These are the reasons we will be bringing forward amendments to the government's bill. I commend the coalition's bill to the House. The government's bill has deficiencies, as I have outlined. Those deficiencies can be overcome with amendments, and we commend our amendments to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Shipping
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (17:11): For the information of the House, I have advised the Leader of the Nationals, who is responding to my ministerial statement, that we would come in at a later time today. I have advised his office, and they said that it was okay and that he will be here to respond to the statement.
I seek leave to make a ministerial statement relating to Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy.
Leave granted.
Mr ALBANESE: Today I report to parliament the Gillard government's plan to revitalise the Australian shipping industry, the most comprehensive reform of shipping in Australian history. The process of developing this policy began with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government inquiry into shipping. In October 2008, the committee tabled its report Rebuilding Australia's coastal shipping industry. I acknowledge the work of the committee chair, the member for Ballarat, the Hon. Catherine King, and of the deputy chair, the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, who worked on this unanimous report.
In February 2009, I formed an advisory group of industry leaders to help us work out how to implement that report. On 1 December 2010, I released a discussion paper that proposed important reforms and invited submissions to be provided by the end of January 2011. In January this year I established three industry reference groups to consult and provide advice to the government on the taxation, regulatory and workforce elements of the reforms. Members of those groups represent the breadth of the maritime industry: ports, the bluewater and offshore sectors, regulators, unions and training providers. All that hard work and consultation has gone into producing the reform package that I am outlining.
The need for reform
There are sound economic, environmental and security reasons to revitalise our shipping industry. Everyone in Australia knows that we are currently experiencing a once in a generation resources boom. They understand that the nation's prosperity is linked to the world needing and wanting our resources. What many people do not know is that 99 per cent of Australia's international trade is carried by ships, yet only one half of one per cent of that trade is carried by Australian flagged vessels. Our ports manage 10 per cent of the world's entire sea trade. $200 billion worth of cargo is moved annually. We are the largest island nation and the fourth largest shipping task in the world. Yet there are only 22 Australian registered major trading ships plying our waters today—down from 55 ships in 1995. Of the remaining ships, only four—all gas tankers—are dedicated solely to international trade.
On top of this, a lack of investment means that our ships are getting older. The average age of the Australian fleet now sits at almost 20 years which is around eight years older than those in the world fleet. We all know that the newer vessels are safer, more energy efficient and better meet the needs of modern shipping. But it is not just the age of the fleet that is holding us back. Like many industries, the maritime sector is also feeling the pressures of an ageing workforce with employers reporting that half of their seafarer workforce is aged over 45 years. To compound the problem, attracting new recruits and building a strong and sustainable skills base has been hampered by the high cost and complexities of existing training structures. At the same time, participation in the domestic freight task is also at an all time low. All this adds up to lost economic opportunities and environmental and security risks to our nation.
The Gillard government is determined to remove the disincentives that have made it uneconomic to operate Australian ships in a global environment. We are determined to create a policy framework that will encourage and sustain growth and productivity in our shipping industry. There are five elements to the reform package:
tax reform,
an Australian international shipping register for Australia,
a new licensing regime,
workforce skills development and
an industry compact.
These reforms are fully costed and have been offset according to our strict fiscal principles.
Tax reforms
The tax reforms include five measures and are linked to being Australian flagged.
A zero tax rate—we will exempt qualifying income by shipping from taxation.
Accelerated depreciation arrangements—we will cut the depreciation period in half, from 20 years to 10 years.
Rollover relief for selected capital assets—allowing shipowners to defer their tax liability from gain or profit on the sale of old vessels when replacing them with new vessels.
Tax exemptions for seafarers working overseas on qualifying vessels—a refundable tax offset will be available to Australian employers of Australian resident seafarers engaged in international trades.
A royalty withholding tax exemption where vessels are leased by an Australian company from foreign owners under a demise or bareboat charter.
Australian international shipping register
We will establish an Australian international shipping register to help Australians participate in international trade by addressing the cost disadvantages experienced by our registered vessels when competing internationally. Vessels on the international register will be Australian flagged. When they undertake an overseas voyage they must provide the crew with terms and conditions in line with the Maritime Labour Convention.
When Australian international shipping register vessels work domestic coastal routes, all crew, irrespective of nationality will be covered by the Fair Work Act. The same environmental, safety and occupational health and safety standards will apply to these vessels as apply to first register vessels. To further support the industry, international register vessels must employ a minimum of two Australian crew, preferably the Master and the Chief Engineer.
Cabotage
The reform package also fixes the weaknesses of the current permit system. Permits are too easy to obtain. There are no incentives to encourage a long-term commitment to working the Australian coast. The shipping reforms provide clarity and transparency to shippers and operators and enable them to plan long term.
The new licensing regime will support Australian shipping and set clear boundaries around the necessary role of foreign vessels in our coastal trade. Licensing requirements and conditions will be set clearly in legislation, giving certainty and clarity to all operators. There will be a three-tier licensing regime:
a general licence providing Australian flagged vessels with unrestricted access to the coastal trades for a period of up to five years at a time,
a temporary licence enabling foreign flagged vessels to operate the coastal trades, subject to time, trade and/or voyage conditions for a period of up to 12 months, and
an emergency licence for cargo or passenger movements in emergency situations, such as natural disasters.
A period of five years will be provided to existing licensed foreign flagged vessels to transition to Australian flagged.
Workforce skills development
The fourth element of this reform package is workforce development. In order to have a strong, safe and clean shipping industry we must attract, train and retain a skilled seafaring workforce. This was strongly identified during the review of coastal shipping; a review which had bipartisan support.
The government has already been doing its bit in this area. In July 2009 we provided the Australian Maritime College in Launceston with almost $4 million in funding for a new state-of-the-art maritime simulator to help deliver training in coastal navigation. This simulator is now something of an attraction and has already had visitors from Chinese, Japanese and American maritime educators. In February last year we provided the college with more than $2 million to deliver vocational education and training.
To further assist the shipping industry, I am setting up a maritime workforce development forum with experienced people from industry, unions and the training sector. The forum will address areas that are fundamental to building shipping skills. These will include a workforce plan for the medium term to address issues including the ageing workforce and the most immediate skills gaps. I expect the forum to work hand in hand with the proposed National Workforce and Productivity Agency, AMSA and training providers.
Industry compact
The final element of the reform package is labour productivity. We are committed to aligning Australian productivity practices with the best in the world. The government supports a compact between industry and unions which includes changes to work practices, a review of safe manning levels and the use of riding gangs on coastal vessels. I can inform the House that negotiations between industry and the unions are progressing.
2012 start date
When I announced the government's election commitment to revitalise Australian shipping I said it would be in place by mid-2013. However, in the time we have been working on this major reform package we have seen more vessels leave our shores. The need to arrest this decline, combined with strong support that industry has shown for these reforms, has convinced the government to bring forward this reform.
I can now advise the House that the shipping reforms will commence 12 months earlier, on 1 July 2012. This is a huge reform agenda and clearly shows the government's commitment to revitalising Australian shipping. It makes no sense, no sense at all, for Australian trading to take place almost entirely in the hulls of foreign ships. We need to become participants, not just customers. We need to be a shipping nation, not just a shipper nation. We need to upgrade the fleet. We need to get the regulatory framework right. We need a best-in-class tax system for shipping and we need a pool of skilled seafarers to operate the ships of the future. These reforms will confirm that Australia's long-term economic, environmental and security objectives are met by a revitalised Australian shipping industry.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Wide Bay to speak for 11 minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Truss speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 11 minutes.
Question agreed to.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (17:23): For an island nation such as Australia, our maritime industry is a vital part of the national and international transport network. Australia is a trading nation with a relatively small domestic market. We depend on our overseas markets to maintain our national prosperity and lifestyle. Even though our country, in spite of the resources boom, is enduring embarrassing monthly trade deficits we still export far more in volume than we import. The importance of shipping to Australia's international, interstate and intrastate trade is therefore significant.
Sea transport carries over 99 per cent of international cargo by weight and about 75 per cent by value, and domestically ships carry around 26 per cent of our freight. With the domestic freight task set to double by 2030, action must be taken to ensure the viability of shipping services. While a strong national flag shipping industry is vital, it is even more important that the shipping services in Australia are viable and competitive, including with domestic road and rail freight services.
As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport said, Australia's shipping industry has been uncompetitive and in steady decline, dropping from 55 vessels in 1995 to 22 today. Shipping has also been losing its share of the domestic freight task at a time when we need more cargo to be carried by ships to take pressure off our roads. Shipping has the ability to move large quantities of cargo across long distances, the benefits of which are obvious in such a large island nation as Australia. We need efficient general freight shipping from port to port, especially between our capital cities, if we are to meet our future transport needs. Traditionally, Australia's shipping industry has been uncompetitive internationally because of the higher cost of running an Australian as opposed to a foreign flagged vessel. Australian ships have been known for having notoriously high manning levels, restrictive work practices and wage structures compared with the rest of the world.
The coalition is committed to the sustainable growth of Australia's shipping industry by ensuring that the maritime sector is as safe, competitive and efficient as possible. The reforms announced by the minister on Friday include little detail on how the proposed measures can deliver what is promised. To quote from Shipping Australia:
Much will depend on the detail of how the reforms are enacted whether that objective will be achieved. The details of the criteria for the second register and the training packages as a result of the establishment of the forum to develop skills and training in the industry, are some of the issues on which we are waiting further details.
Similarly, the Australian Shipowners Association has said:
The detail that sits behind these measures is critical and we look forward to seeing the draft legislation in the near future.
The coalition, too, looks forward to seeing the draft legislation.
Knowing how beholden the minister and Labor are to the Maritime Union, the Australian shipping industry has every reason to be suspicious about the so-called reform package. While it promises benefits to some shippers, everything will depend on the undisclosed detail and the accord being proposed between shippers and unions. The effective abolition of single voyage permits except in times of national emergency has the potential to make domestic freight movement by ships between Australian ports even less competitive. However, the precise impact on industry will depend on the detail of the legislation, which is yet to be released. The criteria for the temporary licence regime which will replace single and continuing voyage permits will be important to determine how flexible the regulations will be. Whether the temporary licence will apply to particular vessels or ships within a fleet is unclear. Should it apply to a specific vessel, this will hamper flexibility where Australian flagged ships are unavailable or inadequate for the task.
It will be important to consider the impact of these reforms on the cost of freight and their impact on flexibility around our coast. Wage and industry subsidies in one sector must not be allowed to destroy jobs and close industry in another sector. I understand that the industrial compact negotiations to make our shipping industry more productive and efficient are just beginning between the union movement and the broader shipping industry. These negotiations will need to be groundbreaking to ensure the viability of Australia's shipping industry. If there is any retreat to the bad old days of the past, no amount of government subsidy or intervention will save the industry. I am assured that the industry and the union movement are aware of the importance of the efficiency compact.
I am informed that a typical Australian container ship pays $4.06 million in crew costs per year compared with a foreign ship, which pays just $1.65 million in crew costs. Cost pressures are critical. Right now sugar is being shipped from overseas direct to southern ports because it is cheaper than shipping it from north-eastern Australia. The upward pressure on costs will also be compounded by the carbon tax. Under the 6.21c per litre slug on coastal shipping fuel as a part of the carbon tax regime, everything being shipped by Australian vessels will be more expensive, but if you want to ship those same goods in from overseas they will not incur this tax. The decision to grant more generous income tax and depreciation arrangements will be welcomed by seafarers and the Australian shipping industry but this gesture will undoubtedly encourage other Australian industries facing international tax disadvantages to demand similar concessions. Those industries would have a fair case. If it is good enough for the shipping industry then why not for car manufacturers, the tourism industry or food producers? If seafarers' income earned offshore is tax free why isn't the income for other overseas workers tax free? In 2009 this Labor government changed the taxation arrangements for Australian workers working overseas for 91 days or more to make these people pay income tax in Australia. Now they are doing exactly the opposite for seafarers.
Additionally, in relation to depreciation and company tax, Qantas and other Australian airlines face massive competition from airlines based in low-tax countries or countries where they receive special government concessions or depreciation arrangements. For example, in Australia the effective life of an aircraft for depreciation purposes is 10 years but in the case of many foreign airlines the effective life is five years or, in some cases, three years. Company tax rates for airlines in competitor countries like Singapore, Malaysia and China are significantly lower than those faced by Australian carriers. In the case of the UAE, which has two of the biggest competitors for Australian airlines on our routes, there is no income tax at all.
The minister said that all of the measures that he has announced today are fully costed and have been offset but there has been no detail provided of what the costs are or what cuts are being proposed to fund these changes. So there is a lot more detail that will have to be provided before anyone can make a reasonable judgment about whether this package is fair, whether it will achieve its objective and what the flow-on implications might be to other industries in Australia that might be placed at a competitive disadvantage by the assistance being provided to shipping.
The coalition is committed to reform which will revitalise the Australian shipping industry. However, it is important that we see the detail of the reform package so that it is possible to assess the real impacts of the proposal. Australians are tired of overblown, grand announcements with no detail, designed to take our minds off the other government failures and scandals. Industry will certainly need to see the details before it can be confident that these announcements will make any real difference.
I welcome the fact that the minister has reported on this issue to the parliament but we look forward to hearing much more about the detail of the various proposals so that they can be assessed fairly on the basis of all of the facts.
BILLS
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (17:33): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. I think it is very interesting to look at the history of the idea of a parliamentary budget office bill. It was first brought to this parliament by the member for Wentworth after he studied what they had been doing in the United States and other places.
We took that to the election in 2010 as part of our policy. The policy was so good that the Independents, in their negotiations, thought it was a jolly good idea to have a parliamentary budget officer so that the parliament and members of the parliament could get a view of important policy that was backed by those minions in Treasury who can do the sums and can therefore be used in creating a more correct policy.
As a result of that we become party to the agreement to go ahead with the Parliamentary Services Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill, but after about 12 months of nothing happening the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, thought it was important enough that we should put it forward. And we did. Mr Hockey, the shadow Treasurer, introduced a private member's bill to establish a parliamentary budget office on behalf of the coalition on 22 August this year.
There must have been a flurry of activity in the Treasurer's office when he found out that he had been caught out in not bringing something forward. It should not take 12 months to bring something like this forward to the parliament. So, over the next two days, after a flurry of activity in the Treasurer's office—it is unfortunate that we have had to force this issue—the second reading of Mr Hockey's private member's bill happened this morning during private members' business. The coalition's Parliamentary Budget Office Bill of 2011 together with a Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 will establish an independent PBO for the first time in Australia's history. This office will be a new body accountable to the parliament, not tied down to government departments.
The government decided it would introduce its own bill to establish a PBO and this happened on 24 August 2011, two days after the opposition introduced its own private member's bill, and now we have it here for debate today. So we have a situation where, two days after the coalition introduced their private member's bill to establish the PBO, the government have decided to put forward their own version of legislation to establish a parliamentary budget officer. Given the government has control of the timing in the House, the coalition now have to deal with the government's bill first, even though it was introduced second. We would obviously prefer to support the coalition's own private member's bill for the establishment of a PBO but, given the circumstances, we have put forward amendments to the government bill.
The coalition's private member's bill seeks to deal with the Charter of Budget Honesty legislation. The Charter of Budget Honesty was created by the Howard government. It was designed to ensure that a government could not mislead the public prior to an election about the state of the fiscal position. This was put in place following the misleading pre-election statements of the Keating government in 1996. The government's policy costing service under their PBO will be no different to that offered now under the Charter of Budget Honesty. I do remember that at the time that legislation was introduced to the parliament it was actually the Labor Party, then in opposition, who opposed it. How could any party oppose a charter of budget honesty?
The coalition's experience with the Charter of Budget Honesty has revealed some shortcomings. The service is not confidential—which we believe is extremely important—with requests for costings and costings of policies being published on the websites of Treasury and/or Finance as soon as they are received. Members of parliament have no control over the timing of the release of policies, and there is no scope for costings to be discussed or reviewed. For this reason, in its current form, the government's bill is inadequate. It does not address key issues and it is not in the best interests of the parliament.
This government has a poor track record with transparency: in 2007 and 2010 it released its full policy costings the day before the election. In 2010 the Treasurer did not even front the media after releasing a press release on the Friday afternoon before the election. Of course, in 2007 it gave no chance for those policies to be properly costed. Members opposite have been telling the House about the coalition's so called 'black hole' in costings during the 2010 election. The truth is that the coalition estimated the interest to be saved on the debt from not proceeding with the NBN by using, as we would consider normal practice, the Commonwealth 10-year bond rate as the discount rate. After the election it was revealed Treasury had used a different rate, a lower rate.
It is interesting that, later on, the NBN Implementation Study showed that the Commonwealth government bond rate was the appropriate rate to use for the cost of funds. So the government said that the Commonwealth bond rate was not the right rate when we costed it, but when they costed it it was the right rate. Go figure! The coalition was correct at the time and the government was wrong. This story unfortunately did not get the airtime that the 'black hole' story did.
There are a number of key differences between the government's legislation and the coalition's. I will go into some detail on those later but they centre around the functions, the powers and, most importantly, the confidentiality of the PBO.
As I previously said, the establishment of a PBO was a coalition election commitment. The establishment of a PBO was also a key element of the agreement between the government and the member for Lyne, the member for New England, the member for Denison and the Greens. There were several agreements between the Independents and the government which enabled the Prime Minister to form government, and this was one of them. This agreement formed part of the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform and stated that a PBO:
… be established, based in the Parliamentary Library, to provide independent costings, fiscal analysis and research to all members of parliament, especially non-government members …
The Agreement for a Better Parliament further stated that the:
… structure, resourcing and protocols for such an Office be the subject of a decision by a special committee of the Parliament which is truly representative of the Parliament.
On 23 March 2011, the government established a joint select committee on the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office, which subsequently recommended that a PBO be established. The funding for a PBO was provided for in the May 2011-12 budget. The amount was $24.9 million over four years. The government has chosen to amend existing acts in order to establish a parliamentary budget office
Schedule 1 amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999. It establishes the PBO, including its purpose and functions and the PBO's access to information and oversight arrangements. It outlines employment conditions and arrangements for the Parliamentary Budget Officer and introduces a requirement for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to prepare an annual report, consistent with the Clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services,
Schedule 2 amends the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998. This schedule amends the charter to clarify the processes associated with the provision of policy costings during a caretaker period, including requests made before polling day and requests made on or after polling day. It also amends the definition of 'caretaker period' within the charter so that it is consistent with the definition in the Guidance on Caretaker Conventions.
Schedule 3 amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 and the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. This schedule exempts the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the PBO under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, amends the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 to ensure that this act encompasses the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and amends the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 to ensure that this act encompasses the position of the officer. The key differences between the coalition's legislation and the government's are as follows. The coalition has made the conscious decision to ensure that the PBO be an independent body separate to that of the departments of Treasury and Finance. This means that the PBO will be an independent statutory body and the PBO will have strong powers to obtain information from government departments and agencies. Under this structure, the PBO will be able to provide analysis of economic forecasts and budget estimates. The government's bill deliberately ensures that the PBO functions as little more than an extension of the departments of Treasury and Finance by requiring the PBO to make an arrangement in writing to obtain information and documents and preventing the PBO from preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates.
The PBO established under the coalition would not be constrained by the MOUs put forward by government departments wishing to protect their positions or by agreements which stipulate what information the PBO may or may not have. The coalition's bill provides considerable information-gathering powers and secrecy for the PBO. The government's bill requires the PBO to make an arrangement in writing with the head, however described, of a Commonwealth body to obtain information and documents relevant to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's functions—in other words, to agree to a memorandum of understanding.
The third difference in the two pieces of legislation is that the coalition's PBO is able to provide objective and impartial advice on the Commonwealth budget and budget cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements, while the government's bill, in contrast, specifically prevents the PBO from preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates, whether at a whole-of-government, agency or program level. This point seems to be at odds with the government's explanatory memorandum, which says it is:
… the mandate of the PBO to inform the Parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals;
The last difference I would like to highlight relates to the confidentiality of policy costings. The coalition's PBO provides for complete confidentiality for all requests from MPs and senators. This allows non-government members and senators to engage in discussions with the PBO as well as allowing views to be challenged in a private domain. The PBO is not permitted to publish costings without the permission of the non-government member or senator. The policy costing options put forward in the government's PBO bill do not differ from what is currently available under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 during the caretaker period. The Parliamentary Budget Officer must publicly release any policy costing requests as soon possible after receiving the request during a caretaker period and on or after polling day.
The government has certainly made it a lot harder for oppositions. It is providing less information and, frankly, it is a sham compared to what the coalition is putting forward for a parliamentary budget officer. (Time expired)
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (17:48): The honourable member for Barker has made a comprehensive demolition of the government's legislation, so I will endeavour not to repeat too many of the points that he has made. But let me say right at the outset that the idea of having a parliamentary budget office—which, at least from the point of view of the coalition, was first proposed by me when I was Leader of the Opposition in the 2009 budget in reply—which is avowedly modelled on the United States Congressional Budget Office, was to address one of the very real weaknesses in our system of government. Nobody is suggesting—least of all me—that we should move to the American system. It has not been performing with great agility recently. But one of the weaknesses in the Westminster type of government is that the government by definition controls the lower house—sometimes more tenuously than others, as we see at the moment—and, because it is the government, has access to all of the massive resources of government in terms of economic analysis, financial information and so forth. And the opposition, which is meant to hold the government to account, is left with very little in the way of resources beyond the talents among its own ranks and perhaps the resources of the Parliamentary Library.
In the United States, where there is a clear distinction between the executive and the legislature—where the President is separately elected and then chooses all of the officials in the executive branch—the congress, which is completely separate, chose to establish the Congressional Budget Office may years ago. It is a very substantial institution with a budget of nearly $47 million a year, a staff of 250 people and an ability to provide a real counterweight in terms of economic and financial analysis to the work of the US Treasury and the various other economic departments on the executive side. That was seen as a critically important part of getting that balance of power right.
In our system, because the government by definition controls the House of Representatives and because the opposition is left with very little in the way of resources, all too often our ability to hold the government to account is very, very limited. Yes, we can ask questions through Senate estimates; we can also ask questions in the House. But, as somebody very wisely said, question time is called question time for a reason. It is not called answer time. The chances of getting an informative answer are not very great. The concept of a parliamentary budget office therefore is a very good one and it corrects an imbalance in our system of government. When I proposed this in 2009, the key motivation for my proposal, the immediate motivation, was the extraordinarily reckless spending of the then Rudd government, which in two years of panic reaction to the first and alleged inflation threat—remember there was a war against inflation—and then the global financial crisis had undone a decade of prudent fiscal management under the government of John Howard and Peter Costello as Treasurer. As I said at the time:
The alarming expansion of spending under Labor makes this—
a parliamentary budget office—
vitally important. Annual spending is projected to rise from $272 billion in 2007-08 to $342 billion in 2010-11, the largest three-year increase since the 1970s.
As we now know, the eventual expenditure figure for 2010-11 was even higher than forecast, at $350 billion.
That was the context in which I argued the case for a parliamentary budget office. But the case for it is now even stronger. We have seen the extraordinary spectacle of the NBN, the National Broadband Network, the largest and by far the most expensive infrastructure project in our country's history, being undertaken without any cost-benefit analysis and without any independent assessment of whether it is the fastest or most cost-effective way of delivering better broadband to all Australians. It is a gigantic project which will cost the taxpayer, were it to be completed, well over $50 billion, and was conceived not after rigorous financial analysis but conceived, so we understand, on the back of a napkin on a VIP flight between Sydney and Brisbane during the course of a conversation between the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, and the communications minister, Senator Conroy.
If we had a proper parliamentary budget office no doubt that would be a body that would be able to undertake an independent appraisal of this project and genuinely hold the government to account. Were a genuinely independent parliamentary budget office in existence, a government, before it undertook something as reckless as the NBN, would think twice because it would know that what it was proposing to do was likely to be assessed by that parliamentary budget office.
I was delighted that my successor as Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, stuck with this policy proposal for a parliamentary budget office and took it as a commitment to the 2010 election. As we all know, that election resulted in a hung parliament and, in the wake of that poll, there were several controversies about the costing of various policies put forward by both sides. In that context, the establishment of an independent and properly funded parliamentary budget office became a key element of the agreement between the government and the member for Lyne, the member for New England and the member for Denison as well as the Greens.
On 23 March the government established a joint select committee to enquire into the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office, which subsequently recommended that a parliamentary budget office be established. Funding for the Parliamentary Budget Office was provided for in the budget, $25 million over four years, but a deafening silence and masterly inactivity then ensued. In the absence of any action from the government, on 22 August 2011 the shadow Treasurer introduced his own bill for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office. And then, as though struck by lightening, the government quickly responded and introduced its own bill into the parliament two days later. So there are two bills before the House to establish a parliamentary budget office. One of them establishes a parliamentary budget office which is genuinely independent and will genuinely provide the type of assistance that the policy objective requires. It is really to the difference between those two proposals that I will now turn.
The Parliamentary Budget Office established under the government's bill sets up the Parliamentary Budget Officer as an officer of the parliament, but it makes it, in practical terms, not much more than an extension or a branch of the departments of Treasury and Finance. I note that, in order to obtain any financial information, the Parliamentary Budget Office, as conceived by the government, will have to enter into memorandums of understanding with the various departments. One can imagine how difficult that process will be and how utterly uncooperative and unhelpful those departments will be because they will, naturally, resent any trespassing on their turf. They will do everything they can, and they would do this whether it was a coalition government or a Labor government or any other party's government—they will not want to assist somebody second-guessing their work, even though that is their job. They will provide the same enthusiastic cooperation that many departments provide when they are confronted with parliamentary committees.
Our approach, the shadow Treasurer's approach, is very different. Firstly, our bill would establish the Parliamentary Budget Office as an independent statutory body. Secondly, it will have essentially the same powers as the Australian National Audit Office to obtain information from government departments. It will not have to enter into a memorandum of understanding—though it may choose to do so—but a department will know that if it is not cooperative the Parliamentary Budget Office will be able to haul those officers of the department in and demand documents and answers and actually be able to get the financial raw material that enables it to do its job.
One of the curiosities of the government's legislation—and I think it underlines the haste in which it was put together—is that it says on the first page of the explanatory memorandum that the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Office is:
... to inform the Parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals;
That all sounds fine until you actually get to the legislation and you see that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's functions, according to the government's bill, do not include preparing economic forecasts or preparing budget estimates. In other words, it has to accept the estimates and forecasts that are provided to it by the Treasury. That is absurd. The Parliamentary Budget Office should be entitled to form its own views. I gather from the record of the parliamentary committee that the government was concerned that it might be embarrassing if they came to different opinions. With great respect, that is ridiculous. If you give two economic forecasters the task of forming a view on any economic matter, they might come up with the same conclusion but they are very likely to come up with differing conclusions—but we are all used to that. We deal with many different assessments and forecasts and we are able to assess them all and take them all into account in forming our own view.
Providing a second opinion is enormously valuable. What we ought to be doing here as a parliament is moving the balance back in favour of the parliament as against the executive. That is what this is all about. In our system of government, as I said at the outset, the balance is overwhelmingly with the government—the executive—because the executive by definition controls at least half the parliament. This gives the parliament some real ammunition, or at least the ability to form some ammunition and resources, that enables it to match, albeit in a very small way, the efforts of the government.
Another issue that I know the shadow Treasurer spoke about earlier today at great length—at appropriately great length, I might say, but I shall be brief—is the question of confidentiality. It is very important that members and senators who deal with the Parliamentary Budget Office be able to do so confidentially. That is provided for in the legislation other than in respect of the election period—in the so-called caretaker period. In effect, exactly the same provisions that apply to the costings done by the department of finance and the Treasury under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act are provided for with respect to this new office. That is simply not appropriate. It is important that an opposition or a minor party be able to go to the Parliamentary Budget Office with a policy, have it costed confidentially—in effect, have a dialogue with the Parliamentary Budget Office—and be able to thereby become better informed themselves and perhaps come to the conclusion that a particular proposal was not a good idea after all and maybe a different way to deal with it could be adopted. Ultimately, the consequence of not having your policies costed is that the public form a judgment on that. But it is simply unnecessary and inappropriate to say that there can be no confidential discussions had or assessments made in the lead-up to an election.
After all, the objective here is not political game playing; the objective here is to give greater financial and economic resources to the parliament, which in large measure means the opposition, Independents and minor parties, so that the parliament can do a better job of holding the government to account. This is a vital reform to our democracy and what the government is proposing is simply not good enough. (Time expired)
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (18:03): As I rise tonight, can I say that it is an honour to follow the member for Wentworth in the debate on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. As he has so well articulated, it was his idea, dating back to 2009, to call for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office to be modelled on that of the US Congressional Budget Office. For those of us who have had the honour and privilege to visit the United States under any of various schemes—I was honoured to go under their young political leaders scheme, where I witnessed the full gamut of everything that the congress has to offer and was briefed on their budgetary office—you could not get a better model. The model which the US congress operates under has two key ingredients: it is confidential in its service and it is also independent in its service. They are the two key ingredients that we should have in Australia when we set up our Parliamentary Budget Office.
It is a shame that, after the member for Wentworth introduced the idea of a parliamentary budget office, it has taken until now for us to be debating this issue and also that the shadow Treasurer has had to introduce a bill calling for a parliamentary budget office for the Treasurer to follow suit and present us with his bill. The worrying aspect of it all, of course, is that in Wayne's world—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! The member will refer to people by their appropriate titles.
Mr TEHAN: In the Treasurer's world, the two key ingredients that you need in a parliamentary budget office, confidentiality and independence, are not there. But they are in the bill that the shadow Treasurer has introduced, and he is to be commended for the excellent work that he has done in this regard.
I hope that the Treasurer takes some time to reflect on the error of his ways, look closely at the coalition's bill and support it. The coalition has been proactive. It has put forward a very sensible, practical approach to how a parliamentary budget office should be set up. It has done so with an air of cooperation. We all know that the Treasurer has been floundering in his role, so the shadow Treasurer has really shown him the way, lent him a helping hand and said, 'Treasurer, we understand that you are a bit of a weak link in this government and that the backbench is talking about your role, so here is a proposal going forward that will help you.' That is what the shadow Treasurer has done. He has come up with a model that shows the Treasurer what a parliamentary budget office should really look like. As has been mentioned before, one of the two key ingredients that it shows is that the model that the shadow Treasurer has introduced is confidential. All services that the Parliamentary Budget Office would provide, whether it be to Independent members, members of the Greens or members of the coalition—in this case, when we are in opposition—would be confidential. It is very important that this service provided is confidential in nature. We all know that the resources that you have in opposition are a lot scarcer than those you have in government. You have the whole backing of a bureaucracy when you are in government. In opposition you do not—you have limited staffing resources, you can call on the services of the Parliamentary Library and you can call on the good graces of those outside the parliament to lend a hand. These bills, if implemented in the correct way, can address that imbalance.
Sadly, if you do not have proper confidentiality in providing the services of a parliamentary budget office, all this will be undone. In many ways, you are just setting up another branch in the Treasury or the department of finance, and this is not what we need for a parliamentary budget office. What we need is an office which is independent and which can provide confidential material, confidential advice and confidential facts, including on economic forecasts.
The importance of this confidentiality was seen in the debate leading up to the 2010 election over the coalition's costings, especially when it came to the NBN. We put to the Treasury our costings and they unfortunately set a lower quantum of savings that would come from our commitment to cancel the NBN, but they would not say why. Of course, the government jumped on this in one of the great scare campaigns and said our costings lacked rigour and that they had a black hole. We all know, as the secretaries of Treasury and Finance made clear afterwards, that they did not want to be in a position to cost the coalition's policies. They did not want to be in a position to have to detail why they used a different interest rate to that which the coalition had assumed, which was the 10-year bond rate. They did not want to be involved in the politics of the government's approach in calling the coalition's election commitments not properly researched and not properly financed—in fact, having a black hole.
It is necessary to avoid this form of politics and to get Treasury and Finance out of the game so they can do the much needed roles that they play. We need this Parliamentary Budget Office, but it has to be done in a confidential way so that if the coalition wants to have some of its policies costed it can approach the Parliamentary Budget Office knowing that it is not going to the executive arm of government to get those costings and knowing that it is not putting the executive arm of government in an invidious position. We will be enabling the parliament to have access to economic costings. As I have said before, it is not only the coalition in opposition that could benefit from this but also the Independents and the Greens, so it is a very sensible approach.
The Parliamentary Budget Office should be independent. If it is not independent, it places the bureaucracy in a difficult situation. The legislation as it currently stands, as the member for Wentworth pointed out, shows that the Parliamentary Budget Office would have to enter into memorandums of understanding with Treasury, the department of finance and any other departments that it wanted to get costings from. One of the great difficulties with this is that these memorandums of understanding could take a long time to be negotiated.
In the six months leading up to an election, when an opposition is looking to have the majority of its policies costed, you could find that the Parliamentary Budget Office is stuck in a huge discussion, debate or conflict with the two key finance departments on the memorandum of understanding. I think we would all agree that this is an unacceptable circumstance. Rather than having the government's model, which calls for this regulatory approach, this negotiation of memorandums of understanding, the Treasurer should just admit that once again he has it wrong, that the shadow Treasurer has come along and given him a helping hand, and just say, 'Okay, we do need full independence.' Our bill would give full independence because, importantly, it would give the Parliamentary Budget Office the same powers as the Australian National Audit Office. Those powers are quite significant. It would enable the Parliamentary Budget Office to be able to demand documents, it would enable them to demand answers, it would enable them to say, 'Challenge some of the costings,' and it would provide a real alternative to the departments of Treasury and Finance.
One of the worries about the bills that the government is putting forward is that in many ways, sadly, it represents the weakness of our current Treasurer. If he were truly an independent Treasurer—if he had his own ideas and the ability to drive the government's economic agenda—I think he would have come up with our bill. But he is so sadly beholden to his department and so sadly bereft of economic leadership that when putting this bill together he has literally gone along with what Treasury and the department of finance have told him.
We cannot blame Treasury and finance for putting the government bill together the way they have, because no federal bureaucracy wants to give power to another organisation or wants to have material it produces double-checked. In a fully functioning parliamentary budget office we would have a fully functioning ability to provide a second opinion to what Treasury and finance were putting forward. I can understand their reticence with this. They have great pride in the work they do and in the work they submit to the parliament, but we should never walk away from increased transparency, especially when it comes to government and the use of taxpayers' money. As has been highlighted before, in the NBN we have a project which will amount to an expenditure of over $50 billion; yet the opposition has no ability as it currently stands to get a cost-benefit analysis of this enormous expenditure of taxpayers' money. If we had a proper parliamentary budget office which offered a confidential service and an independent service we would be able to get this work done.
I make one last point before concluding. Sadly, the Charter of Budget Honesty has probably come to the end of its use-by date if the government is going to continue to use it in the way that it has. In both 2007 and 2010 the Australian Labor Party released their costings on the day before the election, which meant that there could be no scrutiny and no independent analysis of those costings. That is not what the Charter of Budget Honesty was set up for. We need to move on from that, and that is what the Parliamentary Budget Office would do. The member for Wentworth was in many ways visionary in 2008 when he put forward this idea. He was incredibly worried about expenditure that was going to take place under the Rudd and then the Gillard government. That has proved to be correct. In the last budget we saw a budget deficit of over $40 billion. We have seen net debt hit $110 billion. This is expenditure the likes of which Australia has never before seen.
We need a parliamentary budget office to hold this government's rapid expenditure to account. That is what we have proposed in the bill that we have put forward. It is a better bill because of its confidential and independent nature. I would ask the Treasurer to eat humble pie and do what is in the best interests of the Australian nation by going for the type of parliamentary budget office that we have put forward, which will be confidential and independent in nature.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (18:18): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 and particularly on the merits of and need for the creation of a parliamentary budget office. As someone who has spent a great deal of time around election campaigns both in my capacity in this place and in the party organisation, I know that it is genuinely time to end the circus around budget costings at election time. It is important that the Australian public have access to positions that are put forward by the parties at elections and that those parties have available to them proper resources and independent advice to assist them to put forward their positions. Otherwise the circus will continue and the public debate that centres around these matters at election time will distract from the opportunity to focus on the substance of the policies that are being put forward.
I strongly commend the initiative to have a parliamentary budget office, but it has to be fair dinkum: it has to provide the opportunity for all members of this House and the other place to access independent costings. This will aid policy development. It will aid not only the debates that we have in this place but also the debates we have outside this place in our efforts to frame, consider and develop positive and constructive policy. The benefits of having a parliamentary budget office will accrue only if it is a genuinely independent office that enables a confidential and even an iterative process to occur. It is important that any member can have confidence to determine that, when any information they are seeking to be costed is released, they can have confidence in the process in which they engage in to obtain those costings.
The government's bill is yet another attempt to compromise an important and independent process. Just last week I had the unfortunate experience of watching this government abuse yet another important, independent process when officials from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship came to brief the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Attorney-General and me. This is an important, independent process that members in this House rely on—the provision of briefings from government officials and government agencies. What did we learn? We learnt that the government had used the officials to brief the media before briefing the opposition, which was their purpose. I am sure the minister's old boss, the former minister in New South Wales, would have been quite proud to see public officials used and abused. We saw this process happen in New South Wales year in and year out. It led to an undermining of public confidence in the way that that government was run. That is what is at stake here—the opportunity to have a genuine, independent parliamentary budget office that can assist the workings of this place, the workings of proper policy debate and the development of very sound policy. The Parliamentary Budget Office is supposed to be one of the innovations of this parliament. While the failure of the minority government that has formed has meant that this parliament has been disappointing, there is an opportunity to get at least something right. I do not believe the government is acting as a willing partner in this exercise in the way they brought this bill to this House. That is why the coalition is seeking to restore that opportunity with the amendments that have been circulated by the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer.
As a consequence of the aspiration to form a parliamentary budget office, the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office was formed to inquire into the matter and found in its final report, handed down earlier this year, that there was a significant shortfall in the way the government and, indeed, the parliament approaches matters of fiscal importance. The final report observed:
There is currently no independent body in Australia that specialises in high quality research and analysis on fiscal policy for the Parliament.
The ideal solution advocated by this committee was the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Office to fill the void and assume this role as a vigorously independent arbitrator. This was first flagged by the member for Wentworth. It was an initiative that he put forward for the reasons already outlined in this place by other members.
The ideal solution advocated by the committee was the creation of this budget office. The committee recommended the establishment of a budget office 'dedicated to serving the Australian parliament'. Let us focus for a moment on those words: an office 'dedicated to serving the Australian parliament'. They do not say that the office should be dedicated to serving the government of the day or that it should be abused in some sort of political process and power game by the government; they say that the office is supposed to serve the members of this parliament. I think that is a telling choice of words. The office is supposed to serve the interests of the people and the broader democratic function of this parliament, not the interests of any one political party or the executive wing. The committee made the considered recommendation that the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Office be:
… to inform the Parliament by providing independent, non-partisan and policy neutral analysis on the full Budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals.
Again the emphasis is on the word 'independent'. This position must serve as more than simply a megaphone projecting or regurgitating existing partisan politics. If members wish to outline particular policy proposals and put them in the public domain, they will choose to do so. Their proposals should not be released into the public domain as an automatic consequence of their seeking to have robust and independent analysis put in place. That would mean the withdrawal of the genuine opportunity to go through an iterative process of policy development.
This entity must be separate and it must be equipped with access to documentation and information in order to make authoritative analyses on matters that have undoubtable consequences for the Australian hip pocket and family budget. The joint committee recommended that the main function was:
… to respond to requests of Senators, Members and parliamentary committees, formally contribute to committee inquiries, publish self-initiated work, and prepare costings of election commitments.
The committee found that the election costings provisions of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998—
which was so flagrantly abused by the government during the last election, particularly—
… in enabling the electorate to be better informed about the financial implications of election commitments.
The report made the shrewd observation that the voting public was not able to engage with quality political debate without an independent and potentially very valuable source of information.
The committee recommended incentives for parties to use a costings process in order to enhance transparency and bolster accountability. Importantly, the committee found that in order for this position to correlate with proven international best practice the position of a parliamentary budget officer would have to be created as an independent office of the parliament, not of the executive, which the government seems to have attempted to do de facto in the way they have framed this bill. However, if it were set up in the way that the committee recommended, the office could more clearly serve the ongoing information and scrutiny needs of the parliament as a whole, therefore improving fiscal transparency and executive accountability, which is a notion that seems foreign to this government.
The report made a number of recommendations to further strengthen and consolidate the ability of the office to supply this robust and independent analysis. They included making provision for the office to be able to access information held by government departments as well as allowing for a mechanism by which the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit could oversee the Parliamentary Budget Office position. But it is clear that the creation of this office must go towards the consolidation of an independent entity capable of exercising analytical judgment without interference or influence from either the government or the opposition.
The work of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office argues very clearly that, in the interests of open and informed political debate and in order to best give the opportunity for our democracy to continue to flourish as it ought, there is clearly a need for an independent authority in the arena—especially at election time, when the clamour of political promises is at its peak.
The committee recommended that wherever possible the work of the office be made publicly available; but, again, that would be initiated by the member, as we have proposed in our amendments. The coalition has always felt very strongly on the issue, and I remind the House that the establishment of this office was a coalition election commitment. While we agree with the government on the need for the position, our concern with the government's bill before us is, as I have noted, that it take deliberate steps to ensure that the office functions as little more than an extension or peripheral arm of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
This bill requires that the office make an arrangement in writing to seek information and documents and prevents the office from preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates. Heaven help the government if they were ever subject to that sort of scrutiny! What use is an independent fiscal voice if it is openly silenced and gagged and so prevented from passing analytical judgment and constructive comment on such fundamental political functions as the budget that this House is asked to consider every May? The coalition has conscientiously strived to ensure that the office is an entirely independent entity: an independent statutory body with strong powers to obtain information from government agencies and departments and supply independent analysis of economic forecasts, including the budget. The government bill requires the PBO, or Parliamentary Budget Officer, to make an arrangement in writing, as I have said. I think this is a form of censorship that hardly correlates with the concept the government would have us believe it is proposing: an unbiased and independent umpire. The bill put forward by my colleague the member for North Sydney is in stark contrast with what the government is proposing, and his bill should be commended to the House. If the government truly believe in the need for an open, impartial voice of economic reason, they would alter their bill to provide for this truly objective source of advice and information to be made available to members of this place and the other. This means that the office must have broad scope and access to the documentation they need and the ability to exercise their informed and independent judgment in the security of the workings of the government's budget, regardless of which side of the chamber these sums are derived from. Interestingly, the joint select committee referred to international best practice.
For this office to operate effectively and with credibility and integrity, it deserves to, I think, follow the model of the United States through the Congressional Budget Office, which other members have referred to in their remarks. For the budget office to have integrity, it must mirror that working model. The Congressional Budget Office mandate is to supply congress with objective, non-partisan and timely analysis to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the budget and the information estimates required for congressional budget processes. The coalition's primary objection is that the model before us in its current form falls significantly short of this best-practice model.
Each year at the end of January, the Congressional Budget Office reports on the economic and budget outlook. It includes estimates on spending and revenue levels for the next decade and becomes a budget baseline which is then used by members of congress as a neutral benchmark to measure the effect of proposed bills and legislation. The baseline is constructed according to specific laws which instruct the budget office to assume that current spending and revenue laws continue without change. It is not a prediction of future budget outcomes; however, it does reflect the office's best judgment about the way the economy and other factors will influence federal revenues and spending under existing laws. The Congressional Budget Office is a useful, practical tool that serves the purpose of that legislature providing credible advice.
The American Congressional Budget Office employs about 250 people. It operates as an agency comprised of predominantly economists and policy analysts. Three out of four staff hold advanced degrees, the majority in economics or public policy. In the 2010 financial year, the budget office in the United States issued 33 studies and reports, 12 briefs, 12 Monthly Budget Reviews, 35 letters, 14 presentations and two background papers, in addition to two other publications and a vast array of supplemental data. The Congressional Budget Office testified before congress 14 times on a range of issues. In the 2010 calendar year, the budget office completed 650 federal cost estimates as well as 475 estimates on the impact of legislation on state and local governments. The Congressional Budget Office provides up-to-date and easily accessible data on its website, including current budget and economic projections and appropriations. Importantly, the Congressional Budget Office assists the House and Senate budget committees of the United States and, more generally, congress by putting together reports and analyses. In accordance with its mandate, the Congressional Budget Office reports contain no policy recommendations but are objective and impartial.
It is true that Australia's democratic traditions and history have taken a different path to those of the United States, but quite clearly the Congressional Budget Office provides the benchmark which we would seek to emulate, and that is what the coalition's amendments are geared towards. So I would implore the government to get serious about having a fair dinkum parliamentary budget office and not go along with this corruption of the process, which they seem to wallow in on so many occasions, and so happily, to avoid the transparency and scrutiny that is proper for a democracy of our standing. I urge the government to reconsider and live up to at least one expectation of this parliament and deliver a fair dinkum, independent Commonwealth parliamentary budget office.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:33): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. This bill provides for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office. In considering this bill, it is both interesting and important to look at the history of this parliament's past efforts to establish a parliamentary budget office.
The need for this parliament to have a parliamentary budget office has been raised at various times since the 1980s, with the suggestion that Australia should have a budget office similar to the Congressional Budget Office of the United States of America. But very little happened through the eighties and nineties. Then we fast forward to the infamous 2020 Summit. Who would forget the warm inner glow that many in government felt when the Prime Minister of the day was swanning around with actors and actresses, a range of minor celebrities and a self-proclaimed group of our best and brightest in the complete and utter farce of the 2020 Summit! That was just over three years ago—how time flies. However, one thing that did come out of the 2020 Summit was the identification that there was a need for a well-resourced and financed parliamentary budget office. But, as has become a trademark of this government in getting every decision wrong, in its response to the 2020 Summit the government put the view that a parliamentary budget office was not needed and advised that a service to members was already available through the Parliamentary Library.
So it was left up to the coalition when, in May 2009, the then Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply speech called for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office which was to be modelled on the US Congressional Budget Office. The coalition's proposal in May 2009 was that the Parliamentary Budget Office would be responsible to the Australian parliament and chartered to provide independent, objective analysis of fiscal policy, including long-term projections of the impacts of various measures on the economy. But, yet again, this suggestion was rejected by this government. Then, in June 2010, the coalition yet again led the way when the Leader of the Opposition renewed the call for the creation of a parliamentary budget office, and the establishment of such an office formed part of the federal coalition's 2010 election policy platform. But again this policy was not supported by the government.
However, when it came to the current Prime Minister's negotiations with the Independents in an attempt to form government—in what could be the script for another episode of At Home with Julia—all of a sudden, after three times previously rejecting the need for a parliamentary budget office, the government changed its mind. Therefore, it has been pleasing to hear members of this government at least acknowledge the need for a parliamentary budget office, even if what they are proposing is a deeply flawed bill and a deeply flawed model which will result in a lame duck and an all but useless parliamentary budget office.
We need to appreciate the importance of a parliamentary budget office, given the current state of the budget and the debt that this government has racked up. In just four short years this government will have run up combined deficits of close to $150 billion. While the Treasurer talks about returning the budget to surplus—which, if achieved, would be the first Labor surplus in over 20 years—he is talking about the surplus of $3 billion, compared to the combined deficits of close to $150 billion racked up in just four years. Even if the Treasurer is able to defer enough expenditure to crack it for a $3 billion surplus, to get us back to square one and to get this nation back into the position it was when the Howard-Costello government left office, we would need to repeat the Treasurer's planned $3 billion surplus year after year for the next 50 years to pay back the debt this government has racked up in just four years. Therefore, in the years ahead, we are going to have growing demands on our budget, but our resources, as always, will be scarce and limited.
No future Australian government will have the luxury of affording the appalling waste, mismanagement and cost overruns that have been the trademark of this government. The misguided and poorly thought through programs we have seen from this government, such as GroceryWatch and the pink batts fiasco—only two from a list too long to mention—must be a thing of the past. The need for a parliamentary budget office to be established and to provide independent costings, fiscal analysis and research to all members of parliament, especially non-government members, has never been more critical.
Given that the government is getting on board with the coalition's call for a parliamentary budget office, the debate is no longer about whether a parliamentary budget office is needed but about the form it should take, not just for this parliament but for all future parliaments. The debate is about what model the parliamentary budget office should take. This parliament currently has two separate models before it, but we must not be foolish enough to consider that these two models will produce the same outcome. While the coalition's model has been developed and thought through over a long period, Labor's model in contrast has been rushed through in response to the coalition's bill—and dragged there by the Independents and Greens under a desperate deal for power, which explains the sloppy legislation we are now debating. In fact, the best thing the government could do is simply withdraw the bill in its entirety and support the coalition's bill.
The main flaw in the government's proposal is that the service to be provided under its model for a parliamentary budget office will not be confidential. The failure to achieve such a facility will render a parliamentary budget office pointless. The policy costing service will be no different to that now offered under the Charter of Budget Honesty. Policy cannot be developed in a vacuum without considering the costs, like we have seen with Labor's policies on the NBN and border protection. When considering policy, every member of parliament must be able to put a proposed policy for costing to the Parliamentary Budget Office and be assured of confidentiality. Members must have the prerogative to adjust or finetune a policy or even dump it altogether if the costing turns out to be substantially different from what was expected. But, under the government's proposal for a parliamentary budget office, requests for costings by members would be published on the websites of the Treasury and/or the Department of Finance and Deregulation as soon as they are received. Members of parliament will not have control over the timing of the release of policies they submit for costing, there is no ability for the costing to be discussed or reviewed and there is no ability for a member to discuss the underlying assumptions behind the policy initiative. Treasury and Finance are not even required to release any assumptions underlying the costing, simply the costing itself.
How can anyone stand here in this chamber and argue for such a flawed scheme? This is why the government's proposal is deeply flawed and why the coalition will not be supporting it without amendments. If the government is fair dinkum about creating a parliamentary budget office—and this is not just another stunt—it must provide a model that delivers a confidential service for costing policy proposals for all MPs and senators, including the opposition, minor parties, Independents and backbench government MPs.
Confidentiality is the crucial and non-negotiable element of the coalition's bill and the amendments we seek. It is worth noting that the US Congressional Budget Office, the scheme on which we seek to model our parliamentary budget office, does honour confidentiality. Likewise, members and senators in this parliament must be able to enter into confidential and private discussions with a parliamentary budget office about the costs of policies.
Members and senators also must be able to question and discuss any underlying assumptions, such as costings, with a parliamentary budget office, and members and senators must have the ability to control the timing of the release of policies and their costings. To do so would enable this parliament to function at a higher level, to the benefit of the Australian nation. The coalition's bill and the amendments we seek for this bill shall achieve this goal.
The amendments proposed by the coalition will, firstly, strengthen the functions of the Parliamentary Budget Office by broadening the functions of the office to include preparation of economic forecasts and budget estimates. Secondly, the amendments proposed will improve information-gathering powers and secrecy by deleting the arrangements within the bill for obtaining information from Commonwealth bodies and inserting the information-gathering powers from the coalition's bill, which are based on those of the Auditor-General. Thirdly, and most importantly, the amendments will restore confidentiality to costing of policies during the caretaker period by deleting the sections within the government's bill which relate to the immediate public release of policy documentation submitted by non-government members and senators during the caretaker period, and the period on or after polling day, until the time when the government is formed. This will enable costings to be truly confidential, unless otherwise instructed, and they will provide an opportunity for views to be challenged in the private domain before costings are released to the public. We on this side of the House are not afraid of scrutiny. Unlike those opposite, we have delivered a budget surplus in the past 20 years. In fact, previous coalition governments have delivered budget surplus after budget surplus. It is fast becoming the case that few Australians can even remember the last time Labor delivered a budget surplus. Imagine if the Australian people had the information with a proper analysis of policy costings prior to an election; this is what the coalition's plan will deliver.
The coalition's model is in line with global moves towards greater transparency in government and fiscal policies that governments will undertake. We are seeking to move forward with a robust, independent umpire advising on policy costings. The only way to create a workable model is to create a fiercely bold and truly independent parliamentary budget office, not one reliant on government departments—and this is exactly what the proposed, far superior private member's bill of the coalition will do.
I call on members of the government and the Independents to look beyond the next election. Rather than think about short-term political objectives, think about what is best for the future of this country and this parliament. Do that by either supporting the coalition's alternative bill or at least supporting the amendments, as these are the only ways we can ensure that this parliament has a truly independent and effective parliamentary budget office.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (18:46): I thank members who have contributed to this debate on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011. The establishment of an independent parliamentary budget office is very significant. It is a permanent reform that will build on Australia's already very strong fiscal frameworks. It will ensure greater accountability and transparency in policy making. It will promote greater understanding in the community about fiscal policy and it will ensure that the Australian public are kept better informed about the fiscal impact of policy proposals, particularly during election periods.
These reforms will allow all parliamentary parties and Independent members to have their policies costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. Members and senators will be able to request confidential policy costings from the PBO outside of the caretaker period of a general election. During general elections, the election policy costing service will be fully transparent, with costings made available to the public. This transparency requirement is fundamental—I stress 'fundamental'—to ensure the Australian public can be fully informed about the fiscal impacts of election policies before they cast their vote. The Parliamentary Budget Office will help ensure that the Australian people are never again—I stress 'never again'—subjected, as they were at the last election, to the opposition attempting to hide an $11 billion black hole in their costings. That is what occurred in the last election campaign. The opposition spent the last election trying to avoid public scrutiny of their election policy costings under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act. Today we have seen that they are already creating new excuses to hide from public scrutiny at the next election. It is unbelievable. They are slowly crab-walking away from the independent model for the Parliamentary Budget Office that they signed up to just five months ago. The opposition are clearly still grossly embarrassed about the $11 billion black hole at the last election. We saw that reflected in the extraordinary attack in this parliament today on the Public Service by the shadow finance minister. It was a simply disgraceful speech that was made to camouflage his own gross incompetence.
We have to be very clear about this. This bill will provide the opposition with an advantage that no other opposition has ever had before. It provides for access to a confidential costing service outside of a general election period, which has never been available before, and it provides for a fully transparent costing service during a general election. The opposition will have two options when it comes to election policy costings: they can elect to have Treasury and Finance cost their election policies or they can elect to have the Parliamentary Budget Office do it. They will have absolutely no excuse. They will not be able to try to hide their election policy costings from public scrutiny.
The government's bill is based on the model which was recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. Everybody on that committee supported the model that the government is putting forward. The Liberal Party signed up to that model in March this year. There was broad parliamentary representation on the committee. It included members of the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Labor Party and the Australian Greens, and an Independent member of parliament. It included two shadow ministers, the member for Sturt as deputy chair, and Senator Joyce as well as the member for Higgins. It is hard to imagine a more important issue on which bipartisan support is warranted. That is why it is so deeply disappointing to see the opposition walk away from supporting the model which was recommended by the joint select committee. The joint select committee from all parties in this House agreed to it in total, yet it is being walked away from in this parliament today. It is deeply disappointing.
It was deeply disappointing to hear the shadow Treasurer this morning declare that, if this bill were passed, the opposition would not submit its policies for costings by either the Parliamentary Budget Office or the Treasury. Could you think of anything more arrogant and anything less accountable than that action of the shadow Treasurer in this House today? He declared that the Liberal Party will keep the Australian people in the dark at the next election when it comes to policy costings, just like he did in the last election campaign. That is the team that got $9 out every $10 in net savings wrong at the last election. They are now asking the Australian people to let them do it again so they can hide their incompetence from the Australian people. It is not surprising that they have got a budget black hole, or crater now, of $70 billion in their budget bottom line. They have a Leader of the Opposition who is wandering around the country telling anybody what they want to hear anytime, irrespective of cost. Therefore, it is not surprising that they should come into this House and resist the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Budget Office during an election campaign, given that incredibly irresponsible record that they have set for themselves.
The PBO model proposed by the shadow Treasurer would, firstly, undermine its resourcing, making it hostage to future funding by the Treasury department. Secondly, it would weaken governance arrangements by making the PBO accountable to ministers, not to the parliament, and reduce the transparency and public accountability around election policy costings. The opposition want to replace a completely transparent costing process, one where the costings are made available to the public, with a non-transparent process. We know why that is the case—because they simply can never get it right. Given their track record, they can simply never, ever get it right.
The shadow Treasurer wants to put in place a confidential election costing process so that when he does not agree with the costing outcome he can hide it and refuse to release it to the Australian people. This is extraordinary. Is there nothing they will not do or say to achieve a political advantage? All this demonstrates that they have so little faith in their own ability that they want some sort of escape clause in the PBO legislation. Given this abysmal record, it is not surprising that they are doing everything they possibly can to run away from public accountability and, really of course, to run away from the fundamental tenets of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act. This is what the then Treasurer, Mr Costello, had to say when the Charter of Budget Honesty was put forward: 'By requiring the costings to be made publicly available, there is limited scope for the results of the costings to be misrepresented.' Very accurate.
The opposition's amendments are inconsistent with the recommendations of the parliamentary joint select committee and inconsistent with the central thrust of the Charter of Budget Honesty. The committee spent many months considering the appropriate functions of the Parliamentary Budget Office costing processes and access to information, and considered something like 21 submissions. The committee determined that information-sharing arrangements governed by a memorandum of understanding between the PBO and government agencies would be more effective than legislating powers to compel. The opposition's proposed amendments provide for unfettered access to highly confidential taxpayer and national security information that is clearly not required for the PBO to fulfil its functions. The opposition's approach is to create an adversarial legislative relationship backed by criminal sanctions.
The government's approach favours the development of a comprehensive understanding between the PBO and agencies. This is designed to ensure that information can be exchanged quickly and appropriately, in keeping with the recommendations of the joint select committee. If the opposition were serious about budget accountability and transparency, they would support the model put forward by the joint select committee in the government's legislation. The Parliamentary Budget Office is an important new institution that will strengthen Australia's budget frameworks and it should not be undermined by those opposite. Their approach to this bill demonstrates yet again why they are unfit for high office.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Sidebottom ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. A division being called for, in accordance with standing order 133(b) the division is deferred until 8.00 pm.
Debate adjourned.
Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (18:57): I rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. This bill contains two schedules. Schedule 1 contains three parts that amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005. The schedule would amend the title of a number of office holders from 'general manager' to 'chief executive officer'. Presently, a number of statutory positions created by the ATSI Act 2005 are referred to by the term 'general manager'. These roles are deemed to be better reflected in the title 'chief executive officer'. The change is also designed to bring these agencies into line with the majority of other Commonwealth statutory agencies and companies. The change of title from general manager to chief executive officer does not involve any changes to the remuneration package associated with the positions. Aligning the position titles with comparable positions in other authorities is expected to assist the boards of these agencies attract suitably qualified applicants.
The schedule would ensure that information held by Indigenous Business Australia will be appropriately protected but capable of being disclosed by that organisation in carrying out its proper functions, consistent with similar arrangements. The secrecy provisions relating to IBA in section 191 of the act has prevented the disclosure of information to agencies with responsibility for overseeing Commonwealth administrative practices such as the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner. It has also prevented disclosure of information to Commonwealth agencies working in joint initiatives with Indigenous Business Australia. The amended provision will allow disclosure of information in limited circumstances. The changes to the secrecy provisions applicable to Indigenous Business Australia may assist the organisation to carry out its functions while protecting commercial-in-confidence information. The change should also permit scrutiny of IBA activities by the parliament, namely Senate estimates committees.
Schedule 1 would also remove references to the availability of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Ltd schemes. The two discontinued schemes are not likely to be reinstated, so this item is simply tidying up the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Schedule 2 amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009, allowing the minister to delegate the power to appoint a person to act as the Executive Director of Township Leasing or the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services. Currently the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009 provide that the minister may appoint a person to the specified position with the acts not allowing a provision for that power to be delegated.
The Executive Director, Township Leasing, is an independent statutory office holder who works with communities to ensure that the township lease is managed effectively and provides a real benefit to the community. The Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services is intended to be independent of government service delivery agencies to drive improvements to the coordination of the development and delivery of Indigenous policies and to facilitate reforms to the development and delivery of such programs. Both of these positions were deliberately designed to remain separate from individual agencies but, however, have been incrementally absorbed into the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. This has resulted in their ability to drive reforms being compromised. These positions must remain appointed by the minister and not delegated to the department. The coalition therefore opposes the passage of schedule 2.
We believe it is important that someone be appointed to act in the role of Coordinator-General for Remote and Service Delivery. The coalition believes that, when a vacancy occurs, the minister fills the position with an acting appointment to preserve the separation from the department so necessary with this position. The coalition believes that the current procedure for making such an appointment is neither onerous nor unworkable when compared to the need to maintain separation of the position and the department charged with coordinating service delivery. The coalition continues to lament the fact that this Labor-Greens alliance continues to fail our Indigenous peoples. It continues to allow program failures and bungled policy responses as well as waste and mismanagement to dominate this important area of policy. Australia's Indigenous population deserve better. They deserve much. much better, but this government just cannot deliver.
In the last sitting fortnight I spoke on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. The coalition flagged that it would oppose a schedule of that bill. We indicated that we would seek to amend the bill. Suddenly, however, the government have decided they will pull the schedule. This is part of what is an emerging trend by Labor. The government are so weak that they cannot even stand by their own legislation. If it looks like it might fail, they cut and run. I am advised the government will now amend this bill to remove schedule 2. Given the government's intention to remove schedule 2, the coalition will support the passage of the bill.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:02): I speak in support of the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 201l. The shadow minister, the member for Menzies, is correct about the schedule with respect to the delegation of the minister's powers to make acting appointments under certain Indigenous acts having been pulled by the government, but I do not agree with his analysis with respect to closing the gap nor what this government is doing in Indigenous affairs. The previous government did not cover itself with glory in this area and surely governments of all persuasions over many decades could have done better.
This legislation amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to change the title of a number of officeholders from general manager to chief executive officer, ensures information held by Indigenous Business Australia or IBAs will be appropriately protected but capable of being disclosed by that organisation in carrying out its proper functions consistent with the legislation and removes references to the availability of a review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Ltd schemes. I will speak a little more about those matters.
The change of name from general manager to chief executive officer for several agency heads does reflect their responsibilities in this day and age. We often refer to chief executive officers of companies and organisations. We do not generally refer to them as general managers. Also I think there is a greater capacity for better remuneration and opportunity to attract a better calibre of person in terms of their skills, talent and ability for that role if they are called a chief executive officer rather than a general manager, which is quite an archaic expression these days in corporate titling. The agency heads affected will be the heads of Indigenous Business Australia, the Indigenous Land Corporation, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Torres Strait Islander Regional Authority.
These changes in nomenclature bring them in line with other Commonwealth statutory authorities and entities such as the Australian Council for the Arts, Screen Australia, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the Australian Sports Commission. This is an example of modernisation of the title and is a sensible outcome. I cannot think of many organisations these days in the business world that refer to people as general managers; they tend to refer to them as chief executive officers. This is an important change. Although it is minor, it does have an impact on what people will consider when they actually apply for those jobs.
The second amendment is what I would call the secrecy provision. It is an amendment to the information in handling provisions which will overcome what has been described—and what I have read—as a historical and narrow focus that has prevented IBA from sharing information with other agencies responsible for government programs and practices such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The old provision that is being done away with prevented information being given to those Commonwealth agencies which happen to work on any initiatives of a joint nature with IBA and the state and territory agencies seeking to work more closely with IBA to achieve better final outcomes for Indigenous peoples across the length and breadth of our country, whether in regional and rural remote areas, rural areas or in metropolitan Australia in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, for example. So the amendment's provisions aim to overcome the previous practical difficulties but with the continued, appropriate protection of sensitive information between agencies. It is in line with what the government has done in relation to other legislation, such as the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, and so it is a sensible outcome. The amendments, as I understand it, are supported by the IBA Board as well.
The third aspect is in relation to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. That amendment relates, as I mentioned before, to a provision in respect of the review of a decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and it removes a reference to two discontinued schemes which are unlikely to be resurrected. They are the Community Support Hostel Grants Scheme and the Student Rent Subsidy Scheme. They have not been operating for many years, so this is a sensible outcome to do away with that provision.
Indigenous Business Australia, IBA, is a statutory body established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, and its purpose is to create opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities to build wealth, income and assets. Homeownership is a particularly important aspect of this. People who own homes tend to act more sensibly and responsibly in terms of being good corporate citizens—there is a community aspect to their lives and they see themselves as part of civic society. I think IBA, in providing affordable home loans to eligible Indigenous Australians, has carried out good work.
Since 1975, IBA has assisted over 14,000 Australian families into homeownership. This is estimated to have generated a massive $1.43 billion in Indigenous wealth. It approved 363 new housing loans with a total value of $82.2 million in 2009-10, and 92 per cent of those were for first home owners. I think it is a good outcome to get people into the housing market because, as I say, that is good for community life and it is good for families as well, not just for individuals.
IBA also helps eligible Indigenous Australians to establish, acquire and grow businesses—I think that is particularly important—by providing business support services and finance. In 2009-10, IBA approved 81 business loans to the value of $13.6 million. It does not just provide the funds and leave the business owner to battle on; there is a mentoring aspect, support and advice, and they tailor their loans to help the business get off the ground. It is not just creating Indigenous employment. We have a proposal to create 100,000 jobs in Indigenous employment by the end of this decade. It is not just about Indigenous employees but about empowering our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters to actually get into businesses to create wealth and in that way close the gap and end disadvantage. Some recent analysis by IBA shows that more than 90 per cent of the businesses it supports are still operating after one year. That is a pretty good outcome when you consider the failure rate for small businesses. It is much better than what you might call mainstream business operations' success rates.
I mentioned Aboriginal Hostels Ltd before, which provides temporary hostel accommodation to Indigenous people across the country, enabling them to access education, employment, health and other services. Safe, affordable, culturally appropriate accommodation is particularly important. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd operates 53 company hostels, manages 13 Indigenous Youth Mobility Program hostels and contributes funding for 46 community operated hostels through the Community Hostel Grants Program. Nearly 80 per cent of AHL's 560 staff are Indigenous.
I mentioned before one of the organisations in my electorate which is recognised by IBA and which has played an important role in the community—that is, the Kambu Progress Association, based in Ipswich. There are a number of great organisations in my electorate that have assisted the progress of Indigenous people throughout the Ipswich and West Moreton region. Kambu Progress Association, based in Wharf Street in Ipswich, has helped a lot of people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. There is a large Indigenous community in the western corridor of Brisbane, and Kambu have helped a lot of Indigenous people with rental and other accommodation in Ipswich and surrounding country areas.
They are associated with another organisation that I will mention while I am speaking in this debate, Kambu Medical Centre, which provides medical services in a non-discriminatory way and on an easily accessible basis to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. Along with a number of other great organisations, such as We Care Day Respite Centre and Children of the Dreaming, in the Ipswich and West Moreton area, the Kambu Medical Centre plays a big role in trying to close the gap by providing support for those in need with crisis accommodation, help to get into a house, help with employment, help if your son or daughter is facing a criminal justice charge and all-round support. There are some fantastic people in my community who do a great job.
As I said, one of the IBA's recognised associations is Kambu Progress Association, and I thank them for the great work they do, particularly for those Indigenous people who have been impacted so adversely by the floods in the Ipswich and Somerset region. I know from my discussions with many people that the Indigenous communities have been impacted perhaps in a worse way than other communities, because more people live in suburbs like Booval, East Ipswich, Bundamba, Brassall and other areas around and along the Bremer River which were so impacted. I can still see, as I drive through my electorate, houses in which Indigenous people were living in those suburbs I just mentioned—people who have been assisted by Kambu Progress Association. I see those homes are still not occupied and are still in need of reconstruction and recovery. There is a lot of work to be done to help our Indigenous brothers and sisters, and organisations like Kambu Progress Association, tied up with the IBA, have done a terrific job in my area.
While this piece of legislation is pretty technical and fairly minor, it has the impact of streamlining the whole system. It covers a lot of great community organisations that do a lot of great work, particularly in South-East Queensland and in my electorate of Blair. I support the legislation.
Dr STONE (Murray) (19:14): I too rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) 2011. As the previous speaker said, on the face of it there would seem to be only quite minor administrative changes embedded in this amendment. We in the coalition will support those changes, but there is a lot of serious business behind such minor changes.
The first is, for example, the title change for a number of officeholders, such as that from general manager to chief executive officer. Second, we need to ensure that information held by Indigenous Business Australia is appropriately protected but capable of being disclosed by that organisation in carrying out its proper functions, consistent with similar Commonwealth arrangements. This is a point that I stress—too often with Aboriginal agencies, institutions or special strategies or plans, the onerous requirements for review after review, for accountability and for multiple levels of red tape cause an enormous amount of additional workload and stress not just for the Indigenous recipients of that support or those who participate in the administration but also for government services and state, territory and federal agencies across the board.
I often work with my local Indigenous community in the electorate of Murray. I was with them just last week discussing the fact that, if this were a mainstream strategy related to mainstream clients of housing, the scrutiny, reassessment, accounting for spending and so on would be far less onerous, but at the end of the day the information available to the government on what it had invested in the outcomes for the clients of that housing would be no better. It seems to me that this bill is trying to make sure that there is consistency with other similar Commonwealth arrangements when it comes to Indigenous Business Australia.
There is also the removal of references to the availability of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Limited schemes. The objective here is simply to note the passage of time and the fact that those particular Aboriginal Hostels schemes no longer exist. So, as I said, on the face of it these are simple, straightforward amendments; but beneath them there is a legacy of generations of onerous requirements when it comes to managing the lives of Aboriginal people. Too often their lives are so tightly managed that they are emasculated as individuals and their capacity to be independent people—economically and in every sense—has been taken from them.
I refer to an article that has come out in the last 48 hours which says that in the remote Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yakunytjatjara lands in South Australia we have a bit of a debate going on between government officials as to whether the people in the 200-strong community being referred to are starving or just hungry. I think it is extraordinary that in this time in Australia, a developed nation, there should be a statement in this article that reads:
The actions of the Red Cross sparked a fierce debate in Adelaide about whether people in APY were "starving" or whether they went hungry and skipped meals when their money ran out.
I would not have thought that there was much difference between the two if you had very young children not able to eat when the money ran out.
The distress in the APY lands is a consequence of the extraordinary prices that people have to pay in the stores there. Of course it is a remote community and there are extreme costs associated with trucking in food and other perishables from Adelaide and other places further south to parts of this country. The reality is that it is extremely difficult for families to manage meals for all of their dependents for all of the week with the welfare that they depend on. In fact, some people in the APY lands are calling on state and federal governments to introduce a voluntary income management scheme that would allow part of people's welfare payments to be quarantined for use on food and clothing. The response is that South Australian politicians have not been keen about this.
Even when we come to the quarantining of income where it is voluntary—and in this case it may have been voluntary—I refer again to my own electorate and people in my electorate. We are now to become one of the pilot areas to have welfare quarantined for families where the children are seen as being at risk or where women are in abusive households. This will be a voluntary situation where women in particular can volunteer to have their welfare income managed; it may also be that, where families are recommended for this income quarantining by the Child Support Agency, the quarantining is not voluntary.
But, whether it is voluntary or not, the point is that it will not necessarily be followed up in these pilot programs. We are told that there is no automatic training and support in such things as budgeting households, buying nutritious food and managing your finances for those with quarantined welfare: financial literacy, if you like. It is going to be voluntary if the mother—if you can imagine this—can get herself to a place of training, can find the child care and is not totally put off any formal learning system, since she may have absented herself from school many years before.
There is a whole range of problems associated with how we tend to intervene to try to support Indigenous households. We often end up in a situation where we just reinforce a sense of hopelessness and despair and take away an individual's prospects for being independent.
I refer to another situation that has come to my attention fairly recently. There were a number of Indigenous Australians in Western Australia who were very interested in becoming formally qualified and professional cullers of feral animals like camels, donkeys and even wild horses that do great damage to local ecosystems. The Indigenous men in particular expressed great interest in becoming skilled and trained in doing this culling work and, as you would be aware, there are government programs now which fund this culling work. Unfortunately, the Indigenous people were then ruled out of being eligible to do this training on the basis that some had criminal records, that most did not have a driver's licence and that many did not speak adequate English. Here was a prospect of a job—ongoing work which could be self managed. Local Indigenous enterprises could have been brought together to do this very important and ongoing work, but so many barriers were in their way—barriers which may have been put in place for good reasons but which would tend to be expected to apply to non-Indigenous communities, not to a community where English is not the first language and where most Indigenous men have some experience of being charged with offences before they reach the age of 25.
We set up so many barriers between what an Indigenous person may or may not do without taking on board the extraordinary 200 years of the legacy from colonial times. Exploitation in that area on pastoral stations has now been replaced by welfare dependency, which has led to the same situations of communities in poverty, often with very little to look forward to but drinking and the attendant high-risk behaviour, and, indeed, to foetal alcohol syndrome, which can come from women drinking during their pregnancy.
So we have a lot of issues in Indigenous Australia. I believe absolutely that we have bipartisan support in this House that directs what we do to try to make better policy and learn from our mistakes of the past. This bill is quite simple in many ways in trying to recognise some movement in, for example, the Aboriginal hostels arena, where we no longer need to refer to them, and in trying to make sure that Indigenous Business Australia is less burdened by red tape so that it can function like a normal Commonwealth agency.
All of those are highly commendable, but I also want to commend at least two inquiries in this House. One has just been completed: Doing time—time for doing, which was part of the output of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. In this we acknowledged the extraordinary rates of increased incarceration for Indigenous Australians—up 55 per cent for men and up 47 per cent for women. That cannot be tolerated in a developed nation like ours, which takes great pride in the effort and money it spends on foreign aid and supporting developing countries. I commend another report being undertaken by this same committee which looks at the retention of Indigenous community languages and at the same time seeks to make sure that those who help to maintain or revive their community languages are also supported to be fully functional in English. When they go to try to get employment or to get something as simple as a driver's licence or a licence to own and use guns for purposes of feral animal control, they are disadvantaged, discriminated against or exploited because of their lack of English. They can be exploited by others who realise they may not be fully across the issues in front of them.
We need to strive harder to support Indigenous Australia. We need to look to where policy in other countries that have been down a similar road to us can best inform us. But I find the statement I referred to in the Australian, where there is a controversy about whether hungry children are starving or simply hungry, abhorrent. I wonder why we have got to a point where, in a country like Australia, we continue to tolerate conditions such that when, if we were viewing the same settlements in—say—Rwanda or Zimbabwe or Papua New Guinea, we would be shocked and dismayed and instantly require that something different be done.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (19:26): I start by acknowledging the contribution of the member for Murray. We are on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs together and so share similar concerns. We are also on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, where we are also looking at matters that touch on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I read those comments in the paper the other day, and the implications in Australia in 2011 are certainly worth considering.
The Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 makes minor governance and business changes for portfolio bodies in the Indigenous affairs portfolio, including Indigenous Business Australia. It is important that organisations that support our efforts to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage be able to operate efficiently. Why is this important? I found that out in my very first day at work in this building, 13 February 2008. The first item of business, before we started, was a welcome to country, which had never happened in Canberra, and the second item of business was an apology to Australia's Indigenous people read by Prime Minister Rudd, the member for Griffith. It was certainly a great way to start in this job. It focused the mind of an Anglo-Saxon Australian on some unfinished business that has existed in Australia for a long time—since 1770 or 1788 or even back beyond that. I quote a couple of sections from that apology which focused my mind when researching my speech for this rather minor piece of legislation before the House. Prime Minister Rudd, as he then was, said:
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
He then went on to say:
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
The reason I quote extensively from that apology is not just that it was my first day in this building but also that I think it touches on that hollow or void, as I think I have referred to it before, at the heart of what Australia is about. We know what we are about economically—we have a very healthy economy. We know where we are with some of our historical links—our links with Asia, South America, North America, Europe, Africa et cetera. We know many of those things, but I think that, as Kevin Rudd touched on, the reality is that we had never really worked out what is the spirit of Australia—and I am not just talking about ads and the like. The reality is this nation was founded by people who came here in boats. Maybe that is why we have had such paranoia about boats ever since. The French arrived here three days later in boats. I think people were obsessed about the Russians, the Germans, the Japanese and then the Vietnamese and the like arriving by boat. We have always have had a paranoia about boats. Among the unfinished business that the apology to Australia's Indigenous people touched on was that we have to take the next steps to close the gap. This legislation before the House is one small part of doing that.
Indigenous Business Australia, a statutory authority established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act, creates opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities to build assets and wealth. As we know, assets and wealth are a very important part of closing the gap. Home ownership is an important step in economic independence, and the IBA provides access to affordable home loans for eligible Indigenous Australians. In fact, since 1975, IBA has assisted over 14,000 families into home ownership. This is estimated to have generated a massive $1.43 billion in Indigenous wealth. If you look at institutionalised poverty of any groups within communities, often the big problem is that they do not have intergenerational wealth. One of the ways to pass on wealth is in our homes. You see this phenomenon in shows like The Wire,which is about crime in Baltimore in the US. The communities that do not pass on housing value are often trapped in a poverty cycle. It is communities that can pass on an increase in wealth that are able to break through, whether they are first-generation migrants or 10th-generation migrants.
The IBA approved 363 new housing loans with a total value of $82.2 million in 2009-10. Ninety-two per cent of these loans were to first home buyers. IBA also helps eligible Indigenous Australians to establish, acquire and then grow businesses by providing business support services and business finance. In 2009-10, IBA approved 81 business loans to the value of $13.6 million. IBA does not just provide the funds and leave businesses to battle on their own and see what happens; the loan recipients are given tailored support to give their businesses every chance of success. Some recent analysis by IBA shows that more than 90 per cent of businesses that it supported are still operating after one year. I think that is much better than the success rate of mainstream businesses which, as a rule of thumb, have a failure rate of about one in three in their first year. That 90 per cent survive after one year shows that the practical help they receive, coupled with a good plan and a bit of market luck, is supporting people to get jobs and opportunities.
There are many other initiatives out there to support Indigenous economic development to help close the gap. Job Services Australia was responsible from July 2009 to June 2011 for over 80,000 placements in employment for Indigenous Australians. From July 2009 to July 2011, the Learn and Earn Legends spoken about in question time when recognising the students in the gallery—and I have one of those students, Peter Spanner from Rockhampton State high school, getting experience in Parliament House—provided support services for 2,300 Indigenous students across Queensland and monitored their progress in school and post school. These students are given individually case-managed plans and provided with a tailored destination plan. As a result the first 1,500 students have completed their first year, and the rate of students moving into further education or employment has doubled from 40 per cent to 80 per cent—a fantastic effort.
There is also a memorandum of understanding between the Australian and Queensland governments and my old employer, the Queensland Resources Council. The Australian and Queensland governments and QRC have entered into this tripartite MOU to increase employment and business opportunities for Indigenous people in the mining industry. The Queensland Resources Council looks after gas, coal and lots of mining companies in Queensland. The Australian government, through the Indigenous Employment Program, has committed $200,000 to the initiative. The Queensland government has also committed $200,000 and QRC has committed $140,000 plus $60,000 to provide research support through the Centre for Social Responsibility and Mining at the University of Queensland. There are significant labour and skills shortages in the mining regions of Queensland and this MOU is an invaluable opportunity to provide Indigenous job seekers with the skills they need to pursue employment in the booming mining industry. I commend the federal and state governments, and I particularly commend Michael Roche, CEO of the Queensland Resources Council, and his staff and the board for this initiative. I look forward to hearing from Michael Roche about the results.
We are also increasing Indigenous employment across the Commonwealth Public Sector, so we are putting our money where our mouth is. All states and territories in the Commonwealth have agreed to the national target of 2.6 per cent by 2015. The Commonwealth has set a target of 2.7 per cent for itself. Unfortunately Indigenous employment in the Commonwealth Public Sector is only 2.2 per cent, so I look forward to the 2.7 per cent target being met by 2015.
There is also the Indigenous Youth Career Pathways program, where we are providing $50 million over four years for 6,400 school based traineeships. The program will commence from the start of 2012 and focus on school based traineeships and support activities for years 11 and 12—and in some circumstances year 10—Indigenous students in targeted high schools across the country. I think back to my high school in rural Queensland where too many of my Indigenous friends who were incredibly talented and smart did not have the support and the role models to find a job that might have taken them out of that country town. This program will provide young people with personal mentoring and case management to help them deal with the issues that face young people and to make the transition from school to work. It will also be available to support other Indigenous students, including students from year 7 onwards, to stay at school and then transition into a school based traineeship or further education or a job. Another example is Woolworths in South Australia partnering with the Australian government and the South Australian government to deliver 300 new employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There are lots of opportunities around Australia to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in finding work; this legislation is one small part of it. As part of the apology, Mr Rudd said:
… there comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time. That is why the parliament is today here assembled: to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nation’s soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia.
So here we are in the 43rd Parliament continuing that work. I am sure that this legislation before the chamber is a part of that new chapter and I commend it to the House.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (19:38): I rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. I recognise the words of the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, who said that we have to understand from where we come. In my maiden speech I referred to Randal Ross from Red Dust Healing in Townsville, who does exactly that: to figure out where you are, you have to know where you have come from. He takes it back all the way to hunter-gatherer times and uses the example of the American Indians, the way they have come forward and the way that they have treated their own history. So I acknowledge those words.
This bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 with some minor changes related to governance and business arrangements established by that act. This includes, in the first schedule of the bill, changing the title of several general managers to chief executive officer in recognition of the changing nature of their roles, allowing information held by Indigenous Business Australia to be disclosed where appropriate and removing references to the availability of review for two Aboriginal Hostels Ltd schemes which are no longer in place. For someone who has lived his life making sure that his title is as generic as humanly possible, I find that people stickling for titles like chief executive officer, general manager and chief general manager to be for business cards alone. However, if this brings them into line with other organisations then all the better.
I support these undertakings. I recognise that the title of chief executive officer will bring about consistency for a number of similar roles and will offer the nominal recognition necessary to attract quality applicants who have held a chief executive officer position on equivalent authorities. For that reason, as I stated, while I do not put a lot of stock into actual titles, I understand that you cannot go from being a chief executive officer of one organisation to a general manager of another and think that it is a promotion.
One of the important parts of this legislation that I would like to acknowledge is the changes being made to secrecy provisions for Indigenous Business Australia. These are very important. There are certainly sensitivities regarding the information IBA obtains as part of its work, and while it must exercise the level of discretion expected by its clients it must also be able to work with government agencies to allow for the effective delivery of Indigenous affairs policy. These changes will allow this to happen. Finally, the removal of the references relating to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is an appropriate tidying up of the act where it references the now defunct schemes. Let us get rid of them entirely. I support that as well.
That is, however, where my support finishes. I do not support the second schedule of the bill, which proposes that the minister be able to delegate the authority to appoint a person to act as the Executive Director of Township Leasing or the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services. The member for Moreton said this is minor legislation, but I respectfully disagree. This is entirely tied up with the minister being run by a department, it is tying it up with red tape and it lacks the respect and the independence for the organisation and the independence of the office of a minister of the Crown.
Of course it is expected that the people holding these positions will at some point be away from those positions for a prolonged period. It happens in every organisation no matter the colour of your skin. Of course it is necessary that a temporary substitute should be found when this is the case, to ensure that the respective offices can continue to deliver the services to Indigenous people that they are tasked with. But why does the government think that the current procedure, in which the minister appoints an acting replacement, is such an onerous burden that it feels the need to make a change? It is no onerous task for a minister to make that appointment as opposed to deferring responsibility to the department and removing one more independent piece of that responsibility.
Additionally, there is a vital need to maintain separation of these positions from the department whose responsibility it is to deliver these services. Already the government has let the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs slowly absorb both the positions, compromising the ability of the people assigned to them to initiate and drive unbiased reform. If we allow the minister to give the department the power of appointing these positions, it will just further muddy the waters of independence from the department that we must ensure is maintained. For this reason I support the amendment that the coalition has put forward to remove schedule 2 entirely.
While speaking about Indigenous organisations and their management, I would like to mention the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Services, an organisation in my electorate that delivers culturally appropriate health care to Indigenous members of the Townsville community. I am very lucky that my electorate also encompasses Palm Island. As a regional centre we have a fantastic hospital in Townsville and fantastic health services, and we act as a base for the entire region from as far north as the tip of the Cape and Thursday Island, west to Mount Isa, through all the Gulf country and down as far as Rockhampton. I have previously raised concerns of mismanagement and inappropriate behaviour in the way TAIHS has been run. These allegations are not new and were not new when I raised them. They were first raised in this House by the previous member for Herbert, Mr Peter Lindsay. I have tried unsuccessfully to work with the then board in trying to manage change and investigate reports of mismanagement. The Townsville community has come together and highlighted instances of apparent waste, mismanagement, and possible corruption in the running of a number of organisations. It will be to this government's eternal shame that these cries, emitted by those in our community in greatest need, went unheeded. Recently, acting on a report in the Townsville Bulletin newspaper, the Queensland Department of Communities appointed a funding administrator to TAIHS. From there the administration, including the CEO and the managing director, has been removed. An open invitation to rejoin TAIHS has been enthusiastically received. This organisation, which is so important to my community, was down to 23 members, all of whom were part of one family. This government has sat there and listened and watched this happen since 2007. I demand—
Mr Snowdon: That is not true.
Mr EWEN JONES: It is true. Nothing has happened in this organisation since 2007.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The minister will cease interjecting.
Mr Snowdon: You have no idea.
Mr EWEN JONES: I have every idea. On behalf of the local Townsville Aboriginal and Islander population we have demanded that this government investigate the practices of every Indigenous organisation in which the Ross and Akee families have held board positions. That has been the case since 2007. Anything less than that is an insult, not only to the Aboriginal and Islander peoples of North Queensland but to the taxpaying public of all colours and ethnicity. I would also like to praise the efforts of the community and the call for a community election for all board positions. We must find a chain of command which is economically literate as well as being culturally sensitive, but the former must come first.
When I talk to Indigenous people across my electorate, both on the mainland and on Palm Island, the message I get from them is that they do not want handouts. They do not want to live off welfare. They want opportunities. They want to be given the chance to get jobs, to open small businesses, to support themselves. Indigenous Business Australia is about helping our First Australians work towards this goal. But it is also a reminder that the answer to issues in the Indigenous community is not simply to throw money at the problem.
As the member for Blair was saying earlier, no government has covered itself in glory when it comes to dealing with our Aboriginal and Islander people. Too much money is being caught on the way to the people it is supposed to help and not enough is reaching them. I commend Townsville's Indigenous community for speaking out on their concerns with TAIHS and working towards a solution to the problem. TAIHS was once a great organisation and it can be so again. We must attack all organisations the same way to ensure that the public has confidence in management and that it is not a gravy train for the few, but a helping hand for the many.
That is what the people of Townsville and North Queensland are crying out for when it comes to Aboriginal and Islander assistance. They need to make sure that it is being taken care of correctly and that it is being maintained properly, because sooner or later someone is going to say, 'Enough is enough,' and they will pull up the drawbridge and no-one will get any funding whatsoever. We need to make sure that funds are getting through to the right people for the right reasons at the right time.
Reform of the way we provide services to Indigenous people is needed to ensure that they are getting from the government what they need to be financially independent and to close the gap. Whether it is by investigating corruption allegations in Townsville or by ensuring that high-level Indigenous positions are kept separate from government departments to avoid compromise, we must keep pursuing the goal of an efficient and transparent delivery of Indigenous policy. This bill does the right thing in parts, but for its failure in others I support the coalition's amendment to it. I thank the House.
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (19:49): In speaking in support of the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011, I would like to make a few points and then make some general comments about something that I am involved in in this area. Firstly, the bill makes minor governance and business changes for bodies within the Indigenous affairs portfolio, including the IBA, Indigenous Business Australia, and AHL, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. It is important that organisations that are supporting the government's and the community's efforts in closing the gap are able to operate efficiently.
I will make a few points about what the IBA and AHL do. IBA is a statutory authority. It was established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act—the ATSI Act 2005. It is creating opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to facilitate them to procure or build assets. It is about wealth as well. Home ownership is an important step in economic independence. It is fundamentally important and IBA provides access to affordable home loans for eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.
I am told that since 1975 IBA has assisted over 14,000 families into home ownership. That is a good thing. It is estimated to have generated a massive $1.43 billion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wealth. It has also approved 363 new housing loans in 2009-10, with a total value of some $82.2 million, with 92 per cent of these loans going to first home buyers. That is also a good thing. IBA is charged to help eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to establish, acquire and grow businesses by providing business support services and business finance. I know some people who have been helped directly through that process.
Aboriginal Hostels Ltd provide temporary hostel accommodation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout Australia to enable them to access education, employment, health and other services. And they do more than that—much more. They operate a range of hostels and other programs around Australia. In speaking broadly about the Indigenous affairs portfolio area and also to these amendments, I would like to talk about a national conversation on constitutional recognition that I am involved in. We know that late last year the Prime Minister appointed a 20-member panel. One of its primary terms of reference was, among other things, to lead a national conversation on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples could be recognised in the Australian Constitution. It is now a 22-member panel, as the panel had the power to co-opt two more members.
As a panel member, my job is to talk with as many people as I can, as the panel explores ways to recognise in our Constitution the culture, heritage, history and great contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Included on the panel are community leaders, legal experts—which I am glad to have on the panel—and four members of parliament. The members of parliament are me, Ken Wyatt, Rob Oakeshott and Rachel Siewert. I know I am not supposed to name them, but the four honourable members are on this panel to broadly represent the multipartisan views of the parliament and the electorate, and we work that way. Eleven members of our panel are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. The panel has multiparty support, and the Australian government, the opposition, the Australian Greens and the Independent members of the federal parliament have given in-principle support to recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.
The panel has been travelling across the country to every state and territory, to urban, regional and remote areas, to speak directly to as many people as possible. There have been over 200 consultations Australia-wide. People always want the panel members to come back because, once the members are in the community talking with and listening to the community, having that conversation, a whole lot of questions come out of it and people raise a whole lot of issues that are not necessarily about constitutional recognition. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people say, 'This is a really nice opportunity to have a conversation about some of the issues that concern us and, yes, we are very interested in this issue of constitutional recognition.'
We are asking Australians to think about constitutional change and to put their views to the panel. Over the last few weeks, in my area two consultations took place, one in Grafton and one in Lismore, which were really well attended. The way that we work is to talk with local community leaders and meet with the mayors in various places, to have a roundtable with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and then to have a public meeting. That format has been working very well; everybody gets to have their say.
Before the panel embarked on the round of consultations, they released a discussion paper, and that was the starting point for the national consultation. It can be found on our website, which is www.youmeunity.org.au. The paper sets out background information about the Constitution and how the Constitution can be changed, through rigorous and exacting processes, and the potential benefits for all Australians from Constitutional recognition. It also explores possible ideas for constitutional recognition that are discussed and developed during the panel's community consultations. The ideas for constitutional change referred to were just the starting point for consultations to gather the views of the Australian people.
The panel has not agreed to or endorsed any ideas on constitutional recognition but has put in a paper some of the ideas that have come from the community. It does not endorse them but uses them as a point of conversation. The panel will carefully consider all ideas for recognition over the course of consultations.
What the panel did do was agree on four principles that guide our consideration of how we approach the conversation, the consultations and the ideas put before the panel. The first principle is to contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation, and I cannot see anybody disagreeing with that. The second is to be of benefit to and accord with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Again, I cannot see any disagreement with that, because it involves looking at recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution. The third is to be capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians, from across the political and social spectrums. Again, I cannot see anybody disagreeing with that, because we know that for constitutional change to happen it has to happen as a process of referendum, and we know the history of referendums in Australia. Referendums are successful because they put an idea before the Australian people for endorsement and, if the idea has broad political and social support from all the political and social spectrums, then it stands a good chance of being supported.
The fourth principle was that it must be technically and legally sound. That presents the panel with some challenges in looking at what is technically and legally sound when you come to looking at the Constitution. There are many minds turning themselves to this question, and there are people on the panel who have wonderful expertise and backgrounds in this area. We are drawing from a broad group of Australians and experts in that area on that particular issue. These broad principles are guiding the thinking but, beyond that, there is—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue when the debate is resumed.
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Goods and Services Tax
Mr CROOK ( O'Connor ) ( 20 : 12 ): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues are distributed to the States and Territories in accordance with a formula driven by Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation (HFE) principles and are legislated for in the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 ;
(b) for 2010-11, Western Australia received just 68 per cent of what it would have received if GST revenue was distributed across Australia on a per capita basis—the lowest relativity applied to any State since the formula was introduced; and
(c) every other State and Territory, by contrast, received not less than 91 per cent of what it would have received if GST revenue was distributed evenly across Australia; and
(2) calls on the Government to amend the Act to stipulate a minimum GST revenue-sharing relativity of 75 per cent, which would allow continuing respect for the principles of HFE, but with proper recognition for population, and without Western Australia being unfairly penalised for its disproportionate contribution to our national economic prosperity.
I am pleased to speak on this motion before the House. This motion is very important to my home state of Western Australia and is indeed important in underlying the financial security of all states and territories in Australia.
This motion does two things. First of all, it calls on the House to formally acknowledge the inequity being experienced by Western Australia through GST distribution. It asks members to acknowledge, on the record, that WA receives less GST relative to its population than any state or territory has ever received since the GST was introduced. Secondly, this motion calls on the government to amend the Federal Financial Relations Act to introduce a floor on GST relativities for all states and territories. This proposal maintains respect for the equalisation principles that currently guide the distribution of GST revenue, but proposes a fair and reasonable 75 per cent floor—a floor which strong states will be guaranteed to never fall below.
This evening I would like to discuss four matters in relation to this motion. Firstly, I will give a brief overview on GST relativities and outline the extent of the inequity being suffered by Western Australia. Secondly, I will address the proposal for the 75 per cent floor and outline why it is a fair, reasonable and necessary change to the Federal Financial Relations Act. Thirdly, I will highlight the support that this proposal has received from Liberal, Labor and National colleagues in state and federal parliament. Finally, I will explain why it is imperative that this issue be considered immediately—as I have no doubt that the eastern states members of this parliament will argue that this proposal should be put on the backburner until the unnecessarily long and drawn out GST revenue review is concluded and we see the outcomes of that review.
The Commonwealth Grants Commission is an independent statutory authority that advises the Commonwealth government on GST distribution. Each year, the commission makes recommendations to the government on how much GST revenue each state and territory should receive. The recommendations are guided by the principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation. These principles seek to ensure that each state has the capacity to provide comparable standards of services if it makes the same effort to raise revenue as the other states on average and operates at an average level of efficiency. The Grants Commission's recommendations are made with reference to GST relativities. A state or territory's GST relativity refers to its GST share relative to its population share.
Over the 12 years since the GST was introduced, there have been some fundamental changes in states' revenue-raising capacity. These changes have resulted in fundamental inequalities in the way the GST is distributed, most notably for Western Australia. The results for WA's GST share have been extreme; the GST inequity being experienced by WA is widely acknowledged. The Commonwealth Grants Commission itself admits that Western Australia continues to receive less GST relative to its population than any state ever has since the GST was introduced 12 years ago. Even our Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have conceded that the current GST share arrangements are unfair for WA. In the current financial year, WA will receive 72 per cent of what it would receive if GST were distributed on an equal per capita basis. This is lower than any other state; in fact, no other state will receive less than 91 per cent. The conclusion is unavoidable: Western Australia is being unfairly penalised for its disproportionate contribution to our national economy.
The WA state budget predicts that WA's GST relativity will fall to just 33 per cent by 2014-15. This represents just one-third of what WA would receive if GST were distributed on an equal per capita basis across the country. This is hugely unfair and cannot have been the intention of the Grants Commission or the Commonwealth government when the GST was introduced.
The Secretary of the Commonwealth Grants Commission confirms that under the current model there will be no limit to how far WA's share of GST could fall. This brings me on to my second discussion point: the proposal for a GST floor. The floor will limit the amount that any state's GST share can fall to. This motion proposes that no state's GST relativity should fall below 75 per cent. In other words, a floor will ensure that no state receives less than 75 per cent of its equal per capita share of GST revenue. A floor in GST relativities will maintain respect for the equalisation principles that currently guide GST revenue distribution by the Grants Commission. The commission will continue to recommend GST relativities using the same guidelines and principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation, except where those principles require a state to receive less than 75 per cent of its per capita share. A 75 per cent floor will allow strong states to continue to contribute more than their fair share to the national economy but will provide a reasonable guarantee and certainty to the minimum GST share that a state or territory will receive.
The 75 per cent floor strikes a reasonable balance between maintaining the equalisation principles that encourage 'fair-go federalism' and ensuring strong states are not unfairly punished for their economic success. This proposal is a simple measure that will return some certainty and some equity to the way GST shares are determined for more strongly performing states.
I would now like to turn to the support for this proposal and the public acknowledgement of WA's GST rip-off. The proposal for a GST floor has been in the public arena for some time now. Senior WA Liberal Party, Labor Party and WA Nationals colleagues have been demanding a floor for quite some time. The Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Colin Barnett, has been pushing for a 75 per cent floor since last year. The Western Australian Treasurer, the Hon. Christian Porter, has also supported this proposal. The Nationals WA formally adopted this motion earlier this year, with the support of their leader, the Hon. Brendon Grylls. Even the Leader of the Opposition in WA, the Hon. Eric Ripper, has provided in-principle support for a floor in the GST.
In the federal arena, senior Liberal and Labor party members, including Liberal Treasury spokesman Senator Cormann and the member for Durack, are on the public record admitting that GST share arrangements are currently grossly unfair for Western Australia. In his recent visit to WA, the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged the flaws in the GST formula for Western Australia and has previously indicated that we should have a debate about a GST floor. In fact, the federal Treasurer has referred to the question of a 75 per cent floor as a 'very valid question'.
Notwithstanding this general support, members on both sides of this House have declined to introduce this motion themselves or introduce a bill to this effect. In fact, despite the Liberal Premier in Western Australia publicly pushing for this floor, the federal Liberals have refused to even consider this issue in their own party room. I call on all WA members of this parliament—who have been elected by the WA voters to represent their electorate—to put eastern-states-centric politics aside and stand up for the interests of their state by supporting my motion.
Mr Katter: I think the member for North Sydney is a closet supporter.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The member for Kennedy! The member for O'Connor has the call.
Mr CROOK: In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my warmest thanks to the member for Moore and the member for Kennedy for their public support of this motion.
Finally, I think it is important to address why this issue needs to come to the fore now. Western Australians are willing to assist the other states and to contribute more than their fair share to the federal economy. However, Western Australians are not prepared to be ripped off under this system by receiving less than 75 per cent of their per capita share when all the other states and territories receive more than 91 per cent. Western Australians certainly are not prepared to face a scenario such as where we are forecast to receive just 33 per cent of our per capita share of GST revenue in 2014-15.
While I welcomed the GST revenue review announced by the Prime Minister in March this year and welcomed her admission that the current GST carve-up is unfair, the review is on an unnecessarily long time frame and is unlikely to result in any reform before WA is set to receive a record punishment for its success in 2014-15. As such, this pressing issue needs to come to the fore now. A 75 per cent floor will give WA—and, indeed, all states and territories in Australia—much-needed certainty over GST revenue into the future.
Western Australia, like any state or territory in Australia, deserves a fair deal from the Commonwealth. Currently, the situation is far from fair for WA. Western Australia's economy is under siege through the mining tax, the carbon tax and GST revenue distributions. Western Australians are prepared to contribute more than their fair share to the federal economy, but there must be some limit to the rip-off; there must be some limit to the punishment WA receives for its economic success; there must be some formal acknowledgement of Western Australia's disproportionate contribution to our national economic prosperity; and there must be some members in this House who are prepared to stand up for their state. For these reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Katter: I second the motion, I support the Queensland government—probably the only time on record that I will be supporting the current Queensland government—on this issue and I reserve my right to speak in due course.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (20:22): I rise to speak but cannot support the motion by the member for O'Connor. I thank him for putting forward the motion and for raising an issue on behalf of his state. As a Queenslander, I share the frustration. I commend the member for Kennedy for his support for the Queensland government in seeking a better deal for Queensland. I think it is a really good idea that states like Queensland and Western Australia, which contribute so much to the wealth of this country in this day and age, should get a fairer deal with respect to finances. We are the ones who are producing mineral wealth and income and contribute so much to society. It is the same in America. The demographics of the United States has seen the population, economic activity and development move west and south. In Australia the development has moved north and west. The truth of the matter is that we can see the consequences of that even in this chamber, with new federal electorates being created in Western Australia, Queensland and places like that at the expense of electorates in the southern states. The truth is that Western Australia and Queensland do deserve a better share of the federal revenue pie. I look forward to working with the member for O'Connor and all the people in this place—from both sides of the chamber, from the outlying states, from Western Australia and Queensland—in seeking a fairer share for our states. It is acknowledged that both Queensland and Western Australia have contributed to the economic prosperity that we currently enjoy.
I look forward to the review. I look forward to the contribution of the Western Australian government and the Queensland government to the review. I will talk about the review a little later. It is worth remembering that the Howard government introduced the GST in 2000. In that time the states and territories have received revenue from the GST based on the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I thank the member for O'Connor for updating his information, because, due to the changes in the Commonwealth Grants Commission redistribution, Western Australia is receiving 72c in the dollar this financial year, not the 68c he mentioned in the motion. This equates to about $3.5 billion in GST payments this year alone.
The member for O'Connor chose to put forward this motion while, as I said, there is a review of GST distribution underway. That review was announced in March. In July the review panel released an issues paper and called for submissions. An interim report is due by February 2012 and a final report will be ready by September 2012. In terms of the way the wheels of government, reports, inquiries and commissions are undertaken, that is not a long time in the circumstances. The review will not affect the distribution of GST revenue in 2011-12 or 2012-13.
We appointed a number of people to the review panel, including Nick Greiner, John Brumby and Bruce Carter. Premiers like Greiner and Brumby have had many years of experience in dealing with COAG and national partnership arrangements. They have dealt with issues of horizontal fiscal equalisation and issues that challenge. Premiers like Greiner and Brumby have gone to meetings with Prime Ministers of both persuasions many times. It is quite interesting to see the premiers going to those meetings. Party politics often seems to be put aside and states' rights certainly come to the fore. It is a perfect examination of the Australian Constitution's role in a federation or commonwealth of states. The review has raised a number of issues. We hope the review will lead, as the Prime Minister's press release said, to a simpler, fairer, more predictable and more efficient distribution of GST to the states and territories.
I understand that the member for O'Connor is concerned for his state, as I am for my state of Queensland. I encourage him to express his concerns to the review panel via a submission. I believe that the cut-off date for submissions is 14 October this year. As he mentioned as well, I expect that the Western Australian government has already lodged its submission, and I expect that the Queensland government has done the same. I expect all the states and territories—from the smallest, Tasmania, to the largest, New South Wales—will want to make submissions to the review panel, because I am sure they will want to have their say. I am sure they want to express what they wish to receive and the basis upon which they wish to receive it in the future. The review is the appropriate venue for expressing concerns. Until the report is tabled, I think it is unwise to pre-empt the outcome of the review.
I would like to address the underlying notion in the member for O'Connor's motion that Western Australia should receive a greater percentage of the GST. That is essentially what this motion is all about. Western Australia generates more GST revenue at this point in time. That is why he proposes that his state should receive more of the bounty. I can say the same about Queensland—that is for sure. As a federal member from Queensland, I am not standing here and pre-empting the review, even though I would like to see Queensland get a fairer share of the revenue. The argument has been waged at meetings between the states by premiers, the Prime Minister and others. The argument is: if you raise more revenue, why should you not be entitled to more in return? Before we answer that, we need to understand the principles that guide the distribution of revenue.
The pool of GST revenue for this financial year is expected to be about $48 billion—a not inconsiderable sum of money. It goes to build a lot of roads, hospitals and schools. The revenue is not distributed equally on a per capita basis; it is distributed according to the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation, or HFE. This ensures the states and territories have the capacity to provide comparable services for their residents based on comparable effort to raise revenue from their tax bases. It takes into account the fact that states and territories, for reasons beyond their control, sometimes have weaker or stronger revenue-raising ability per capita than the average of all states and territories combined. Since Federation, the federal government, regardless of which side has been in power, has been redistributing revenue from tariffs to the states. Appreciating financial support for financially weaker states was appropriate. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was established in 1933 to advise the government on grants to the states. It quickly adopted the idea of fiscal need as a guiding principle to allow states to function in a standard not appreciably below other states. The irony of this is that in the 1930s there was a threat of secession from the Western Australian government. This was spurred on in the 1970s by Lang Hancock and in the last few years by former Premier Richard Court. Until 1981 for a good 50 years Western Australia was the beneficiary of special or additional grants as it was considered to have a weaker economy along with South Australia, Tasmania and even Queensland, my home state. It difficult for me as a Queenslander to accept that my state's economy was weaker. Since 1933 the main donor states were New South Wales and Victoria—that is, they received less than their population's share of equalisation funding over the years. However, in the late 1990s and early 2000s that trend changed for WA and Queensland and we became donor states as mining, tourism and other industries flourished and the other states dived down comparatively. Around this time the source of funding distribution also changed—from July 2000 that was the GST. Here we are again dealing with the concerns of my home state, Queensland, and WA about the distribution of revenue to the states. The cry is 'unfair', and I often express that too as a Queenslander. It is not just in State of Origin; it comes at meetings between the premiers.
I know that Western Australia has happily been a beneficiary for about 50 years, and the member for O'Connor suggests we need to change the way we distribute these funds because WA is now a donor state. I would like to say 'amen' to that, brother, but I know that there is a review going on at the moment. What happens if the mining boom ends? We have $430 billion in the pipeline so it is not likely to end. What if we go back to supporting states that are negatively impacted? There is probably never going to be consensus on the GST distribution between the states, but we need to get the principles right and I am hoping that the review will get it right. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review. Even the concept of horizontal fiscal equalisation makes me shudder when I think about what it actually means.
The Federation is not static and economic relativity changes. We know that. That is why we have instigated the review. The fact is that as a country we face some long-term trends that are driving the need for structural change. The mining boom we are experiencing has benefited Queensland and Western Australia, and I look forward to our states getting a fairer share in the future. I know we are heavily reliant on mining, but I am sure that in 100 years' time our nation's economy will look pretty different to what it does today. I am hoping states like Queensland and Western Australia will still get their fair share.
I cannot support the motion because it pre-empts the review. With the nation's interests at heart I look forward to the review findings getting a fairer share for Queensland and, indeed, for Western Australia. (Time expired)
Dr WASHER (Moore) (20:33): I rise to speak on the motion proposed by the member for O'Connor, and I thank him for bringing this important issue before the House. I move:
That the House:
omits paragraph (2) of the motion and substitutes:
(2) calls on the Government to refer the matter of the minimum share of GST allocated to Western Australia to the GST Distribution Review for further consideration and analysis.
The distribution of GST revenue according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission's recommendations are expressed in the form of GST relativities—that is, a state's share of national GST grants divided by its population share. The Commonwealth Grants Commission updates its calculations annually by using the latest data on populations, revenue bases and cost drivers and reviews its methods every five to six years, with the last review having been conducted in 2010. In 2011-12 Western Australia's GST relativity is only 72 per cent. The longer term trend will see Western Australia's grant share decline on the back of its strong economic and revenue base growth relative to other states.
On 30 March 2011, the Prime Minister announced a review of the arrangements for distributing GST revenue grants among the states. This review is being conducted by the Hon. Nick Greiner, the Hon. John Brumby and Mr Bruce Carter with assistance from the Commonwealth Treasury and an advisory committee of state treasuries. A final decision is to be made on new arrangements by the end of 2013.
This review will cover issues of longstanding concern to Western Australia, particularly the disincentives for economic development of states created by the Commonwealth Grants Commission redistribution of revenue gains from economic growth to other states through the GST distribution process. The substantial differences between the Western Australian and Commonwealth budget projections reflect the different projection methodologies for the individual data-year relativities. The GST relativities are a lagged three-year average of these data-year relativities. For example, the 2011-12 GST relativity is based on data-year relativities for 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.Western Australia models the data-year relativities beyond 2009-10, taking into account many factors, including states' relative capacities to raise mining revenues, payroll tax, land tax and conveyance duty, the states' populations and changes in the GST pool.
The Commonwealth largely assumes that the data-year relativities will not change after 2009-10. Adjustments are made for changes in the GST pool, state population shares and the distribution of National Specific Purpose Payments, but these have relatively minor impacts and ignore the increased estimates of Western Australia's mining revenue capacity, including the impact of the increase in the iron ore fines royalty rate. The forward estimates of WA's GST grants based on projections by the WA Department of Treasury indicate that the 2013-14 relativity will be 44 per cent, falling to 33 per cent by 2014-15. Growth in mining revenues is a major factor driving down Western Australia's GST share.
In acknowledgement of the work already undertaken by the review committee and the Commonwealth and state treasuries, an interim floor of 75 per cent GST relativity is sought pending the outcomes of the review to be presented to COAG by the end of 2013. An interim floor of 75 per cent GST relativity would add an estimated $1.8 billion to Western Australia's GST grants in 2013-14 and an estimated $2.5 billion in 2014-15. Western Australia is being penalised for economic success under the current methodology. Additional funding for Western Australia could be spent across a range of services and infrastructure, including nationally significant projects that would generate substantial personal and company tax income for the Commonwealth.
In finishing, I encourage the government and independents to reconsider raising the GST in discussion for next month's tax forum in Canberra. If this does not happen then the tax system will rely on economically bad income and company taxes. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Hockey: I second the amendment.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (20:38): This is an important debate, and I certainly welcome the motion put by the member for O'Connor about GST revenue for Western Australia. Hopefully, that will allow for consideration of GST revenue more widely, as mentioned by the previous speaker. At this stage, without having spoken to Mr Washer, I look forward to talking to him to clarify his final comment about raising the GST at the tax forum—did he use the word 'raising' to mean bring it up or directly to mean increase it? But we can clarify that later.
GST revenue is a Commonwealth tax under Commonwealth law and is distributed to the states through the Grants Commission. At times I can see the frustration, as we are seeing in this motion, of people, whether they are sandgropers, cockroaches or cane toads, who feel as if they may be ripped off through the system that has been established. I do not think that was the intent of the founders in 2001, when the GST was brought in; nor do I think that was the intent when the Grants Commission was formed in 1933. I think we are once again seeing an example of the clash between the foundation documents and the considerations around whether we are a federation of states or a Commonwealth working with the common interest in mind. Anyone who wants to look at whether the Commonwealth should even have things like surpluses, which dominate debate in this chamber quite often, should go to section 94 of the Constitution and reflect on whether money raised at a Commonwealth level should, even on a monthly basis, go through to the states for their infrastructure and service needs.
The terms 'vertical fiscal imbalance' and 'horizontal equalisation' are great Canberra-speak. As terms alone, they should win awards for disengaging the Australian population. But those terms really are code in many ways for an attack on states' rights going back to considerations around our founding document. In that context I can understand the frustration of the member for O'Connor. I certainly congratulate him for bringing the motion forward. I understand he is intimately involved in the GST review committee and was agitating to get it up and running. Hopefully, through that process, per the amendment that has been moved, this can be part of the considerations of that important review.
We have a national tax forum coming up in the next six weeks, and I hope that government does not dodge the elephant in the room—considerations in and around the GST as raised by a previous speaker. They have come up in a series of forums that I attended during the two-week sitting break at meetings at in Walcha and Port Macquarie; there was also a Tax Institute forum in Sydney. If we are going to have an open, honest, frank and full debate around tax, tax collection and how we get fewer taxes in this country, it at least has to be part of the considerations before conclusions are drawn.
I think the Henry review process made some simple recommendations. There are 125 taxes in this country. Ten of them do 90 per cent of the lifting. That means 115 of them do 10 per cent of the work. We can, if we want, combining the state and federal governments, work hard to significantly reduce the number of taxes. That, more than anything else we do in the area of tax and tax collection, would assist the Australian community and the small business community. I hope this motion fits in with the broader conversation we are about to have about tax. I hope there is a commitment across the board for fewer taxes in this country and that we work on significantly reducing the 125 taxes to a more efficient and manageable number. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Ms GAMBARO: At the request of the member for Pearce, I move:
That the order of the day No. 3, private members' business, be postponed till the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr SWAN: I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Gilmore Electorate: Economy
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (20:44): A couple of weeks ago BlueScope Steel in Port Kembla announced that they would have to axe 800 jobs. The domino effect of this on their contractors in the Illawarra is likely to be in the hundreds. Some of the jobs that are going are held by the constituents of Gilmore. Over the next 12 months economists expect another 100,000 jobs to be lost nationally. Retailers are already concerned—and rightly so, since some big retailers have gone under this year. Gilmore has an extensive small business community that has been doing it tough for quite a long time. That could well get worse if the jobs market in the Illawarra continues to slide downwards. Some small businesses are barely holding their heads above water and many are living a hand-to-mouth existence.
While things might be booming out in the west—not a pun—this is not happening in the eastern states. There is a real concern out there that this government seems either blissfully ignorant or in denial of reality. The Treasurer reckons we are going gang busters—that everything is rosy and the sun is shining. I see thunderstorms. Just last week, it was reported that, if it was not for the mining industry, we could well have been in a technical recession at the start of this year. That is food for serious thought.
Despite all this happening in plain sight and being plastered all over the media, Regional Development Australia has refused to back a massive local job generator, the Shell Cove marina project. What sort of insanity is this? The Shell Cove project management agreement stipulates that a minimum of 50 per cent of workers on the project must be local. The average for the project so far has been 84 per cent local workers. The provision of RDAF funding would have shortened the overall construction period of the boat harbour—stages 1 to 3—and provided financial confidence to the business plan.
RDAF funding at this time would have accelerated the delivery of benefits to the Illawarra and adjoining regions, notably 2,560 FTE jobs attached to the boat harbour's construction and operation. In excess of 500 jobs would have been created in stage 1. In addition to the immediate stimulatory benefit, there would have been a multiplier effect for our regional economies due to the use of local labour.
The addition of this major regional tourism infrastructure asset would have contributed significantly to the diversification of our regional economies. The completed Shell Cove project would have created over 7,200 jobs, which would have been a massive injection of jobs into the Illawarra and adjoining regions. All approvals are in place for the boat harbour, and tenders for the construction could have been called immediately. But through some sort of twisted logic, and despite job losses announced just a couple of weeks before, Regional Development Australia says no.
Here was an ideal opportunity to offset the job losses in the steelworks; but they refused to help. Surely, with a result like this they should be mightily embarrassed to even utter the words 'regional development'. This decision shows the government is relying on hollow rhetoric and false promises. Gilmore has worn the neglect of 16 years under a state Labor government. Our local infrastructure needs a serious injection of funds. Population growth is outstripping services.
Crucial to growing job opportunities is the transport infrastructure. This federal Labor government, the so called champion of the working class, has turned its back on the region. When the Minister for Regional Development visited the area we asked for funding for the Princes Highway to build a greater load-bearing bridge on the Oallen Ford at Nerriga. This is a vital infrastructure initiative needed to sustain main road 92 to Canberra. We also asked the minister for help to get power to the technology park in Nowra to help stimulate economic growth in the lower Shoalhaven. We did not get that either, but the two adjoining Labor electorates did.
A third of the regional and rural electorates are held by Labor and the Independents who support them. These electorates got two-thirds of the available funds, a fact that I am sure will not be lost on the people of Australia. That is the first instalment of the pay-off. For all the trumpeting about workers rights, I have serious doubts that the local unions have the moral courage to speak up and really support job creation. It is all about hanging on to power and preserving the status quo.
The only practical option is a change of government, a case being well made by this government itself. When we are re-elected, the Shell Cove marina project will go ahead as was promised prior to the last election by the coalition.
Carroll, Mr Ray
Roylance, Mr Peter
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (20:48): Tonight I want to talk about two local people who have had fantastic careers in volunteering across our community. The first of them is Ray Carroll.
Ray Carroll finished his amazing 53-year career coaching Assumption College Kilmore's first XVIII for the very last time on 28 August 2011. Ray is a former teacher, dormitory supervisor and sports master at the school, and he was appointed as the coach of Assumption's first XI cricket team back in 1967. In 1976 he became the coach of the first XVIII football team. His coaching skills have turned more than just a few schoolboys into champions.
His long and distinguished career has seen his being awarded the Order of Australia, the Centenary Medal and the Australian Sports Medal and his induction into the crusader of Australia hall of honour among many other awards too numerous to mention. These honours are not conferred lightly, but I think that Ray Carroll's abilities and talents are a justification for those awards.
I attended Ray's final game—as did many thousands of former students, friends and legends of Australian sport. Watching the final ACK match under Ray was an honour, and very inspirational to say the least. Having the opportunity to hear Mr Carroll's final three-quarter time speech of words both softly spoken but with intense passion, I fleetingly felt like I could run through a brick wall after absorbing the message that he delivered. It is right to say that Mr Carroll is a community icon in the Kilmore district, for very few can compare with such remarkable achievements in sport over a sustained period of time.
Most people acknowledge that Ray is an institution at ACK, and I know that I speak on behalf of many in our community who wish Mr Carroll well for his future and that ACK, as it begins a new chapter in its rich and proud history, will always remember that the Carroll oval reminds us of one man's remarkable achievements. Rarely in Australian sporting history has one individual devoted themselves as wholly and selflessly to the demanding role of coaching at the highest competitive level.
I also want to thank on behalf of the McEwen electorate Peter Roylance for his years of service to the Wallan community. As captain Peter has led the Wallan brigade of the CFA for the past 20 years, but his involvement in CFA goes back some 40 years. Peter started as a volunteer fire fighter with the Epping Fire Brigade in 1971 and transferred to the Wallan brigade in 1988. It was not long until Peter was involved in leadership roles, holding several office positions until he became the captain of the Wallan brigade back in 1991.
Over this time Peter has held, and still holds, many other roles within the Hume group, including group officer. On 1 July this year Peter stood aside as captain, but the community is still lucky that he has chosen to stay on and is currently serving as first lieutenant. The health and vibrancy of the Wallan CFA is a testament to and the direct result of Peter's leadership over the years.
His ability to foster teamwork within the brigade has been second to none. The new station, the trucks and the cars are only a small testament to his feats, and the fact that there is such a strong membership list now—there are even people waiting on queues to join the CFA—shows what an inspirational community organisation Peter Roylance has fostered in his time there. The work and the standard that he has been able to implement in numerous programs will prove invaluable in keeping Wallan CFA in good stead for future growth and development.
Forty years as an unpaid volunteer, with 20 of those years as captain, is an absolutely sensational contribution to our communities. The Wallan brigade paid special tribute to Peter a couple of weeks ago, holding a dinner in his honour at the fire station, where they unveiled a plaque and officially named their meeting room the Peter Roylance Room. Peter, I say on behalf of our community that we sincerely appreciate your enduring efforts. They have benefited many residents in our community, and we really wish you well for now and into the future.
Hasluck Electorate: Blackadder Creek
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (20:53): I rise to talk about Blackadder Creek, which is a tributary that runs from the edge of the Midland town site within my electorate and feeds into the Swan River. The Blackadder-Woodbridge Catchment Group Inc. look after this section of Blackadder Creek, ensuring both its pristineness and the survival of the vegetation, plant life, frogs and water life that live within that catchment area. They weed and have extensively revegetated the area, all without using any chemicals or pesticides—and that is what they are most proud of.
I had an invitation to walk around the area and to hear what they did as a group and about their passion and their commitment on an annual basis, particularly at different times looking after the singing frogs, which are in a section of that part of the creek. I heard that the issue of rubbish coming from the town centre and the feeding into the creek of discoloured water were identified as one of the major challenges for the group. Following that, I also had a meeting with the Viveash Community Association, looking at the rubbish in the creek, and I got a commitment on the opportunity of working together as a community and on people from my office contributing to a clean-up in that region.
So, on Saturday, 27 August at 10 am, we all arrived and assigned tasks, and we allocated a section of Blackadder Creek to each of the groups. What was tremendous was that there were somewhere between 30 and 40 people of all ages who turned up and were committed to cleaning up that section. The state MLC Alyssa Hayden was in attendance. As a member of the upper house she was very keen and got stuck into the work with everyone else in the different sections. The City of Swan supplied the gloves and bags and a point of collection for the rubbish.
What was interesting was what we found. There were laptops. We found a bike that was in fairly good condition. There were syringes and general rubbish, particularly a lot of building material and heavy-duty plastic choking up a creek that had important life within it. What was interesting was watching people work together—those that would lean into the water and pull out the cans and the large pieces of metal that had been thrown in. The conversations were around their pride in contributing to the cleaning up of a significant tributary into the Swan River. The owners of Brookwood Realty in Midland, along with their staff, came down and participated. Also present were staff and students from La Salle College, the Viveash Community Association and the Forrestfield United Soccer Club. A local councillor, Ted, also joined us in the clean-up on the morning, and my own staff member Mary-Anne Reid coordinated the activity.
It was interesting when we finished to see the camaraderie and the commitment to making sure that in the future we would devote some time and energy as a group to assisting both the associations that look after Blackadder Creek and to making sure that the event would occur again. We agreed that part of our obligation to the environment was not only to regenerate but also to clean up. It is interesting to see how in this day and age people are quite happy to let plastic bags fill some of our waterways in a manner that is counterproductive and that clogs the weeds and builds up that accumulation. The other challenging element for us was finding the number of syringes that we did. Nevertheless, the community was prepared to clean up an area that they hold very dear and that is also recognised as having a sacred element to the Nyungar people.
The combination of all of the community fostered a really good sense that the contribution that we want to make to the environment within that region will continue to grow and be the focus. In the very near future we will look at the area in Viveash and extend our work from Blackadder Creek to the relevant areas where our community as a whole will pull together to look after those things that are important so that we leave an endowment for our children.
Greenway Electorate: Seven Hills
Greenway Electorate: Coptic Community
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (20:58): I rise this morning to discuss a number of important associated issues in my electorate of Greenway—namely, the drive by locals to clean up Seven Hills; the community opposition to a new bottle shop opening in Seven Hills' Lalor Park; and, finally, the developments at the St Abanoub Coptic Youth Centre in Blacktown.
Earlier this year I joined concerned Seven Hills resident Mr Duncan Wyatt to launch a campaign to help clean up Seven Hills. There has been clear feedback from my constant interactions with local residents that the behaviour of some individuals is letting us all down and that we need to take collective action to address this. I grew up in Seven Hills and it is where I chose to place my electorate office, so I am passionate about making it better. I have seen many changes over many decades, such as the number of knock-down rebuilds with older houses being converted to new. The train station now has one of the highest patronages on the Western Line, and it has one of the biggest car-parking facilities.
I, like many local residents, have seen Seven Hills develop in both positive and negative ways. In my time as local member, a large number of these residents have raised concerns with me about the need to address antisocial behaviour in and around Seven Hills. This includes making Boomerang Place—which faces onto Seven Hills railway station—an alcohol-free zone, stopping the illegal dumping of rubbish outside the St Vincent de Paul Centre in Best Road and increasing police patrols in the area. Only last week on my way to work I drove past Saint Vinnie's and I, like many local residents, was disgusted to see the entire shopfront on Best Road littered with unusable rubbish—it was nothing more than rubbish, not donations. There was broken furniture, discarded clothes and busted appliances. There was nothing which could be used by the many frustrated volunteers inside who told me how fed up they are with such uncharitable behaviour.
One of the other major concerns raised with me is antisocial behaviour, mainly fuelled by alcohol, around Seven Hills station. By making Boomerang Place an alcohol-free zone, I am confident we can do something to curb the antisocial problems that are fuelled by alcohol. Families should not have to be worried about coming to Boomerang Place and enjoying other parts of Seven Hills. Business owners should be able to operate their businesses without being hounded by intoxicated people loitering around shopfronts in the middle of the day. In response to this issue I have received over 200 returned petitions which I will present to Blacktown City Council for further action, including action by other agencies in cooperation with the Blacktown City Council, such as the Blacktown Local Area Command. I thank both Superintendent Mark Wright for his responsiveness to the concerns and the very constructive suggestions of many local residents.
In the neighbouring suburb of Lalor Park residents and community leaders have banded together to object to a proposal to open a bottle shop on Johnson Avenue. Many residents fear that this will contribute to an increase in alcohol fuelled violence in the area and encourage underage drinking, particularly because of the proposed bottle shop's close proximity to Seven Hills High School. I also note its close proximity to Vardy's Road Public School. On 11 August, I attended a community meeting organised by local residents, including Petta Hines, to discuss the proposed bottle shop. The meeting was well attended by members of the community, including representatives from Blacktown police, local councillors, business owners and residents. It is instructive to note that the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics reports that Lalor Park is unfortunately considered a hot spot for alcohol related assaults. As we wait for the New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing to rule on the application, I commend the work of Petta and her fellow community leaders such as Danielle Rawlinson-Galistan and Linda Swan for all their hard work and commitment in ensuring local residents stay informed on this important issue. Danielle has been instrumental in organising and executing much public art in Lalor Park in the form of murals that have dramatically contributed to a decrease in vandalism and graffiti.
Finally, I congratulate Greenway's Coptic community and specifically the Saint Abanoub and the Holy Apostles Coptic Orthodox Church in Blacktown on the recent opening of their youth centre. The centre, which will cater to all young people in Blacktown, will include gym and sport facilities, art and crafts, music and tuition rooms as well as spiritual and counselling services. I note that the services provided are non-denominational and that many African youths use this service. With over 75,000 people under 14 years old in Blacktown, this is a development of great importance. It will provide an outlet for Blacktown's youths to express themselves and spend time in a safe and constructive environment. I thank the Saint Abanoub church and specifically Wasim Elmasri for the hard work in delivering this centre for our young people. (Time expired)
Goldstein Electorate: Superannuation
Goldstein Electorate: Community Centre
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (21:03): I rise to highlight the inequity in superannuation law which is seeing many proud and highly capable senior workers in my electorate of Goldstein who are discriminated against because of their age. Once a worker turns 70, the employer has the choice of whether or not to pay their superannuation entitlement. When they turn 75, it is against the law for the employer to pay any entitlement. This is a constant source of understandable frustration for people who have so much more to offer but feel they are being ripped off. These are fit and active people, and in many instances they are very successful career people who, well into their 70s and beyond, have so much knowledge and experience to contribute to employers.
In this day and age and with skills shortages guaranteed to grow this situation is ridiculous. These workers should have the same lawful entitlement to fair pay and conditions as someone aged 20, 30, 40, 50 or 69. This is not only a disincentive but also a punishment to keep working. One gentleman in my electorate told me that, where he had worked, age was not an issue. It was never mentioned and never considered. That was the case until the ATO wrote to his employer when he turned 70 to inform the employer that at 70 the employee was no longer eligible for an automatic contribution benefit, that it was a choice for the employer, and that at 75 he would no longer be able to contribute to his super. Suddenly age became an issue. It was mentioned continually and he was without a job within six months. This also amounted to a 10 per cent pay cut on the grounds of age. At a time of low unemployment, people with so much to keep giving should be encouraged to stay in the workforce, but they are being forced out.
The coalition understands that this is plain wrong, and that is why we have committed to abolishing the superannuation guarantee age limit. Under our plan any worker, no matter their age, will be guaranteed to receive superannuation contributions from their employer. We have tried to make this important reform from opposition. The member for Mackellar moved a private member's bill which was voted down by the Gillard government and the likes of the members for New England, Lyne and Denison. I reassure the senior workers of Goldstein that a coalition government will make this happen.
On a separate matter, the current Highett Youth Club building on Livingston Street in Highett was built in the 1960s and, although well-loved, the building is ageing and dilapidated. Last year the Bayside City Council undertook a feasibility study into the construction of a new community facility that would meet the needs of existing tenants as well as complement other facilities on the site such as the community and seniors centre and the children and family services centre. It was proposed to be a great community hub and recreation centre. Bayside council approached me, as did many members of that community, and I was pleased to provide whatever support and urging I could. In particular, a number of people made this vision happen. Plans for the $4 million project were formalised last month, jointly funded through council rates, state and federal government grants and significant contributions from future tenants such as the Highett Youth Club. The new Highett Recreation Centre and Community Hub will incorporate a gymnastics hall, two activity halls, a community workshop and a cafe. Construction is set to commence in June next year. It is a centre which has already done remarkable things for the region. Already there are many hundreds of young people, particularly in gymnastics, who are provided with a wonderful service and opportunity, many of them drawn from all over the south-east.
I conclude with particular thanks to a number of people who have made this project a reality. In particular, I thank Terry O'Brien, who has pursued this like a dog with a bone for many years and who has provided a great source of encouragement and enthusiasm for others involved, Wendy Wroblewski, Rebecca Pyper, Janice Munt and the ward councillors and the council officers of the Bayside City Council. They should all feel very proud of the contribution they have made and of the pleasure, the fulfilment and the satisfaction that many thousands of young people will receive in the many years ahead.
Diabetes
Mr LYONS (Bass) (21:08): I rise in the House today to speak about diabetes and to raise awareness of the good work being undertaken by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Nearly a million Australians are currently diagnosed with diabetes and it is Australia's fastest growing chronic disease. I recently met with a constituent in my electorate who has a son with type 1 diabetes. He is a keen advocate for diabetes awareness and for education of the community about what children and young adults go through when they have diabetes. When a person is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, it affects the whole family and poses challenges for everyone. Common concerns include: anxiety about their condition; a dread of needles and multiple injections; a feeling of being overwhelmed by the relentless and lifelong nature of the condition; frustration over blood tests that show fluctuating blood glucose levels despite their best attempts at management; the stigma of feeling different; embarrassment about telling friends; and coping with the emotional reaction of family members.
Diabetes is a complex disease and can affect the entire body. The message I want to portray is that understanding diabetes is important even if you do not have it. You most likely know someone who has diabetes. This is because diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in Australia and globally. There are two types of diabetes—type 1 and type 2. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the body's immune system destroys the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. This type of diabetes is known as juvenile-onset or insulin-dependent diabetes and accounts for about 10 to 15 per cent of all people with the disease.
As an interesting aside, at the Launceston General Hospital in 1910, Dr John Ramsay transplanted pancreatic tissue to assist a patient with diabetes. This was done in 1910; the isolation of insulin was not made until 1921. Ramsay was a doctor well in advance of his time.
People with type 1 diabetes cannot survive without insulin, which has to be injected up to six times a day or continuously infused through a pump, and they also have to check their blood sugar levels up to eight times a day just to stay alive. As you can imagine, this is a huge burden for a young person with diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is associated with serious health complications including heart disease, kidney failure, nerve damage, blindness, stroke and amputation, as well as reduced life expectancy. Unfortunately, type 1 diabetes is not well understood, and this is a source of great concern. The JDRF's research has shown that nearly half of all parents have been made to feel that their child's disease was their fault. It is a lifelong disease—people do not grow out of it. This is an important message.
Diabetes type 2 is a lifestyle disease that is strongly associated with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and weight gain, particularly around the waist. Type 2 diabetes may be prevented but cannot be cured. As a community we should be very worried about type 2 diabetes. By 2031 it is estimated that 3.3 million Australians will have type 2 diabetes. While it usually affects mature adults, young people are now being diagnosed in greater numbers as rates of obesity increase. Type 2 diabetes often has no symptoms. About half of those who have type 2 diabetes have not yet been diagnosed, and even if the symptoms are present they are often not recognised or are attributed to other reasons such as being busy or getting older.
The total financial cost of type 2 diabetes is estimated to be $10.7 billion each year. Of this, carer costs were estimated to be $4.4 billion, productivity losses $4.1 billion, health system costs $1.1 billion and $1.1 billion due to obesity. Lifestyle factors that increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes include: being overweight, especially around the waist; low levels of physical activity; unhealthy eating habits, such as regularly choosing high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt and low-fibre foods; and smoking. We should all aim to increase the awareness in our communities about diabetes.
I take this opportunity to encourage all Australians to participate in the Walk to Cure events which are being held in Canberra, Sydney, Newcastle, Adelaide, Chermside, Melbourne, Perth and Launceston. Around 40,000 people will join the walk, and the goal is to raise $2 million for critical research. Participating in this walk is a good way to participate in your community and to raise money for this important cause. I hope all Australians and their families get active and stay healthy.
Indigenous Communities
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (21:13): There has been much said in recent weeks about the dysfunction of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands in the far north of my electorate, brought to a head by the decision of Red Cross to provide food parcels to the Fregon community. Fregon is not substantially different to the rest of the communities across the APY Lands and I concur with those who have said the cause of children going hungry is more about income management than the lack of food in shops or insufficient funds to feed families, even though I would be the first to admit that goods are expensive, and good management of any welfare budget is required by parents. With that in mind, I believe the current calls for implementation of income management to address children going hungry should be supported, but the actions only address the worst symptoms of community failure and not the causes.
The recent federal government report telling us that the $3½ billion spent annually by successive governments on Indigenous Australia has been largely wasted will come as no surprise to those of us who see its results on a regular basis. Despite generous spending and thousands of people galvanised with good intent, the situation for remote Indigenous Australians continues to deteriorate. Drug and alcohol dependency, petrol sniffing, violence, sexual abuse, appalling health and educational outcomes and high suicide rates are coupled with, and caused and enhanced by, absolute welfare dependency that is destroying Aboriginal communities as surely as genocide. As an example, a drive through the APY Lands will reveal solar power stations that do not work, an electricity network in many cases leading almost nowhere, a scarcely used aged-care facility and a never-used drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, along with broken down and vandalised equipment, often not very old. There are a host of other failed ventures from gardens to training centres and a string of abandoned and trashed relics of forgotten projects and dreams.
In recent years there has been another flush of money coming through the system as both the Howard and Rudd/Gillard governments have sought once again to bring living, educational and health standards for these remote populations up to at least the minimum enjoyed by the general population.
Noel Pearson has become a leading light in Australia exposing and explaining how welfare has become 'poison flour' for his people. Despite our best efforts, the wreckage and failure of the last 40 years has shown that the harder we have tried to make life more liveable in these remote communities the more firmly we have condemned future generations to hopelessness, simply because there is no genuine economic base for these communities.
The APY Lands once supported a handful of cattle properties capable of employing perhaps 150 people. They are now virtually non-operational. However, if they were well-managed, modern properties running at maximum output they could now be operated by about 15 workers. Such is the fate of modern agriculture. Motorbikes, radio operated watering systems, solar pumps, planes and helicopters have reduced the need for labour. For properties to be sustainable they simply must adopt best practice.
There are currently about 2,500 people living on the APY Lands and I expect that following the census this figure will be upgraded. Never before has this land supported a population anything like that, and unless a mining company discovers a major resource it is unlikely to ever do so again, unless alternatives can be found. The possibilities make a very slim portfolio. Almost exclusively, the small localised working population on the lands is employed directly by government in providing services to communities which have no revenue base and consequentially are unable to help themselves. There can never be a rating base for communities while individuals can never own their own property.
Simply, there is no good reason for these communities to be where they are other than it is home. Even though it must be said that in Aboriginal culture the value of home should not be underestimated, it should also be noted that a significant number of people living in these remote communities have come from far away. They have not originated in these communities but have been attracted by the living conditions. The fact remains that while the APY Lands may be home the area is incapable of supporting such a large population. So unless we are prepared to condemn future generations to the moral poverty of lives built on the basis of permanent welfare, our focus should be on equipping new generations to succeed in the 'mainstream' world.
Aboriginal culture will be far better serviced by having functional working families, no matter where they live, who are able to visit their ancestral roots and participate in cultural practices rather than become the victims of passive welfare assistance provided in situ, which the last 40 years have shown is a recipe for cultural oblivion.
I have much more I would like to say on this subject but my time is running out, so I will have to conclude this at a later period. (Time expired)
Robertson Electorate: Education
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (21:18): I would like to share this evening some thoughts about the future of education across the Central Coast region, which I represent in this place. The Central Coast is a growing region close to Sydney and it has historically looked either to the north or to the south to supply many of its infrastructure needs and leadership. Certainly this is the case in terms of higher education, but that situation is really no longer acceptable for a region that is a region in its own right. I have come to the conclusion that the Central Coast of New South Wales needs to have an autonomous education region, both for school education and for vocational and tertiary education. I base this conclusion on the following personal experiences.
My experience of almost 30 years in the education system on the Central Coast gives me a real insight into the nature of the kids that we have in our schools and the types of families from which they come. In fact, parents in our region who have attained a TAFE qualification are much overrepresented by comparison with other parts of the state. So, without having had the experience of seeing their parents in a university context, many of our students do not know what that might look like, do not know how to access that opportunity and do not know what they might be able to do if they engaged in that tertiary context. So easily accessible tertiary education is really important for them.
I add to that my experience as a lecturer at the Central Coast campus and Newcastle campus of the University of Newcastle. I have gained very different perspectives in terms of the relationship with the university in its Newcastle campus and the campus on the Central Coast. Newcastle has been there for a much longer period of time and it has provided great support to the Central Coast campus, but the reality is that Newcastle has dominance in most of the conversations about how the university advances. The Central Coast campus and the other campus, which is situated in Port Macquarie, have much less prominence as they are affiliated campuses, not the central campus. This is a key structural problem that is impacting on the advancement of educational opportunities for people in the region that I represent.
I speak from the personal perspective of a mother on the Central Coast—the mother of one who has just begun her engagement with the tertiary sector and one who is about to commence at the end of this year. Students on the Central Coast need to have a geographical capacity to get to further education. The cost of transport to Sydney and to Newcastle is significant. Also, people returning to work—not just young men and women who are starting out in tertiary education but older people, many of the mums, who are returning to study—have choices that are limited by what they can fit around the other parts of their established lives. They need to be able to access a really wide range of courses. This simply does not seem to be the case. As a local federal member I have had a number of representations—just recently from one young Aboriginal student who has been successful in gaining a place in law in the University of New South Wales and is struggling with the reality of trying to travel to access a course that is not available to him on the Central Coast. At present, in terms of school education, we are part of the Hunter-Central Coast region of the New South Wales DET. For vocational education, the Central Coast comes under the auspices of the TAFE NSW Hunter Institute. For tertiary education I have explained that we have a campus that is attached to Newcastle. There is great status in a degree from the University of Newcastle, one of the top 10 universities in the country, but I need to advocate for people in our region for a better deal.
I regret to say that, at all of those levels, I do not think that there has been an allocation of equitable distribution, a voice and representation for the people of the Central Coast. This is certainly a belief that has been crystallised in my view as I have met with many training providers and visited a number of key agencies who are interested in education on the Central Coast. We have locals who are passionate about enabling young people and older people to get the very best education at all levels.
We are working as a region in many other senses. The census this year was the first time it has measured the Central Coast as a region. We have our own regional development authority. We have the Central Coast Local Health District. We have a division of general practice for the Central Coast. We even have the Central Coast Mariners and a bid for the Central Coast Bears. But it is time for the Central Coast to stand on its own as an educational region, to have all the opportunity and to have a voice and participation that that structural reality will allow.
Forde Electorate
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (21:23): Tonight I wish to use this opportunity to speak about some of the great community events that are continuing to build a positive community in my electorate of Forde. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Ormeau Lions Club for their successful Ormeau Fair. The Ormeau Fair was held on the weekend of 13 and 14 August. The Ormeau Lions Club begins work on this fair in January and February of each year, and my congratulations go to Norm Jessen and the rest of the team for their organisation and professionalism. An event such as this does not succeed without the help of many volunteers, and my thanks go to those volunteers for their contribution to making the fair such a success. Thanks also go to Gold Coast City Council and Mayor Ron Clarke and local councillor Donna Gates for their support, and to the many other sponsors who provide the support necessary to make this event a success.
Over the two days I had the opportunity to speak with many of the stallholders, who were excited at the opportunity the fair provided to engage with the local community and to make the local community aware of the business and services that are available. Everybody that attended the fair was well rewarded with the usual two great days of Queensland weather. The community turned out in record numbers to support the fair, and for many families it was a local wonderful alternative entertainment, with free entry and close to home. It had its own sideshow alley, show bags and rides for the kids, and it was much easier for families not having to travel the 40 or 50 kilometres to Brisbane on the Ekka weekend.
The following weekend, on 20 August, the Eagleby Community Association held their annual Eagleby Festival. My congratulations go to Ian Bray and the team at Eagleby Community Association as well as the team of volunteers for a very well run and organised event—again, with many stallholders and local businesses represented. It was a great opportunity for them to, in a more social atmosphere, mix with the local community. Again my thanks go to the Logan City Council, to Mayor Pam Parker and to local councillor Ray Hackwood for their support to make this event such a success.
A great many people spoke during the day of thoroughly enjoying themselves as they went around the various stands and mixed and mingled with neighbours and new friends. This annual event is a great opportunity for the community to come together and celebrate the community and its achievements.
Lastly, I would just like to touch on the event that I attended at Training Ship Walrus with the local Navy Cadets. On 4 September they had a national inspection and parade. This made them one of seven nationally to go into this award, with the potential to be awarded as the best training ship in Australia. Training Ship Walrus was named after a boat that travelled along the Albert River delivering mail and various goods to settlements along the river in the 1800s. This is particularly relevant as the unit's base is located on the banks of the Albert River at Eagleby. Their skills trials were part of inspections for national titles, the winner of which is due to be announced later this year.
Naval Cadets from Training Ship Walrus were put through their paces with an inspection of the unit, the guard and the ship's company by the National Commander of Australian Navy Cadets, Captain John Gill ANC. Following the inspection was a march past and advance and review order. The Precision Drill Team then showed us their skills with a great demonstration of precision drills and weapons handling. The cadets then undertook a number of practical activities, such as a tactical water craft and navigational display and blind obstacle and medivac and first-aid demonstration. My congratulations go to commanding officer Sub-Lieutenant Tracey Hagan ANC and her team of volunteers for the work they have done to get the cadets to this level and for their hospitality on the day. I wish them every success in this national award.
Durban Review Conference
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (21:28): Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that Australia will not participate in the Durban Review Conference to be held in New York on 22 September. The Durban process is a controversial international conference that stirs up more passion than it resolves. Ironically, rather than opposing racism—its purported purpose—it seems to have become a conference for promoting racism. Durban is the nom de guerre for the United Nations World Conference against Racism. Ostensibly it is an occasion for the world to unite against racism in all of its forms.
In 2001, the original world conference against racism held in Durban, South Africa, degenerated into a festa of hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. At that conference an Australian novelist, Alan Gold, was threatened, spat upon and demonised because he was a Jewish delegate from Australia. Durban singled out Israel for criticism, while other countries were ignored for their human rights violations. For the same reasons, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd cancelled Australia's participation in the Durban II conference held in April 2009 in Geneva. Again ignoring issues of racism and intolerance in developing countries and other places around the world, the conference focused almost exclusively on Israel and the Middle East. UN members including Australia, Canada, the US, the Netherlands and Germany decided to boycott the conference. Iranian President Ahmadinejad behaved in the most abhorrent manner, fulfilling the worst nightmares of the conference's critics. He stated that the war in Iraq was planned by Zionists and he continued with his calls for eradication. This is highly offensive in Persian culture, where Judaism is a respected religion. The remarks caused uproar in Iran, and other Iranian delegates disassociated themselves. At the conference, delegates from the EU and other countries, including Jordan and Morocco, staged a walkout in protest at his speech.
Following the principled stand Australia took in 2009, Prime Minister Gillard outlined the reasons for Australia not participating in Durban III, and they are worth examining. The Prime Minister said that Australia would not be attending the Durban III conference on racism in New York, as there would be no guarantee that the high-level meeting would avoid the unbalanced views that had marked it in the past. Last week while I was in New York I spoke of Germany's decision not to attend the Durban III process, joining other important UN members—Australia, Italy, the United States and Canada. Australia's stand is principled and courageous, and the Prime Minister should be praised for making this important decision.
This afternoon the member for Kooyong criticised the Labor Party regarding the upcoming UN vote on Palestinian statehood. Earlier this year, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used the debate about the Greens activities in the Marrickville by-election to attack the Labor Party and to seek to tie us with the ugly BDS campaign supported by the Socialist Alliance and the Greens party. Let me remind those opposite that it was the Labor Party that defeated Marrickville Greens Councillor Fiona Byrne in the New South Wales—not the Liberal Party, who refused to preference in the seat, making Byrne's chance of winning the seat greater. Let me remind those opposite that it was Liberal preferences that elected the Greens candidate Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne and, worse, it was the Liberals who directed preferences to Senator Rhiannon at the last federal election in New South Wales.
Over the last three months I have been joined by the Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Senator Feeney, along with the Victorian state opposition leader, Daniel Andrews, at Max Brenner stores across Australia to combat this boycott. I think it is very important when organisations like the Victorian government approach the ACCC to indicate their opposition to this infamous boycott prospect, but I do not think people should try to point-score on this issue. The Labor Party is and always will be a friend of the Australian Jewish community in Israel. It is in the interests of that community and Israel to have strong friends in both mainstream parties. Inexperienced Liberal Party operatives should not be cheap, shallow point-scoring as a battering ram for their own political benefit at the expense of that community. The issue is too important.
Occasional Child Care
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (21:33): I want to address the damage being done to occasional child care in Victoria and, in particular, I want to look at the decision of the federal government in the 2010 budget to scrap $12.6 million in funding for occasional care. I refer in particular to a program known as the Take a Break program. In my home state the shortfall was temporarily picked up by the Victorian government, but that funding ends in December this year. That was not the Victorian government's responsibility, but they did it. Occasional care is provided by community houses. It is used by mums and dads whilst they go to part-time jobs, attend medical appointments and job interviews, volunteer or shop. They may take a rare, brief moment to visit friends or relatives in distress.
I can look around my electorate and see the value of this occasional care program. In Dromana, more than 60 children receive occasional care. In Crib Point, the decision will affect more than 30 families. Crib Point is a town comprised of people who are very proud of what they have achieved, but many of them have not had the advantages in life given to some. They work hard and they need the support that they have worked to build for their community. To have the underpinnings of that taken away will really strike at the Crib Point community.
Many other families use occasional care in Mount Martha, Balnarring, Sorrento and Rye. Each of those families will be affected by the likely loss of a program which has strong community support, which deals largely with disadvantaged families, which plays an important and constructive role and which, until recently, has had bipartisan support at federal level and at state level. For many of these families, all-day care is neither appropriate nor affordable, and they will be left with no alternative option. That means that, for families that are on the margin, the ability to have a part-time job, to attend medical appointments, to volunteer or maybe to do necessary shopping for themselves or for their elderly, distressed or infirm relatives will simply not be there. This cutback has shocked and disappointed many local families. I have met with families from Crib Point and have talked with many from around the Mornington Peninsula and Western Port.
Quite significantly, the federal government is attempting to lay the blame on the Victorian government, but the funding of child care is a federal government issue. Let me repeat: the funding of child care is clearly, expressly and specifically a federal government issue. Previously, the state government generously—and this refers to state governments of both hues—worked cooperatively with the federal government to fund occasional care. The federal government would foot 55 per cent of the bill, and it was a generous action on behalf of successive state governments to meet the 45 per cent of the bill which was not ordinarily theirs. The Victorian government has committed to continuing its 45 per cent funding share, but only of course if the federal government reinstates its own funding. This is a 100 per cent federal responsibility. It has generously been shared, with the state picking up the 45 per cent, and now the federal government wants to make it a 100 per cent state responsibility. This is unfair, unreasonable, inappropriate and destructive.
Against that background, the federal coalition has committed to restoring the $12.5 million ripped from the occasional care program by federal Labor. It is not a program that needed to be cut. It was working and it was effective. It was not like a pink batts, a green loans, a cash for clunkers or a citizens assembly program. It was an effective, operating program which had bipartisan support at a federal and state level—which, for inexplicable reasons, has been cut. I call on the federal Labor government to do the right thing and to match our commitment to reinstating the $12.5 million of federal funding for the Take a Break program. (Time expired)
National Union of Retired Workers
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (21:38): I want to speak tonight about an organisation in my electorate that is working to improve the lives of seniors. The organisation is the National Union of Retired Workers. Since its beginnings in Rockhampton in 2006 it has gained a strong following and there is great interest in the establishment of similar groups in other parts of regional Queensland.
The National Union of Retired Workers puts its motto of 'actively retired' into practice every day. The organisation is made up of retired workers and their spouses who feel they have something to contribute to ensure that seniors are able to live with dignity and respect. It could be as simple as taking someone to a doctor's appointment or mowing a lawn. Members also serve the community through work with other groups such as Lifeline, the Red Cross, the Leukaemia Foundation, the RSL and others.
Through their work in the community members have become increasingly aware of the problems older people, particularly those in the private rental market, are facing with the cost of housing. I know that the case of one 80-year-old woman has particularly angered the retired workers union. The woman had rented a property from her elderly landlord for 20 years. Apparently they were both happy with the arrangement, and after so many years the property was her home. Following the landlord's death his family could see that in the present conditions the property could command rent of up to $400 per week, which she could certainly not afford and so this 80-year-old woman was given four weeks to vacate the property.
As an 80-year-old pensioner her only option was to enter a low-care aged-care facility. But this was not a choice suited to someone who was not ready and who had no medical reason to give up the freedom and independence of living in her own house. The retired workers union have told me that the woman passed away just six months after her move. One can only imagine the feelings of helplessness and anxiety that she struggled with in that time.
They have told me of other cases where people have had to choose between paying their rent and purchasing medication. They have concerns about the nutrition of people in these situations and the isolation that results when people are too anxious to spend money on social outings. This has led to the Union of Retired Workers pursuing a role as a provider of affordable housing. On May 11 this year the National Union of Retired Workers launched their affordable rental housing project. The union are being assisted by the Banana Council Support Centre who have their own housing project in place with the support of their council. A steering committee has been formed and includes a lawyer, an accountant and representatives from the Spinal Injuries Association, Life Without Barriers, Anglicare and the Central Queensland Regional Tenants Association.
The vision for this project is that seniors who are not eligible for public housing and who are renting in the private market and paying more than 30 per cent of their household income on rent will be able to apply for rental accommodation under the scheme. Other criteria will require that the applicant be in receipt of Centrelink benefits and that they have references from previous landlords. A selection panel will assess applications and a tenant liaison officer will be appointed to adjudicate any concerns. Ideally, the project will see two-bedroom duplexes or houses built to be totally accessible for people with disabilities and meeting high environmental standards. Two bedrooms allow for the homes to accommodate a carer if necessary in the future.
I am pleased to say that on 26 July the Rockhampton Regional Council offered its support for this project, and the retired workers union hope that this support may extend to the council making available land for housing when the project reaches that point. The retired workers union also met recently with the Minister for Human Services, Tanya Plibersek, when she was in Rockhampton, and I know that they have been receiving good support from state ministers as well. I commend the National Union of Retired Workers for the initiative they have shown in driving this project so far. It will certainly meet a need.
Figures presented at the Housing and Homelessness Area Network workshop in March showed that there were at least 431 seniors waiting for public or community housing in the Central Queensland region. The projections for our ageing population make the situation even more urgent, with an estimate that one in four people will be aged 60 and older within 20 years.
Currently the retired workers union are waiting on their deductible gift recipient status to be confirmed and fundraising is underway. I wish the members of the National Union of Retired Workers well with this project and will continue to work with them to look for any opportunities that might bring them closer to their project's fruition.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 21:44
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms GILLARD: to present a bill for an act to encourage the use of clean energy, and for other purposes
Mr COMBET: to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Clean Energy Act 2011, and for other purposes.
Ms MACKLIN: to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security, family assistance, veterans' entitlements, military rehabilitation and compensation, farm household support and aged care, and for related purposes.
Mr COMBET: to present a bill for an act to establish the Clean Energy Regulator, and for other purposes.
Mr COMBET: to present a bill for an act to establish the Climate Change Authority, and for other purposes.
Mr COMBET: to present a bill for an act to provide for the transformation of the Australian steel manufacturing industry, and for related purposes.
Mr ALBANESE: To move:
(1) That a Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation be appointed to inquire into and report on the provisions of the following bills:
(a) Clean Energy Bill 2011;
(b) Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011;
(c) Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011;
(d) Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011;
(e) Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011;
(f) Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;
(g) Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011;
(h) Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;
(i) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;
(j) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;
(k) Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011;
(l) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions Bill 2011;
(m) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011;
(n) Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011;
(o) Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011;
(p) Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011;
(q) Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011;
(r) Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; and
(s) Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011.
(2) That the committee consist of 12 members, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member, one non-aligned member, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Greens senator.
(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(4) That the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of senators or members referred to in this resolution.
(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.
(6) That the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(7) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(8) That four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either house.
(9) That the committee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced.
(10) That the committee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit.
(11) That the committee have the power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(12) That the committee report on or before 4 October 2011.
(13) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
(14) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur with the action accordingly.
Mr ALBANESE: to move:
That in respect of the proceedings on the Clean Energy Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011, the Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, the Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, and the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;
(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate or at 5pm on Tuesday, 11 October 2011, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay, in respect of all the bills with the exception of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011,
(a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by opposition Members;
(b) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and
(c) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;
(3) then without delay, any questions necessary to conclude the second reading stage of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 being put;
(4) if the second readings of the bills have been agreed to, messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for any of the bills being announced together;
(5) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together until no later than immediately after prayers on Wednesday, 12 October 2011, with no business intervening, at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of any of the bills except the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 shall be treated as if they have been moved together with,
(a) one question being put on all the Government amendments;
(b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by opposition Members;
(c) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and
(d) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;
(6) then without delay, any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 shall be treated as if they have been moved together with,
(a) one question being put on all the Government amendments;
(b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by opposition Members;
(c) any necessary questions being put on amendments moved by any other Member; and
(d) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;
(7) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the remaining stages of all the bills, except the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, together and then one question being put on the remaining stages of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011; and
(8) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the tenth anniversary of the Harkin-Engel Protocol signed in September 2001, designed to encourage voluntary standards for the certification of cocoa production that prohibits and eliminates engagement in the worst forms of child labour, as defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 182; and
(2) calls upon the Australian Government to:
(a) fund research to ascertain a list of products where there is a serious risk of human trafficking and/or slavery occurring in the supply chain;
(b) be proactive in procurement policy making to counter trafficking or slavery in the supply chain for products purchased by the Government;
(c) actively engage in international fora to ensure greater priority for consideration of measures against child slavery;
(d) work co-operatively to improve traceability of products through the monitoring of their derivation;
(e) co-operate closely with ILO against trafficking.
Mr KATTER: to present a bill for an act to require constitutional corporations that are grocery retailers to produce producer prices and for related purposes
Mr KATTER: to present a bill for an act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2011
Mr BROADBENT: to move:
That this House notes the importance of the dairy industry to the health and well being of Australia.
Mr NEUMANN: to move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes the Productivity Commission's final report into Disability Care and Support, released on 10 August 2011;
(2) notes the assessment of the Productivity Commission that the current system of disability care and support is unsustainable, underfunded, unfair and does not deliver appropriate levels of care and support to Australians with disability;
(3) supports the vision set out by the Productivity Commission for a national disability insurance scheme which delivers individualised care and support for Australians with significant disability over the course of their lives, and provides universal insurance for care and support for Australians in the event of significant disability;
(4) commends the Australian Government's commitment to fundamental reform of disability services, and the start of work to prepare for a scheme, consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission;
(5) recognises the work of the Australian Government to increase funding and put reform to services to Australians with disabilities on the national agenda, including improving access to early intervention services for children with disabilities, record increases to pensions for people with disabilities and their carers and doubling funding to the States and Territories to deliver disability services; and
(6) welcomes the agreement of the Council of Australian Governments to immediate action to deliver foundation reforms necessary for a national disability insurance scheme.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
National Police Remembrance Day
Ms MARINO ( Forrest — Opposition Whip ) ( 10: 30 ): I rise to show respect for National Police Remembrance Day. Since 1989, National Police Remembrance Day has been held on or near 29 September each year. This date is significant as it coincides with the feast day of St Michael, the patron saint of police officers. As we know, on a daily basis police officers risk their lives in the name of the community and the safety of individuals. In discharging their duties some of our police officers have given the ultimate sacrifice, their lives.
In 1998, as a response to the murders of Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rod Miller, Blue Ribbon Day was born. On 29 September or as close as possible every year, in each state and territory police jurisdiction across Australia and the South-West Pacific region, Blue Ribbon Day coincides with Police Remembrance Day, not only to remember those killed while on duty but also to show strong community support for all police around the world. Law and order are the cornerstones of the society we live in, operating in tandem with this very parliament and all others in Australia. Without a body to ensure that laws are followed, they become totally ineffectual.
Last year I attended the south-west district Police Remembrance Day ceremony in Bunbury, in my electorate of Forrest. The Commissioner of Police, Mr Karl O'Callaghan APM, and Pastor Keith Carmody and Reverend Mike Mateljan from the WA Police were in attendance at the ceremony, which provided those present with the opportunity to publicly remember officers and reflect on the sacrifices they have made while serving the community. It was also the opportunity for police officers present to pause and honour fallen colleagues, from both state and federal police services, whose lives have been cut short while performing their duty as police officers.
Since 1834, 90 Western Australian police officers and aides have fallen, of whom 10 were killed in the course of duty. I welcome every measure that will assist the effectiveness of WA Police, and benefit the WA population, as well as our national police. But no measure can help the officers who have died or the families of officers who have already given their lives in the name of law and order and for the protection of our communities. I offer my most sincere respect to their memories and my sympathy to the families whose loved ones were lost while dedicating their lives to keeping our communities safe.
Television Sports Broadcasts
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide—Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women) (10:32): I rise today on a matter which is important to the community which I am lucky enough to represent in Adelaide but is also important to thousands more people right across South Australia. It is an issue which I know many members on both sides of the House have been concerned about, and it is fantastic to be able to unite South Australian members from the government and the opposition to stand together and say that we want an end to the uncertainty over the future of the ABC's long-running television coverage of the SANFL football in South Australia, which is a concern for many in our local communities.
Some may see it as frivolous—the number of members who are speaking in the parliament about this issue—and I would reject that. I would say to those people that I am a big believer in the power of sport to unite communities. I am a big believer in the role that sport plays in bringing together those from quite different backgrounds under a common theme of support and rivalry over their local team. In fact, I know that for many in South Australia there is nothing better than heading along to a local game of footy on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon to cheer on their local team, to barrack, and to hope to leave victorious. And that jubilation is something that all of those supporters—in my case in the black and gold, following the mighty Glenelg Tigers—will be sharing.
We also know that not everyone can make it along to those local games. I spoke recently to someone whose elderly father, when he was very sick for the eight years before he passed away, took great comfort in being able to tune in and watch his beloved Redlegs on the television each weekend. I know that when I grew up in country South Australia we relied upon the television coverage to make sure we could follow the same games that our family members in Adelaide would be supporting. So I think it is incredibly important that this coverage is maintained. This is something that has been there for decades and been enjoyed by generations of South Australians. We must ensure that this continues. To support the growing community campaign, to help build greater public awareness of the issues and to make sure that the ABC is well aware of the strong support, I recently launched a petition calling on the ABC to uphold their continued coverage of the SANFL. I am pleased that this petition rests in the offices of each of the federal South Australian representatives so that the local community can go, sign up and make sure that their voice is heard in this debate and so that we can call on the ABC to uphold its charter and continue to broadcast this important community event.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II: Diamond Jubilee
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:35): I rise this morning to draw the House's attention to the upcoming diamond jubilee, the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Commonwealth. The sixth of January 2012 will mark the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty. The only other British monarch to celebrate a diamond jubilee was Queen Victoria in 1897. It is a significant moment in our history and a notable occasion for our young country, being the first such event of this magnitude since we became a Federation on 1 January 1901. The Queen's diamond jubilee will see large-scale events and celebrations organised in celebration of this historic occasion in many British Commonwealth countries, including the issuing of the diamond jubilee medal in Canada to honour significant contributions and achievements. I was recently contacted by the Australian Monarchist League Queensland branch chairman, Tristan Rogers, regarding the diamond jubilee celebrations in Australia. In his letter he implored me to raise this matter with the Gillard government to ensure that the diamond jubilee is recognised even in a small way in Queensland.
The Australian Monarchist League was established by a group of hardworking volunteers for the encouragement of literature and to uphold the educational and cultural aspects of our constitutional monarchy. They have been working tirelessly to ensure that Her Majesty's diamond jubilee is a page of our history that is not forgotten, and they believe that we, as Australians, should not let discussions of constitutional change halt celebrations of Her Majesty's diamond jubilee. Many Australian organisations have already been contacted by the AML and are subsequently choosing to mark this significant event with individual celebrations. I think it is important to remind the House that under the Constitution the reigning British monarch is also the Australian monarch, and therefore Australia's head of state. As a nation, we should recognise our monarch's many decades of service and pay tribute to Her Majesty's longevity in 2012. This is not about whether you are a monarchist or a republican; it is about respect. I call on the Gillard government to ensure that the appropriate recognition by this great country is given to Her Majesty's diamond jubilee, so that we may all celebrate this momentous occasion in our nation's young history. I would like to congratulate the Australian Monarchist League for their steadfast efforts in ensuring that the Australia public are aware of her Majesty's upcoming diamond jubilee.
Fowler Electorate: Moon Festival
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:38): On Sunday a week ago, my electorate celebrated the annual Moon Festival. As in every year, this is an event that brings the community together for a day and a night of music, food and a number of activities for the young and old to enjoy. I am very proud to represent the electorate of Fowler, which is in the south-west of Sydney and is the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia. I have the honour of representing one of the largest Asian communities outside Asia itself. In fact, 20 per cent of my electorate is Vietnamese, and a further 10 per cent speak a Chinese language. Traditionally, the Mid-Autumn Festival, or the Moon Festival as it is called, is a harvest festival that celebrates unity and family reunion. It is widely celebrated through China, Vietnam and throughout other Asian countries. Many of us believe that the moon is at its brightest and its roundest at the height of the mid-autumn, and hence the evening event brings together a celebration at this time.
The Moon Festival this year continued to honour the children in the community, with cultural performances, traditional dragon and lion dances, special midnight feasts, street parades with the children carrying lanterns and, naturally, fireworks. Every event once again reiterates the importance of nurturing the multicultural nature of our country.
Multiculturalism in Australia is about building a shared sense of nationhood forged through mutual respect, common values and a commitment to fairness. I am happy to be part of a government that is committed to Australia's multiculturalism and supporting policies and programs that strengthen social cohesion and promote participation. The recent People of Australia policy is one for all Australians and embraces the four principles of celebrating and valuing diversity; maintaining social cohesion; communicating the benefits of Australia's diversity; and responding to intolerance and discrimination.
Cultural events in my local community such as the Moon Festival are built very much on these four principles. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Fairfield City Council in organising the committee who have done an excellent job with this year's Moon Festival. I would also like to acknowledge the Cabramatta police, the State Emergency Service and the fire brigade, who gave up their time to participate in this community event. I would especially like to thank all the volunteer sponsors and supporters because without them this day would not have been possible.
Queen's Scout Award
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (10:41): I rise this morning to pay tribute to two outstanding local scout groups within the electorate of Casey. Five members' outstanding service has been recognised in recent weeks with the awarding of the Queen's Scout Award. As members will know, our scouts play a great community role in all of our electorates. For those who are awarded the Queen's Scout Award, it is a rare honour and one that occurs only after dedication, outstanding service and excellence over a number of years.
It was my pleasure on Monday, 29 August, to attend the Mount Evelyn annual presentation evening, where four scouts were applauded for their recent awards. Those recipients were Georgina Bennett, Georgia Hocking, Helen Mortimer and Christopher Park. Each of them was recently presented with the Queen's Scout Award. This was a great achievement for them personally and for the Mount Evelyn scouts, which were founded more than 80 years ago and have grown rapidly in recent years. With over 150 members, they are now a considerable community force in the local area and in outer eastern Melbourne.
On the following Sunday, 4 September, I was also pleased to be able to attend the Monbulk scouts presentation afternoon for the awarding of the Queen's Scout Award to David Leonard. It was great to see three generations of the Leonard family there, all of whom have played a large role in the Monbulk community and in the Monbulk scouts. To Lloyd Reynolds, Deirdre Lancaster, Phil Rundle and all of the other leaders at the Monbulk scouts, very hearty congratulations on the great work that you are doing and the work that you have done for the community and the work you will continue to do in the years ahead.
To the Mount Evelyn scout group again, I pay tribute to Gary Park, who has done so much over recent years to ensure that the Mount Evelyn scouts play an active role in the community at dawn services and other critical events in the Mount Evelyn community.
Franklin Electorate: Carbon Emissions
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) (10:44): We all know that all parties here at parliament have a commitment to reducing our carbon emissions. Where we differ clearly is how we get there. I want to talk particularly about an event in my electorate just a week or two ago, where the local council and Low Carbon Australia partnered to have a great outcome for ratepayers in terms of savings and in terms of reducing their carbon emissions. The Kingborough Council are one of the first councils in Australia to partner with Low Carbon Australia to cut energy use, save money and reduce carbon pollution. Specifically, they have replaced 648 old-technology fluorescent tubes with approximately 420 LED tubes in the council buildings. This has meant a saving of 75 per cent less power for the council, so the ratepayers are getting a benefit with fewer power bills. They are expecting to see a saving of around $11,000 per annum, or over $400,000 over the life of the project, for the ratepayers of Kingborough. So it is a fantastic investment.
Low Carbon Australia loaned the council $45,000. The way it works is that the repayments are on the basis of the savings of the electricity bills so that it balances out for the ratepayers. This is fantastic news for the ratepayers of Kingston but it is also good news about how we can all go about reducing our carbon emissions. As I said, both parties are committed to reducing carbon emissions; the difference is in how we get there. This little event was really worth while. We had the CEO, Meg McDonald, there. We had a look at some of the old fluorescent tubes and the new fluorescent tubes, the LEDs, and measured their output in terms of electricity. Frankly, the evidence there for everybody about the savings as well as the reduction in carbon emissions was very, very plain to see for all of us. We also had a tour of the new LED lights that had been installed, to see the difference in lighting in the council building. To be honest, you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. If anything, it was probably a bit brighter.
I want to congratulate the Kingborough Council on its initiative in partnering with Low Carbon Australia and being one of the first councils in Australia to do that. I also want to congratulate them on the energy audit and cost savings that they have done as a council, and they have looked at all these issues. Obviously it is quite complex to go through a whole range of costs as a council and look at where money can be saved. It was fortuitous that that day in our local paper there was also a story running about another council, which had not invested in this type of technology and which were facing massive bills for some of their technology in the lighting of public streets. I would encourage councils around Australia and in my own electorate to keep talking to Low Carbon Australia. It is a wonderful initiative to have Low Carbon Australia out there supporting local governments and businesses. (Time expired)
Stosur, Ms Samantha
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:47): In celebrating Sam Stosur winning the US Open today, we are celebrating not just a remarkable sporting achievement but also a triumph of the great Australian character. Serena and Venus Williams have dominated the women's game over the past 10 years to a greater extent than any other two players have dominated this sport. The Williams sisters have taken the game from what was previously considered a country club sport in the US and ended forever the racial barriers that Arthur Ashe and the first great African-American player, Althea Gibson, initially confronted. Sam's victory today is a study in the value of competition in the development of her game and her character.
In 2005 I travelled extensively with Sam in my role as the Fed Cup captain. In the lead-up to Wimbledon that year, Sam lost to the defending champion Maria Sharapova in a magnificent three-set match that could have gone either way. On this form, I commented that Sam could win Wimbledon one day. This was dismissed by many as an exaltation of an overenthusiastic coach. Sam was injured the following day and her preparation for Wimbledon was greatly impaired, and she lost in the first round. Our team had a chant of inquiring, 'What time is it?' and, regardless of the circumstances, the answer had to be, 'The best time of my life.'
At the US Open, Sam again met with the ultimate disappointment, losing in the first round to an opponent she had every right to expect to beat. At the end of the long walk back to the locker room, I asked Sam, 'What time is it?' Clearly upset but with her humour still intact, she replied, 'Not the best time of my life.' Some 10 days later Sam played magnificently to win the US Open doubles with Lisa Raymond and then achieve the world's No. 1 ranking in doubles. The scrutiny of competition has not always been kind. However, the one constant in Sam Stosur's rise has been her steadfast commitment to take each setback as her coach to build a better game and stronger character. Today she entered a stadium in New York named after the greatest African-American male player the world has seen, Arthur Ashe, a man of character, and was drawn to play the greatest player of her era, Serena Williams, at a time when women's tennis has gone from strength to strength. To add to the drama, it was the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York City. The weight of history pressed down hard upon her as the first Australian woman to make the US Open final since the golden days of Margaret Court, Evonne Goolagong—who is in the building right now—Wendy Turnbull and Kerry Reid in the seventies. Under these extraordinary conditions, facing the greatest challenge of her tennis career and test of her character, the sum total of her accumulated knowledge through defeat and with her character intact, her day had come. The beauty of this story is that every Australian would recognise, Sam, that your success is earned and that you remain the same modest, almost shy, young woman who has achieved greatness. All Australians would agree, Sam, that this is the time of your life. (Time expired)
Corio Electorate: Geelong Regional Libraries
Mr MARLES (Corio—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) (10:51): Can I also associate myself with the comments of the member for Bennelong and congratulate Sam Stosur on her remarkable win this morning.
Recently I had the privilege of opening the Land is Life exhibition at the Geelong West branch of the Geelong library. This multimedia exhibition by Oxfam shows Pacific Island communities in Kiribati and Tuvalu and their vulnerability to the impact of climate change. Through images of a seemingly carefree way of life, enjoyed very much in the outdoors, we are confronted by the harsh reality that climate change, most particularly rising sea levels, will severely impact the day-to-day lives of these islanders and threaten the very future of their island homes. It is a brilliant exhibition that was displayed at several sites throughout Geelong's library network. Having the library as the exhibition venue reminded me of the powerful collaborative role that libraries can play in the generation of new and creative ideas, producing events and programs that have significant cultural and artistic contributions. They are also an invaluable resource to our community and bring countless benefits to a diverse membership both socially and economically. Thirteen libraries form part of the Geelong Regional Libraries network. Together they provide a range of resources and services to a membership base of more than 92,000 people. These members made nearly 1.3 million visits to our regional libraries in the 12 months to last year, and the library membership base is diverse, because social inclusion and equal learning and participation opportunities are a strong focus. People of all ages and backgrounds are encouraged to join and participate. Whether it is author events, preschool story times, writing workshops or community education lectures, members and the broader community are encouraged to participate and experience the enjoyment that comes from learning and discovering something new.
Our libraries stock more than just books, though these are of course their core business. There are also DVD's, magazines, newspapers and broadband internet access in every library, and this access gives members information and materials to support their studies and personal development or simply to enrich their leisure time. Our libraries create a safe and welcoming environment where everyone, whoever they are, whatever their circumstance, has an opportunity to learn, participate and feel positive about their presence and contribution. Libraries connect individuals, often through providing social or collaborative conditions, or purely through the sense of community created by the library environment. There are areas for community groups to meet and work or communicate and, in addition to building a more connected and collaborative community, there are economic spin-off's as well. A recent study of Geelong Regional Libraries found they generated nearly $7.50 of economic benefit for every dollar invested and provided 168 jobs for people across the region. I was simply delighted to see that last week the Regional Infrastructure Fund committed $10 million to the Geelong library system, particularly in the upgrade of the heritage centre, which is so sorely needed. Another function of our library system is that it is the custodian of much of our most important history, and this money will secure our history for decades to come.
Diverse, creative and supportive community education is essential to building an engaged and empowered community, and our libraries play a central and vital role. This speech was prepared by Zac Power, a work experience student with me.
United States of America: Terrorist Attacks
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (10:54): I rise this morning to add my voice and those of my constituents to the chorus of people remembering the horrors of September 11 2001—those awful attacks in the United States of America. Ten years on, we all pause to remember all those who lost their lives in those terror attacks, which changed our world so dramatically. Indeed there has rarely been an event that has dominated our world, and the past decade, as much as this one has. It was very moving this morning to see the tributes on the site of Ground Zero, with George W Bush and Barack Obama attending the day of solemn remembrance at the memorial in the footprint of the World Trade Centre. Memorial services are also being held today in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney to remember the Australians who also died in these tragic attacks. I want to particularly thank Ambassador Bleich of the United States for his kind and passionate remarks, and his commitment to the ongoing relationship between our two great countries.
Ten years ago we were all shocked that such evil was possible. That human beings would fly planes full of people into buildings full of people because of their dedication to an evil ideology is beyond the comprehension of most of us. Being born into, or moving into, a free country makes it very hard for us to understand the nature of totalitarianism and of evil, but the world is full of it and we must be vigilant for it.
Today is a day for us to reflect on all of the Americans and Australians who lost their lives; the brave American firefighters; the ambulance workers; the police; the ordinary heroes; the passengers who thwarted one attack; the soldiers who went to the Middle East afterwards; and the ongoing work of intelligence agencies in the United States and in Australia to keep us all safe now and into the future. We should also take a moment to acknowledge every single Australian soldier who has served in the conflict against terrorism around the world and who continues to do so today. Their courage and determination to defend our nation keep us free and safe and we owe them a great debt. For Australia to have had John Winston Howard present in the United States when these attacks occurred is yet another step in that shared journey between our two nations. The relationship between the United States of America and Australia is strong. We are both nations deeply committed to peace, freedom and democracy. We have a strong friendship and an alliance that is only strengthening throughout the years.
George W Bush was a fine president for a very difficult moment, and I want to take a moment to say something about him. Indeed, he is someone who is often maligned as a president who did not very well in the presidency, but I believe this was definitely his finest hour. It was not just his response in the aftermath of a very difficult and challenging event but his strength and determination in the uncompromising approach to the Middle East, to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to Saddam Hussein in Iraq that changed the world for the better and ultimately brought evil regimes and dictators to justice. Australians' role in supporting these decisive actions was right and appropriate. There is only one way to defeat totalitarianism, and that is with a strong and robust defence of freedom. George W Bush will be remembered fondly for the strength of his response and his passion in delivering it to America. Australia says: 'We are your friends; you have helped us in wars in the past, and we will help you in the future.' We are continuing in our deep commitment to the cause of peace, liberty and the democratic way.
Dairy Industry
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (10:57): May I join with others in congratulating Sam Stosur on winning the US Open—a dream, no doubt, that Sam has had for decades and has now achieved. We are all very, very happy for her. She is a great champion.
I would like to celebrate with my community the growth of the dairy industry. In particular, about two to 2½ years ago, the dairy industry was in all sorts of strife in my region, and of course it was exasperated by terrible weather conditions which made it even more difficult for many of my farmers and their businesses. However, more recently there have been really significant recent economic development initiatives for the dairy industry in Tassie, but particularly in the north-west. Dairy is Tasmania's biggest agricultural industry, for those who do not know, and employs over 2,060 people across the state, 70 per cent of them in my electorate—in particular in the north-west. It continues to increase production output over a period when the industry elsewhere in Australia has reduced its total output. For instance, in interstate exports it is the equivalent of about $250 million towards the gross state product. Interstate exports total about $259 million and exports overseas $62.3 million, so it gives you some idea of its importance to the state.
Major investments that have been announced more recently and/or are being considered now include National Foods investing $150 million at its Burnie plant, and increases of some millions on King Island, particularly for those magnificent cheeses that we are all very aware of. Fonterra is investing $6.5 million in a gas conversion at its Spreyton plant and is undertaking a $12 million upgrade at Wynyard. Tasmanian Dairy Products are investing $60 million in a milk powder facility at Smithton, and Ashgrove Farm are undertaking a $5 million expansion at Elizabeth Town. Van Diemen's Land and its parent company, Tasman Farms Ltd, which already farms more than 19,000 hectares in the north-west, are planning to triple milk output in the next three to four years through a $180 million investment.
The industry continues to innovate through best practice technology such as fixed-time artificial insemination and enhanced milking systems and needs skilled workers to support its growth plan. I add that there is going to be a massive demand for goat's milk and goat's cheese in the region as well, so the dairy industry is doing well. It is going to do better and it requires more labour, and that is a good news story.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for member's constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (11:01): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (lines 8 to 22), omit "contractor" (wherever occurring), substitute "non-Commonwealth government agency".
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 8), omit "a person", substitute "an agency of a State, Territory or local government, or a body which is a subsidiary of or controlled by such an agency".
(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (lines 20 and 21), omit "If the contractor is an agency of a State, Territory or local government, or is a subsidiary of or controlled by such an agency,".
I would like to begin my remarks by saying I do not believe that the debate on this bill belongs in this chamber. It is far from being non-controversial. The very essence of my amendments, which I flagged when I spoke on the second reading, is to take out all reference to having private entities audited by the Auditor-General, to increasing his scope of audit in that way. I did say there were other things in the bill that I thought could be supported, but I made the point that extending the Auditor-General's scope of audit to the private sector is totally outside any concept of the role that I believe the Auditor-General should play.
Secondly, I would like to make the point that about 10 minutes ago I had dropped on me this great sheaf of pages, which is the amendment to be moved by the government, which completely removes schedule 1 of the member for Lyne's bill. And I received the explanatory memorandum literally as I walked into the chamber. I have not even had time to read this amendment, let alone the explanatory memorandum, which I have just received. I think this is a shocking way to run the business of what is a serious issue.
I would like to reiterate the remarks that I made while speaking on the second reading about the Auditor-General playing a hugely important role in our system—the role of keeping government honest. It is the role that is designated to him and, as a longstanding member of the joint public accounts committee, I long supported the role of the Auditor-General and his powers to audit government agencies and departments.
I have always thought it was important to change the old interpretation of the existing legislation that, where a Commonwealth company has a majority of government appointed directors, the Auditor-General, as of right, cannot audit that body. I have always thought that that should be changed, and that was a recommendation of the public accounts committee. But I think it is wrong in principle to extend that to a right to audit a private sector company simply because that company has done business with the Commonwealth. It is an extension of the Auditor-General's powers which brings the whole concept of public sector auditing, which is different from private sector auditing, into an area where I do not think the Auditor-General has the expertise, and nor should it. I know that the Auditor-General very often does subcontract with private sector auditors, even in doing government auditing work, but that is a different proposition from the Auditor-General having a primary function for auditing a private sector company or indeed a non-corporate entity. I think the difficulties which small companies already face in doing business with the Commonwealth will only be added to by having this bill passed in this form.
As for the amendment which the government will be moving, as I have said, I presume that the government has been in long and private consultations and discussions with the member for Lyne. That is the way the government works. It is not the way the new paradigm was supposed to work. If there were going to be these changes to the private member's bill, I think it would have been, as a matter of courtesy, an issue that the government should have also raised with members of the opposition. If the member for Lyne has simply done another secret deal with the government to say, 'As long as my bill can live, I'll agree to whatever amendments you've got,' that again is a breach of the so-called new paradigm that was supposed to be entered into in this parliament. Once again we see it honoured in the breach rather than being something that improves debate. To have this sort of thing dumped on people at the last minute like this is simply unacceptable, particularly when we are dealing with the very important issue of the Auditor-General. I think it is contemptuous to treat the Auditor-General in this way. The Auditor-General may well have been consulted on this new schedule that is to appear in the private member's bill, but I think that courtesy should have been extended to the opposition too.
I will be pleased when this legislation returns to the main House of Representatives chamber, where it properly should be debated because it is such a contentious issue. With those remarks, I commend the amendments I have moved to get rid of the power of the Auditor-General to audit private sector firms.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): In accordance with the wish of the Main Committee, the question that amendments (1) to (3) moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to is deferred until after a debate has occurred on all amendments.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (11:07): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendment (1):
(1) Schedule 1, page 2 (line 1) to page 5 (line 12), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 1—Functions and powers of the Auditor-General
Auditor-General Act 1997
1 Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
assurance review means a review conducted in accordance with the standards set by the Auditor-General under section 24 for assurance reviews.
2 Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
Commonwealth partner has the meaning given by subsection 18B(2).
3 Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
priority assurance review has the meaning given by subsection 19A(5).
4 Subsection 5(1) (at the end of the definition of responsible Minister )
Add:
; (d) in relation to an audit of a Commonwealth partner—the Minister responsible for achieving the Commonwealth purpose concerned.
5 Subsection 5(1) (definition of senior manager )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
senior manager: (a) in relation to a Commonwealth company or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company—has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997; and (b) in relation to a Commonwealth partner who is an individual—means the individual.
6 Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
wholly owned Commonwealth company has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
7 At the end of subsection 15(2)
Add:
; and (d) to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.
8 Subsection 16(2)
Omit "the responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".
9 Subsection 16(2)
Omit "The Finance Minister is to consult with the responsible Minister before making a request.".
10 Subsection 16(3)
Omit "a responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".
11 At the end of subsection 16(4)
Add:
; and (d) to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.
12 Subsection 17(2)
Omit "the responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".
13 Subsection 17(2)
Omit "The Finance Minister is to consult with the responsible Minister before making a request.".
14 Subsection 17(3)
Omit "a responsible Minister, the Finance Minister or".
15 At the end of subsection 17(4)
Add:
; and (d) to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.
16 Subsection 17(5)
Repeal the subsection.
17 Paragraph 18(2)(g)
After "operations of a person", insert "who is not a Commonwealth partner".
18 At the end of subsection 18(2)
Add:
; and (h) to the extent that the report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.
19 After section 18
Insert:
18A Audit of performance indicators (1) The Auditor-General may at any time conduct an audit of: (a) the appropriateness of the performance indicators (however described) of: (i) an Agency; or (ii) a Commonwealth authority (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries; or (iii) a Commonwealth company (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries; and (b) reporting by the Agency, authority, company or subsidiary against those indicators.(2) If the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit requests it, the Auditor-General may conduct an audit of: (a) the appropriateness of the performance indicators (however described) of: (i) a Commonwealth authority that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries; or (ii) a wholly owned Commonwealth company that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries; and (b) reporting by the authority, company or subsidiary against those indicators.(3) Nothing prevents the Auditor-General from asking the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make a particular request under subsection (2).(4) As soon as practicable after completing the report on an audit under this section, the Auditor-General must: (a) cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament; and (b) give a copy of the report to the responsible Minister; and (c) give a copy of the report to: (i) the Chief Executive of the Agency; or (ii) an officer of the Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth authority; or (iii) a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth company or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth company.(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the report is, or is to be, included in the annual report of the Agency, Commonwealth authority or Commonwealth company.(6) The Auditor-General may give a copy of, or an extract from, the report to any person (including a Minister) who, or any body that, in the Auditor-General's opinion, has a special interest in the report or the content of the extract.
18B Commonwealth partners (1) The Auditor-General may conduct a performance audit of a Commonwealth partner: (a) if the partner is, is part of, or is controlled by, the Government of a State or Territory—at the request of the responsible Minister or the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; or (b) otherwise—at any time.(2) A person or body is a Commonwealth partner if: (a) the Commonwealth provides money for a particular purpose (the Commonwealth purpose); and (b) the person or body receives some or all of the money, whether directly or indirectly, because the person or body: (i) agrees to use the money in achieving the Commonwealth purpose; or (ii) has entered into a contract that relates to the Commonwealth purpose; and (c) an audit of the person or body could not be conducted under another section of this Division.(3) The audit may be conducted only to the extent that it assesses the operations of the Commonwealth partner in relation to achieving the Commonwealth purpose.(4) The audit may be conducted as part of an audit under section 15, 16, 17 or 18.(5) The report on the audit must include the reasons for conducting the audit.(6) As soon as practicable after completing the report on the audit, the Auditor-General must: (a) cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament; and (b) give a copy of the report to the responsible Minister; and (c) give a copy of the report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the report is, or is to be, included in the report on an audit under section 15, 16, 17 or 18.(8) The Auditor-General may give a copy of, or an extract from, the report to any person (including a Minister) who, or any body that, in the Auditor-General's opinion, has a special interest in the report or the content of the extract.(9) Nothing prevents the Auditor-General from asking the responsible Minister or the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make a particular request for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).
20 Subsections 19(1) and (2)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:(1) After preparing a proposed report on an audit of an Agency under section 15, the Auditor-General must: (a) give a copy of the proposed report to the Chief Executive of the Agency; and (b) to the extent that the proposed report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner: (i) a copy of the proposed report; or (ii) extracts of the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner; or (iii) extracts of the proposed report that include the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner.(2) After preparing a proposed report on an audit of a body under section 16 or 17, the Auditor-General must: (a) give a copy of the proposed report to: (i) if the body is a Commonwealth authority or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth authority—an officer of the Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth authority; or (ii) if the body is a Commonwealth company or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company—a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth company or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth company; and (b) to the extent that the proposed report relates to the operations of a Commonwealth partner—give a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner: (i) a copy of the proposed report; or (ii) extracts of the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner; or (iii) extracts of the proposed report that include the parts of the proposed report that deal with the audit of the Commonwealth partner.(2A) After preparing a proposed report under section 18A on an audit of the performance indicators of a body and the body's reporting against those indicators, the Auditor-General must give a copy of the proposed report to: (a) if the body is an Agency—the Chief Executive of the Agency; or (b) if the body is a Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of a Commonwealth authority—an officer of the Commonwealth authority or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth authority; or (c) if the body is a Commonwealth company or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company—a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth company or the subsidiary of the Commonwealth company.(2B) After preparing a proposed report on an audit of a Commonwealth partner under section 18B, the Auditor-General must give a copy of the proposed report to a director or senior manager of the Commonwealth partner.(2C) Subsection (2B) does not apply if: (a) the proposed report is included, or is to be included, in the proposed report on an audit under section 15, 16 or 17; or (b) the audit of the Commonwealth partner was conducted as part of an audit under section 18.
21 Subsection 19(3)
Omit "or 18", substitute ", 18, 18A or 18B".
22 Subsection 19(4)
Omit "within 28 days after receiving the proposed report, or the extract from the proposed report", substitute "as follows".
23 At the end of subsection 19(4)
Add:
: (a) in the case of a proposed report on an audit under section 18A (audit of performance indicators)—within 14 days after receiving the proposed report, or the extract from the proposed report; (b) otherwise—within 28 days after receiving the proposed report, or the extract from the proposed report.
24 After Division 2 of Part 4
Insert:
Division 2A—Assurance reviews
19A Assurance reviews (1) The Auditor-General may at any time conduct an assurance review of: (a) an Agency; or (b) a Commonwealth authority (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries; or (c) a Commonwealth company (other than a GBE), or of any of its subsidiaries.(2) If the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit requests it, the Auditor-General may conduct an assurance review of: (a) a Commonwealth authority that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries; or (b) a wholly owned Commonwealth company that is a GBE, or of any of its subsidiaries.(3) Nothing prevents the Auditor-General from asking the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make a particular request under subsection (2).(4) The Auditor-General may determine arrangements for the conduct of an assurance review, including arrangements for reporting to the Parliament.(5) The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit may identify an assurance review as a priority. A review so identified is a priority assurance review.(6) As soon as practicable after completing the report on a priority assurance review, the Auditor-General must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.
25 At the end of section 20
Add:(4) Divisions 2 and 2A do not limit the power of the Auditor-General under this section to enter into an arrangement with a GBE.
26 Paragraph 21(1)(b)
After "company", insert "or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth company".
27 Paragraph 23A(b)
Omit "a performance audit under Division 2", substitute "an audit under Division 2 or 2A".
Note: The heading to section 23A is replaced by the heading "Information sharing".
28 Paragraph 24(a)
Omit "referred to in Division 1 or 2", substitute "or review referred to in Division 1, 2 or 2A".
29 Section 30
Before "The operation", insert "(1)".
30 Paragraph 30(b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) is not limited by: (i) any other law (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act), except to the extent that the other law expressly excludes the operation of section 32 or 33; or (ii) any rule of law relating to legal professional privilege or any other privilege, or the public interest, in relation to the disclosure of information or the production of documents.
31 At the end of section 30
Add:(2) Disclosure or production of, or access to, information or a document under section 32 or 33 does not otherwise affect the operation of a rule of law relating to privilege or the public interest in relation to disclosure of the information or production of the document.
32 Before paragraph 31(a)
Insert:(aa) an assurance review that is not a priority assurance review; or
33 Paragraph 33(1)(a)
Omit "or a Commonwealth company", substitute ", a Commonwealth company or a Commonwealth partner".
34 After section 56
Insert:
56A Constitutional safety net (1) If a provision of this Act: (a) would, apart from this subsection, have an application (an invalid application) in relation to: (i) one or more particular persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases; or (ii) one or more classes (however defined or determined) of persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases;
because of which the provision exceeds the Commonwealth's legislative power; and (b) also has at least one application (a valid application) in relation to: (i) one or more particular persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases; or (ii) one or more classes (however defined or determined) of persons, things, matters, places, circumstances or cases;
that, if it were the provision's only application, would be within the Commonwealth's legislative power;
it is the Parliament's intention that the provision is not to have the invalid application, but is to have every valid application.(2) This Act does not enable a power to be exercised to the extent that it would impair the capacity of a State to exercise its constitutional powers.
[assurance reviews; Commonwealth partners; government business enterprises; performance indicator audits; Corporations Act audits; privileges]
The functions performed by the Auditor-General continue to be a matter of great significance. It is important that the Auditor-General has the appropriate powers to respond to the audit challenges of today. Report 419 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit made a series of recommendations aimed at ensuring that accountability and the role of the Auditor-General are kept current in today's challenges. The report recommended a range of measures. The most significant recommendations related to amendments to the act to allow the Auditor-General to assess the performance of bodies that receive Commonwealth money when there is a corresponding or reciprocal responsibility to deliver outcomes. In other words, the report recommended that the Auditor-General have the ability to follow the money when Commonwealth money is provided to other bodies, such as state agencies or contractors, for the delivery of Commonwealth outcomes.
The Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 is intended to implement various recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit following its inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997. I advised the House on 21 March 2011 that the government intended to move an amendment to the bill to ensure that it operates as intended. This amendment to the bill will, with one exception, implement the recommendations of the JCPAA report as intended by the bill introduced by the member for Lyne. That exception relates to the performance auditing arrangements for government business enterprises. The Auditor-General Act currently provides that government business enterprises can only be audited by the Auditor-General at the request of the JCPAA, the minister responsible for the government business enterprise or the finance minister.
The JCPAA report recommended that the act should be amended to give the Auditor-General the authority to initiate audits of GBEs. Successive governments have taken the view that the Auditor-General should not have the ability to audit GBEs of his own motion. GBEs are subject to competitive pressures and disciplines that do not apply to other Commonwealth bodies and, to the greatest extent possible, should be subject to the same audit arrangements as their competitors.
The government considers that audits of GBEs should be requested by the parliament in response to genuine public interest concerns about aspects of their operations, rather than as an incidental part of an annual work program. The JCPAA, which compromises members from across the political spectrum and can conduct hearings in private, is the appropriate body to consider whether a particular GBE should be audited. Accordingly, the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended, will allow the JCPAA alone to request an audit of a GBE by the Auditor-General. As is currently the case, the Auditor-General could ask the JCPAA to request an audit of a particular GBE. The most important change that would flow from the implementation of the JCPAA recommendations will result in the Auditor-General having the power to follow the money—that is, the Auditor-General will be able to undertake audits of Commonwealth partners, private sector and state and/or territory entities that receive Australian government funds to implement an Australian government program.
The Auditor-General's powers are limited at present to an assessment of the way that Australian government bodies implement government programs. This means that the Auditor-General is unable to assess the extent to which the individuals or entities that receive Australian government funds achieve the purpose for which those funds were provided. The amendments implement that unanimous recommendation of the JCPAA report—that the Auditor-General be given the authority to undertake audits of the Commonwealth partners, whether they are state or territory entities, or other individuals or bodies. The bill, as amended, contains appropriate restrictions on the extent of these powers, particularly in relation to state and territory entities, and the government anticipates that they will be used sparingly. For example, the Auditor-General will be able to assess the operations of a state or territory entity only after a request by JCPAA or the responsible minister, and only to the extent that they relate to achieving the purpose for which the funds were provided.
These amendments will ensure that the Auditor-General has the tools to respond to today's auditing challenges. The remaining amendments would make relatively minor changes to clarify the way that the act operates. They would, for example, provide clear authority for the Auditor-General to undertake assurance reviews and audits of performance indicator audits, which are currently carried out as audits by agreement under section 20 of the act, and clarify that the Auditor-General's powers to acquire the production of documents upon which legal professional privilege is claimed does not amount to a waiver of such privilege.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit for the report, and the Chair, the Member for Lyne, who originally introduced the bill, for his cooperation in the development of the government amendments to ensure that the amendments to the Auditor-General Act operate as intended.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (11:13): Having heard the speech of the member for Petrie, I find it again quite unsatisfactory that the government, instead of having the responsible minister come and argue this case, sends along a backbencher. I find that, again, an insult to the importance of this question. I have just had the opportunity to read the opening remarks in the explanatory memorandum, some of which were read word for word in the speech of the honourable member. But what he is doing is once again reading down the ability of the Auditor-General to audit GBEs as a right, which I spoke about a little while ago. I will put precisely what happened when I began to be interested in this question, which was when we were building this very Parliament House. It was quite clear that rorting was going on by the trade unions in kickback payments, and I moved in the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that we allow the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of the building of this building. The government of the day and their union mates opposed it rigorously, and no audit was ever done. And now the one decent thing that the member for Lyne's bill did was to allow the Auditor-General to make a decision to make an audit as a right. I presume he has now agreed to this watering down of that power, which was the one decent thing it was doing. Listening to that speech, I presume it also reads down the ability of the Auditor-General to do that important of task of following the trail where money is given to state governments. They were the two big important things that came out of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee. Now we get the government amendments which negate virtually the important issues which is government business work and should be done and we are left with the ridiculous situation where the powers are only extended to allow auditing of private firms. I presume, when we hear from the member for Lyne, that he has agreed to this watering down of those two important issues and left in place the one issue where it is important that my amendments be agreed to. If I read from this exploratory memorandum the words were—just listen to it:
GBEs are subject to competitive pressures and disciplines that do not apply to government bodies. To the greatest extent possible they should be subject to the same audit arrangements as their competitors.
Really? And those conditions do not apply to private firms? What a joke! If there were any decency in this place, any real understanding of the importance of the role of the Auditor-General—which is a different function from the auditor and the auditing function in the private sector—if there were any reasonable attitude then the member for Lyne would say that his bill has been destroyed in total in the important parts, and that part which relates to the private sector has now become the dominant issue. It is an absolute outrage. For this to be dumped on the parliament in this chamber, where we are supposed to have non-contentious issues, and taken out of the main debate so that it somehow will disappear off the radar is an insult to the importance of the office of Auditor-General.
The best thing that could come from this is that the member for Lyne should withdraw his bill entirely and start again. No doubt he has been talking with the government and come to some arrangements which he will tell us about. But I think we have to put on the record that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit brought in a report dealing with very important issues—
Mr Oakeshott: Unanimously.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: (1) the ability to trace money from the Commonwealth into territories and states.
Mr Oakeshott: Unanimously.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: (2) to allow them to audit GBEs
Mr Oakeshott: Unanimously.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Indeed unanimously, indeed. Here the government is going against its own Labor Party members in that committee and the committee's recommendations, watering them down to the extent that they are now irrelevant, particularly when it comes to the right of the Auditor-General to audit GBEs. I will be interested to hear how we arrived at this watering down of the solid recommendations of the committee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before calling the honourable member for Lyne I advise honourable members that unfortunately the clock is not showing the correct time. I understand that the Serjeant-at-Arms is endeavouring to correct not only this clock but others that are currently defective.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:17): This bill is an important bill for Australian taxpayers in the delivery of value for money and efficiency. Every dollar that is collected should have an audit trail attached to it. We are talking neither about thousands of dollars nor millions of dollars spent. We are talking about billions of dollars that are being spent on an annual basis at a Commonwealth level without an audit trail in place. That should be of great concern to all members in this chamber, and the avenue to deal with that as the independent arm of the parliament should be the Auditor-General's Act and by association the processes of the Auditor-General.
The previous Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report, report 419, with unanimous support made some very good recommendations, that are now being turned into legislation, effectively under the principle of following the money trail. Every taxpayers' dollar is allowed to be followed in some form by the Auditor-General to make sure we as taxpayers and we as a parliament on behalf of taxpayers can follow that money trail and make sure there is value for money and efficiency delivered. This is not a secret deal that is being done, as I heard from a previous speaker. This has all been done very publicly and in a very open process. In fact, if you look at all the bills going through this place at the moment, this bill is taking longer than any other private member's bill or government bill in what is a very public process. With regard to amendments from the government and the opposition, both have been delivered to the parliament this morning so no pot can call any kettle blacker than any other. Both amendments, in the appropriate parliamentary way I might say, have been put on the table this morning. There are no surprises; there is no conspiracy theory. This will be debated quite openly and I welcome that debate.
As well, on a comment that was made that this is an inappropriate place for discussion on this important bill, as all members who have been in this place for a long time would, or should, know, there was an opportunity for any member of parliament not to allow leave when the issues were referred to the Main Committee. These were referred from the House and with full support, with no member seeking leave for it to be denied. That opportunity was given to members. To then stand in this chamber, in the Main Committee, and say that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, that amendments and tricks are being used in the Main Committee to try to hurry this through, is erroneous; it is false and once again an example of a smear being of more value in debate, apparently, than the substance of the policy itself.
The one point I take away from this morning is about the amendments from the coalition with regard to contractors. On the point that the previous speaker made about her concerns, and the story about the building and the trade unions all potentially being a stitch-up, trade unions can be a contractor as well. So this potentially can be an opportunity for following the money trail. As to whether the unions were diddling taxpayers' money in some form—I do not know the truth or otherwise but the allegation was made—this is a meal ticket to try to get to the truth and the substance of whether that is right or wrong and who is, or is not, to blame.
In a sweet irony that we are seeing this morning, the coalition amendment is arguably knocking out the opportunity for the coalition itself to find the truth of whether taxpayers' money was being misused, or otherwise, by the trade union movement in the building of Parliament House or in any other form. It is disappointing that the opportunity to follow the money trail, whether it is in the public or the private sector, is being knocked out. The work schedule of the Auditor-General and the public interest test involved in the work of the Auditor-General will not allow every small business to be chased. These are billions of dollars that are being put at stake here; I hope you reconsider. (Time expired)
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:23): I rise to speak on the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011, which resulted from a long inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which the member for Mackellar and I participated in in the last parliament and have continued to participate in in the new parliament with the new chair of the committee following last year's election. It was a committee that had taken some time. It was also a review that was undertaken at a time when we saw the Australian government spend more money at one time than ever before and, I would have to say, waste more money at one time than ever before. We have heard an impassioned defence of the amendments which have just been tabled and I must say that I have only just got them, so it is very difficult to speak on something that has just been tabled by a backbencher of the government in the Main Committee. One point I would make, which I thought the member for Mackellar articulated quite well—but I think the member for Lyne either misunderstood or did not accept it—is that this chamber is designed for non-contentious legislation. The member for Lyne rightly said that no one refused leave when it was moved. When it was moved from the main chamber, it must be said, we did not see what was in this, so there has been quite a change of scenario, and I must say I have not yet had an opportunity to see what is in the government's amendments. I think the member for Mackellar has raised some legitimate concerns, because it does seem quite inconsistent that the Auditor-General can have the power to investigate a private company of his own volition but that, when it is a GBE, the parliament or the committee has to ask the Auditor-General to do so. I am interested in the explanation from the government of why that is the case, and I wonder if the government member at the table might have an explanation; I suspect not.
But let us go back to the review. This review of the power of the Auditor-General was done at a time when the Commonwealth government was spending billions of dollars through the state governments on, most famously, the Building the Education Revolution or school halls program. The school halls program, whether it was a good decision to build school halls or not, was absolutely riddled with waste and mismanagement, particularly in New South Wales and some parts of Victoria; even in my own electorate I had numerous examples. We still have numerous examples where the state Labor governments failed terribly in their duties in implementing this program—using Commonwealth money. We heard the Auditor-General of Queensland, as part of another inquiry just recently, make the point that the reason for this failure in spending was that the way the federal government had gone about laying out the guidelines led to the mismanagement by the states. So there are very good reasons, I think—very good reasons—why we should extend the power of the Auditor-General, who does a very good job in ensuring Australia government money is spent properly. I agree with the member for Lyne, absolutely, that that is exactly what we want the Auditor-General to do: in an independent fashion, investigate and ensure that the Australian government's money, taxpayers' money—other people's money, let us not forget—is being spent properly. And yet in the last three years we have seen waste like never before.
The Auditor-General should have the full ability to find why there was so much waste in those programs, for which billions of dollars were given to state governments. I think the amendments that we have moved, to clarify the role of the private sector and its interaction with the federal government, are wise, because this is about how federal government money, taxpayers' money, is spent by government entities. We need to do that because of the precedents created by the Rudd and Gillard governments—their inability to create programs properly and spend money without wasting billions of dollars.
It has been estimated that, even if you are taking the Orgill review, of a small group of the schools involved in the BER program, there has been well over a billion dollars of waste in that program—extraordinary amounts of money. We do not know, and we cannot get answers from the government because they flick it to the state governments who flick it back to the federal government.
We need that power. I agree with the member for Mackellar's amendments. I cannot speak on the government's amendments because it is so late in the day—they tabled them today—and I expect some answers now from the government member involved.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (11:28): It is no surprise whatsoever that the member for Mackellar, who shakes her head before I even utter a word, stands up in this place and moves an amendment that says, 'We should audit unions but we must not audit business.' It just shows that she has tunnel vision. She has her little barrow that she pushes here. She has used the public accounts committee to do it over a long period of time. She says that she does not see the amendments until the last minute, yet she comes up here with amendments that she tables.
I would really like to congratulate the member for Lyne on trying to modernise and make some really constructive changes to this legislation by bringing the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 to this parliament. In this parliament, we are used to seeing people grandstand on certain issues. We have seen the grandstanding take place here this morning. The previous speaker in the debate was talking about Building the Education Revolution and the auditor of that particular program. I do not know whether that member has spoken to his electorate and talked to those schools in his electorate to find out whether or not they are happy. I am getting feedback from all the schools in my electorate that they are very pleased with that program. Money that was spent, that was refused—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This debate is about the government's amendments to a bill brought in by the member for Lyne. If you could draw the member's attention to the debate and ask her to at least stick to the topic, that would be helpful.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question before the chair is that the amendments be agreed to. I ask the honourable member for Shortland to address her remarks to that question.
Ms HALL: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. You must forgive me for straying a little from the content of these very sensible government amendments that have been moved—and I am entitled to speak to the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member will focus on the amendments. The honourable member for Shortland has the call.
Ms HALL: As I pointed out, I am entitled to speak to the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar. I apologise; I was somewhat distracted by the previous speaker, the member for Mayo, and his attack on the Building the Education Revolution. I admit to the House that I slightly strayed from the contents of the government amendments. These government amendments deal with the function and the power of the Auditor-General, and they are very significant, as opposed to the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar. I endorse and I urge the House to support the amendments that have been moved by the government.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (11:32): From that contribution, it is quite clear that the member for Shortland has absolutely no idea what is in the government's amendments. Again, the whole issue is being treated with contempt. I ask the member for Lyne, whose bill it is: has he agreed to the government's amendments; and, if so, how does he reconcile those with a situation where the Auditor-General, under the legislation as amended by the government amendments, would have the automatic right to audit private sector companies but no automatic right to audit government business enterprises?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to. If no honourable member is seeking the call—
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (11:32): I am.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry; I did not see the member for Mackellar. I apologise to her. The honourable member for Mackellar has the call.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I was seated to allow the member for Lyne to answer the question, which he clearly does not wish to do. I think it is very important—
Mr Oakeshott: You are assuming and presuming.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I will sit down again if you wish to ask. Is this truly the example of how ugly it is, if this is the beauty and the ugliness? Is this what it is all about?
Mr Oakeshott: Throw it out then.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: It made no sense then and it makes no sense now. Very simply, we are now at the stage where the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audits came to a unanimous conclusion—that GBEs should be able to be audited automatically by the Auditor-General. It is something that I personally think, as I said earlier, is rightful for the Auditor-General to be able to do. It is now also, by the government's amendments, reading down the ability of the Auditor-General to chase money given to state and territory governments.
This is a hugely important factor in seeing the way in which federal government policy is carried out and is part of the Auditor-General's responsibility. That is his task—to look at whether the way in which monies are spent is in accordance with the policy of the government. That is why we have that type of audit, as distinct from the perfunctory one, which says, 'Money in, money out. Nobody had their hand in the till.' The question is: is the money from the taxpayer being spent so that government policy, as stated, is in fact carried out?
The fact that the government's amendments are fettering the ability of the Auditor-General to do that relating to state and territory governments and putting a stop to the ability of the Auditor-General to automatically audit government business enterprises—claiming as its defence, in the explanatory memorandum to the amendments, that GBEs are subject to competitive pressures and disciplines that do not apply to other Commonwealth bodies—is to make a joke of what the public accounts committee had to say. The private sector is subject to a whole host of auditing procedures which are properly carried out by private sector auditors, whereas the public sector auditor has a whole lot of different tasks which it has to perform and which do not apply to the private sector. This situation where the government can always stop the Auditor-General auditing a GBE—as he has done many times before—by simply stopping a request brought up by an opposition senator, or by an Independent for that matter, on the public accounts committee because it has the numbers to say, 'No, you may not carry out this audit,' is shameful. So the good work that was carried out has been negated.
I see the member for Banks has come in, and he perhaps will be the first member who might have actually read the government's amendments, and he might be able to tell us precisely how the government is justifying the action it is taking. He may be able to tell us precisely why the government has brought in these amendments. On the other hand, he might just have come in here to have a bit of a punch-up. But there we go; we will see when he speaks. But I will put on record, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the amendments that I properly foreshadowed in my second reading speech which would prevent an automatic right to audit the private sector but would support the automatic auditing of GBEs and the automatic right to properly follow the money trail through to territory and state governments.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The debate on the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for Petrie is adjourned and is made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Community Organisations
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Melham:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the contributions of:
(a) Pole Depot;
(b) Riverwood Community Centre;
(c) the Chinese Australian Services Society;
(d) Padstow Community Centre;
(e) Mortdale Community Services; and
(f) Community Services Alliance;
to the overall welfare of the people in the Hurstville, Kogarah, Bankstown and Canterbury local government association areas;
(2) notes the contributions of all community-based organisations to the welfare and support of the neighbourhoods they service through:
(a) family, youth and children's services;
(b) health, ageing and disability services;
(c) migrant settlement and support;
(d) carer respite and support;
(e) education and training; and
(f) sport and recreation;
(3) recognises the support of the Government to those community groups through:
(a) the Community Investment Program;
(b) community grants;
(c) volunteer grants; and
(d) the Diversity and Social Cohesion Program;
(4) acknowledges the advocacy of the management and boards of those organisations to ensure that local needs are being met; and
(5) affirms the Government's ongoing commitment to assisting those organisations.
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (11:37): I rise to speak on the motion appearing in my name on the Notice Paper of 23 August 2011, which acknowledges the contribution of community groups in my electorate and generally the role those groups play in all communities. The people behind our community organisations are those who see the things that need to be changed and the things that need to be fixed and who, without fanfare, just do it. These are the individuals and groups in our communities who work together to achieve the most remarkable things, very often doing it on a tight budget. The initiative and ingenuity of community organisations to make every cent work for themselves is well known.
In recent years we have experienced a global economic crisis. Again, community organisations were on the front line to meet the challenge of the rising demand for emergency relief services. Those organisations saw the human toll of economic downturn and the changing profile of people asking for help: families under pressure to make mortgage payments and older people whose retirement savings had plummeted in value because other nations had fallen into recession. Thousands of Australians participate in the vibrant not-for-profit sector across our communities. Not-for-profit community organisations provide valuable opportunities for social and economic participation and are vital for the development of healthy and integrated communities. Community centres are where people go for many reasons. It could be for material support or to learn a skill or to speak about a problem in a language other than English or to get some support when times are tough or simply to have a chat with someone who cares. Our community organisations are in the front line and reflect their community's needs and aspirations. For that reason alone, they have their fingers on the pulse of the communities in which they operate.
I have in the past spoken in this place specifically about the Pole Depot, on 17 November 2010, and the Riverwood Community Centre, on 8 August 2007. I have since acknowledged the remarkable contribution they make to the communities they serve. Today I wish to acknowledge the work of the management committee at Pole Depot, who make an outstanding contribution in support of the centre manager, Kim Buhagiar. They are Lesley Pullen, Catherine Swankie, Robin Bevan, William Osmo, Norm Sandstrom, Greg Kent, Bruce Terlecki, Karen Mack, James Kelly, and Marcus Ho. Similarly, I wish to acknowledge the management committee of Riverwood Community Centre, who support the manager, Pauline Gallagher. They are Pam Child, Margaret Horder, Annie Organ, Frank Chaaban, Janeen Horne, Beverley Dangers, Madge Underwood, Robert Nittolo, Cheryl Field, John Boland, Neale Owen, Hanna Diab, and Fayyaz Laghari. I know these people and know of their personal commitment to the organisations they serve. I know many of them are active in other spheres in the community. They donate more than just their time; they contribute their expertise to the smooth running of the organisation.
The detail of the work of the Chinese Australian Services Society, CASS, has become known to me recently, with the change of the boundaries in my electorate. While the main office is in Kogarah, in the federal seat of Barton—and well known to my colleague the Attorney-General—its work extends into Hurstville, now part of the seat of Banks. CASS describes itself as a community advancement cooperative society and non-profit charitable organisation servicing more than 2,000 migrant families weekly. CASS was founded in 1981, with its main service objective being to provide a wide range of welfare services to the community, assisting migrants to settle and integrate into the Australian society. Through the provision of multicultural interaction and activities, it fosters better understanding and the building of friendly relationships among the different communities. It also promotes the understanding of Chinese culture and develops children's interest in arts and culture.
CASS focuses its activities in areas such as child care; health, ageing and disability; migrant settlement; education and training; and personal development and counselling. A few months ago I attended the opening, by Minister Butler, of its latest venture, a new aged-care facility in Hurstville. I caught up with the chairperson, Dr Leng Tan, and the two vice chairs, Mr Peng Baim and Mr Dominic Sin. Not surprisingly, and as with the members of other organisations, these men are active in the broader community.
Since its inception, CASS has played two roles concurrently. On the one hand, it is a community services provider and, on the other hand, it is a general communal association, organising cultural, social and recreational activities, so as to foster the exchanges of people in the community. CASS sees the two roles as complementary. A community services provider requires the support and assistance of a large number of volunteers and grassroots people to enable it to do its work well. Through social and recreational activities, volunteers and grassroots people can become tied together to form a cohesive force to assist the community services provider to deliver its services. In this, CASS is reflective of all other community organisations.
Mortdale Community Services, MCS, has been assisting its community since 1971, when it was established as Georges River Community Services. Its mission is to provide high-quality, affordable and accessible services to people of all ages in the local community. MCS provides services for people residing in the St George area, in particular the Hurstville City Council area and neighbouring suburbs, depending on the type of program. Some of its services include visiting, shopping and sitting with an older person; helping with social activities for the aged; fundraising; occasional child care; adult leisure learning; and English tuition. The management committee is headed up by Marie Hudson, who works with the other committee members, Kevin Reid, Joan Vaughan, Keith Pasley, Alice Lehane, Heather Johnson and Reg Walker, to deliver the MCS services.
Padstow Community Centre is an agency set up as a charity under the umbrella of Padstow Baptist Church. It offers a range of services to the immediate community: emergency relief; counselling services in the areas of employment, finance, child and family; welfare services for the aged and underprivileged in the community; and a community bargain centre. The community centre is in the process of moving to its new premises, under the guidance of Shirley Wendt and Grant Heslop. The focus of the centre is expressed through its mission of 'Serving the community through acts of compassion, mercy and support'.
The Community Services Alliance is an umbrella organisation in the process of becoming an incorporated body for Pole Dept, Kogarah Community Services and St George Community Services. The General Manager of St George Community Services is Christine Spackman. Its services include home maintenance and modifications; multicultural domestic assistance; a meals delivery service; bus and home shopping and social outings; a stroke support group; dementia day care; and social support. It should go without saying that the Salvation Army, with a Chinese corps at Hurstville and a corps at Narwee, is very active in the community. The Salvos continue the tradition of providing for the needy and those in need of support through difficult times. St Vincent de Paul operates its services locally—at Riverwood, Mortdale, Hurstville and Bankstown. Uniting Care operates locally in Hurstville, Peakhurst, Beverly Hills and Oatley, through Lifeline, aged care services and providing support for children, young people and families.
All these organisations have been assisted by the government, and that includes governments of all persuasions. I suspect that this is truly an area of genuine bipartisanship. This government has recognised that we do have a patchwork economy. For that reason, it has gone to great lengths to make sure that the most vulnerable in our community receive the support they need. The government does that with emergency relief, with financial counselling and with money management schemes such as the No Interest Loan Scheme, or NILS, and the Saver Plus scheme that are both currently operating. No interest loans help people on low incomes make household purchases—to meet unexpected costs such as buying a new washing machine. The popular program is delivered nationally by local community organisations in partnership with Good Shepherd Youth and Family Services and NAB.
Under the government's Family Support Program, the recent announcement by Minister Macklin outlined support to community organisations which will share in more than one billion dollars over the next three years to support local families. A range of family and children's services will share in $588 million, and a further $453 million dollars will support family law services.
These community organisations in my electorate are the glue that hold our communities together. Without them and without the many thousands of hours of volunteer support that is given, our communities would be the worse for it. It is incumbent on government to assist these organisations in a real way, and my notice of motion is about acknowledging and recognising the invaluable contribution of these community organisations, their staff and the volunteers. The determination of these people to ensure that those who are in difficulty or who need support is vital to the social health of our communities. Their advocacy is legend and their commitment is endless. The defining feature of these organisations is that they focus on delivery of a myriad of services to the community in which they are embedded. The operational success of our community organisations is driven by the community that they serve.
I am formally moving this motion as it appears in my name to recognise the outstanding contribution of these community organisations and to ensure that the House confirms its ongoing commitment to assisting these organisations in achieving their goals. It is one of those areas in which, as I said, there is bipartisan support. Everyone in the parliament, I think, supports the sentiment of the motion that is before us.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (11:48): I fully support the Member for Banks in what is a bipartisan motion and one that is, today, a very valuable and heartfelt motion that is on the notice paper. There are many wonderful organisations in the member for Bank's electorate—and we have heard of just some of the contributions, and I am sure there would be many hundreds more. Similarly, there are hundreds of organisations in the federal electorate of Brisbane that help in the welfare and support of those who are in need. I am very grateful for the opportunity to meet with them, and I am always humbled, surprised, amazed and in awe of the incredible work that the volunteers do and their underlying support of these organisations.
I would also like to recognise the support that the government provides to these community groups. This government, as the Howard government before, provides many forms of support in terms of community grants, such as the small equipment grant, which was introduced by the Howard government, that provided a little bit of support in things that people needed, like computers and very, very small equipment that could make an enormous difference in the operations of many of these organisations. There are also volunteer grants and diversity and cultural cohesive programs that are there extensively for many of these groups to take advantage of. The volunteer grants recognise the valuable work of Australia's volunteers, the government's ongoing commitment to support volunteers to assist disadvantaged communities and to encourage, particularly, social inclusion, particularly amongst those who are the most vulnerable in our community. I recently had an opportunity to visit the new centre of the Multicultural Development Association with my colleague the shadow minister for immigration, Scott Morrison. The MDA provides bicultural support services and has an incredible pool of skilled cultural support workers who are employed on a casual basis to support refugees and migrants in the settlement process, an area in which I have had a very strong involvement in the past. This work is to be applauded. MDA does a fantastic job in Brisbane to give that professional service, particularly in working with families from diverse cultures. I am aware that there are many services and programs that rely upon volunteers at the centre. Social justice and the support for diversity, inclusion and harmony in the community have been the very goal of the centre, and it has had many achievements. Whether through a serious topical workshop or in finding housing and social activities for new Australians, this centre has had great success and deserves to be applauded.
Part of the success of MDA is the terrific partnerships that they engage in, including with RAILS, the Refugee and Immigration Legal Service, in the Migration Advice Clinic, and with the Refugee Civil Law Clinic. They also provide financial counselling in partnership with Lifeline Counselling Services. It is clear to me that MDA is one of the most respected and well-known community organisations in Brisbane, and I really want to commend the fantastic work being done by the director, Kerrin Benson, the Chair, Mr Warren McMillan, and all those involved, for their very hard work and excellent organisation. You provide so many broad responses to requests and you provide a wonderful meeting place. All of your achievements are a great credit to you.
I want to talk a little bit now about ChaplainWatch. This year I had the great opportunity again of meeting with ChaplainWatch to learn about the valuable service they provide to visitors and patrons of our busy night-time precincts. We all take it for granted that our children go out and enjoy themselves in the night-time precincts, but ChaplainWatch is a not-for-profit charity which was founded by Lance Mergard to proactively address the issues and consequences of alcohol and other drug related antisocial behaviour, crime and violence that occurs within the major entertainment precincts of Brisbane—and I, as the member for Brisbane, seem to have all of them in my electorate. Take the Fortitude Valley area—I notice the Deputy Speaker smiling; he has children and I am sure they have frequented, along with my children, the Fortitude Valley area, the central business district and Caxton Street. Most of the time, we hope, everything goes smoothly. But that is where night-watch chaplains proactively patrol: the entertainment precincts. They watch out for anyone who is in crisis or in need. On their midnight-to-dawn mobile patrols they focus on public safety in public spaces. They do crisis intervention, front-line first aid, incident diffusion and peace-making; they are streetwise, professional, confident, independent and non-authoritarian and they have had decades of experience. This year ChaplainWatch celebrates its 10th birthday. I have joined with them in the past, and they will be having a fundraising event this coming Thursday, which I hope I can get to, depending on when I get back from Canberra. They will be having this fundraising event at the Mercedes-Benz showroom, and I really look forward to supporting them.
Another great organisation is Parkinson's Queensland. I had the great privilege of attending their Unity Walk on Sunday, 28 August, where I joined hundreds of walkers in New Farm Park to raise money. Over $24,000 was raised in Queensland through this walk. People from all walks of life have raised awareness about Parkinson's disease, and they continue to raise funds to help support, honour and remember people living with the condition. The Unity Walk began in 2008 and so far has raised more than $600,000. All of that money goes to vital services and support for all of those living with Parkinson's and their families, carers and loved ones. It is also used to fund ongoing research into Parkinson's. It is sad when you think about it, but 25 people every day are diagnosed with this condition, and I just want to place on the record my support for all of the wonderful work that is being done by the team at Parkinson's Queensland. During the last couple of years I have had the privilege of meeting Ronni Kahn, a wonderful person, who was honoured a few years back as a local hero in the Australian of the Year awards. She is an incredible person. She founded an organisation called OzHarvest. Last Thursday I had the privilege of joining with Wesley Mission, who will now partner with OzHarvest in Brisbane. OzHarvest are a unique and incredible organisation. Their mission statement is very clear. They rescue food. What does that mean? They rescue food that would otherwise be discarded. This excess food is distributed to charities, particularly homeless charities, in places like Sydney, Canberra, Newcastle and Adelaide.
OzHarvest were founded in Sydney in November 2004. They began with one van. They delivered 4,000 meals in the first month of operations. Ronni Kahn started in a very humble way. She is an infectious person. She is the sort of person you can never say no to—hence my involvement with them! In Sydney, OzHarvest currently have eight vehicles and they deliver 266,000 meals per month. Australia wide, OzHarvest deliver 333,000 meals per month with a fleet of 12 vans. That is food that would have gone to waste; it goes to people who need it. We are turning excess food into a resource. My many years of working in the hospitality industry showed me quite clearly that there is a lot of excess food that goes to waste. We can save thousands of kilograms of food from being dumped as landfill each year. On average, the rescue of a kilogram of food by OzHarvest will prevent two kilograms of CO2 emissions and prevent the consumption of 143 litres of water.
I commend the fantastic work that Ronni Kahn has done in this area. OzHarvest is in its early stages of partnering with the Wesley Mission. I was really pleased to be there. I will lend whatever support I can in getting the restaurant and catering community involved with this fantastic project. I again commend the member for Banks for this wonderful motion. I commend the many thousands of hours that volunteers, young and old, put in. They are the wonderful and rich fabric of our society. I applaud and recognise their incredible efforts. Their contribution every day makes Australia a better place.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (11:58): I start by congratulating the member for Banks for moving this motion to acknowledge the work of community service organisations. You can see by the number of members who have put their names down to speak just how important a motion it is. It gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to those many hundreds of community groups in our electorates. The strength of a community depends on the strength of the community groups that operate within it. If you do not have strong communities with strong community groups, your community is a much poorer place. These community groups cover all aspects of community life and support the needs of those communities across a very wide range of areas.
I notice that we have some Indigenous students here in our parliament today. They come from all around the country. They are working with members of parliament. I pay tribute to the Indigenous groups that operate within the communities that we represent. I make mention of Courtney Johnson, who will be working with me here in parliament. A community's resilience depends on the strength of community groups. The member for Banks identified a number of those groups, including family, youth and children's services. There is a very strong group that supports grandparents within my electorate, one of the leaders in that area. Community groups make up for the deficits of government agencies that operate to provide that support. When the government agencies fail, community groups provide that support. There are health, ageing and disability services. The things that make the life of people living in aged-care facilities are the visits that from community groups that come along and entertain, sing and help with all those little fundraising activities.
I would also like to pay tribute to the East Lake Macquarie Dementia Service. It provides support for people with dementia and respite for carers within the Shortland electorate. It is an absolutely fantastic service. It should be a model for every service that operates throughout Australia. It has excellent staff. But the real strength of that service is the wonderful management committee, which has been responsible for getting funding to build a new facility. People regularly come in and work there on a volunteer basis with the elderly people suffering from dementia.
The member for Banks mentioned education and training. Any member who has had anything to do with a school in their electorate knows that the strength of a school comes from the P&C; the school council; those people who make the commitment to go along and work in the tuckshop on a weekly, monthly or whatever basis; those people who get in there and fundraise for the school; and those dedicated community members or mums and dads who come along and help with reading, who help those students who struggle a little bit more than others.
The final area the member for Banks touched on in point (2) of his motion was sports and recreation. Every junior sports group is manned by volunteers, as is the surf-lifesaving movement that keeps our beaches safe over summer.
Where would we be without volunteers? Community groups provide strength to the communities that we represent in this parliament. Every member of parliament recognises and appreciates the fine work that is done by community groups in their electorate. The government recognises that by providing community grants, volunteer grants and the Community Investment Program. I would like to conclude by thanking, yet again, the member for Banks for bringing this motion to the House. (Time expired)
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:03): I rise to speak on the motion, moved by the member for Banks, relating to community based organisations, in particular, the efforts and contributions made by community groups in my electorate of McPherson. I would like to start with surf-lifesaving. There are 13 surf-lifesaving clubs within the McPherson electorate and each club is run by a very dedicated group of volunteers who predominantly, but not always, live within the local community. This Saturday, volunteers from Burleigh Heads, North Burleigh, Tallebudgera, Pacific, Palm Beach, Currumbin, Tugun, Bilinga, North Kirra, Kirra, Coolangatta, Tweed Heads and Rainbow Bay surf clubs will commence the 2011-12 surf-lifesaving season. During the last patrolling season, approximately 385 rescues were carried out on McPherson beaches. In addition, 4,983 preventative actions were made, along with approximately 7,858 warnings and around 2,620 first aid treatments. In order for these volunteers to patrol our local beaches they have to go through an annual process to renew their qualifications, including requalifying for their bronze medallions through a proficiency examination. They have also completed written examinations, CPR demonstrations and first aid demonstrations as well as completing a range of simulated rescue scenarios. Their fitness is also tested, with each member having to complete swimming and running tests to ensure they are able to respond to rescues in a timely manner without putting themselves or others in danger.
Each surf club promotes leadership and personal development for each of its members. Membership of a surf club offers a range of benefits, including education and training, friendship and the opportunity to keep fit and healthy and be part of the community. Surf-lifesavers aim to educate the community about beach and water safety through public education campaigns such as Rip Currents.
I would like to take the opportunity today to speak specifically about one of our surf-lifesaving clubs, the Palm Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, because the work that is done by that club is indicative of the work undertaken by all surf-lifesaving clubs on the Gold Coast and, I am sure, throughout Australia. At the Palm Beach Surf Lifesaving Club the chief training officer, Sue Damon, has been volunteering her time to ensure that all active members attend their proficiency examinations to renew their qualifications. In May 2011 I attended the Palm Beach Surf Lifesaving Club annual awards night, where Sue was the recipient of the best senior club person award. Congratulations to Sue. In addition to patrols, members like Sue have taken on additional volunteer positions, giving many hours to these clubs in addition to other responsibilities. Most members and volunteers engage in this community service at the same time as they are attending full-time employment and juggling family life, and I commend their efforts.
In addition to keeping Palm Beach safe, the Palm Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, with President, Scott Rawlings, and Vice President, Troy Kling, was quick to offer assistance during the Brisbane floods earlier this year, setting up a drop zone for essential items and assembling a clean-up squad. Staff and volunteers at the Palm Beach Surf Lifesaving Club sorted through mountains of donated goods brought in by both members and the general public. The recipients of these donations, distributed through the Gatton RSL, were grateful for the donations, which were organised into packages of clothing, household goods, food and toiletries. I thank the general manager of the surf club, Sheldon Steeles, for arranging the drop zone.
On Sunday, 15 January a clean-up crew piled into the surf club's bus with mops, brooms, shovels, sausages and a barbeque and headed into the flood affected suburb of Graceville in Brisbane. Members spent the day helping five properties with the clean-up, and cooked a free sausage sizzle for the volunteers and victims. They ripped out what was left of the victims' homes, offering many hands to assist in restoring the livelihoods of those affected.
Fundraising is a necessary part of the work of the club, as money is needed for building, upkeep, maintenance of equipment and for the purchase of new equipment as required. All clubs regularly hold fundraising events, including sausage sizzles and raffles, for which surf-lifesaving clubs are very well known, but the clubs are also dependent on the revenue from poker machines, as well as grants from community benefits funds, such as those from Jupiter's Casino. Without funding from these sources, cost-saving measures would have to be considered. I know that the lifesavers would not want to be forced to limit their patrols due to a lack of equipment, resources or training. I congratulate and commend our lifesavers and lifesaving volunteers for their contribution to the community.
I turn now to speak about and to congratulate the work that is done throughout Queensland, specifically in the Gold Coast area, by Scouts Queensland. In McPherson we have three scouting groups: Mudgeeraba, Burleigh Heads and Palm Beach. Within those groups are the five sections of scouting representatives, starting from the youngest, the Joey Scouts, through to Cubs, Scouts, Venturers and Rovers. I believe that Scouting Australia and Scouting Queensland, and the groups that we have, particularly on the Gold Coast, provide an invaluable service to our youth, particularly in what I would call the target age groups for support, which is the eight- to 11-year-olds, which is the age for the cubs section in scouting. The scout sections meet generally once a week during public sector or public school term times. The leaders, of which there are generally two but sometimes up to four and perhaps six for each section for each meeting, work with each of the scouts that are present on the night and help them with their badge work so that the scouts have something to aim for. They certainly have recognition when they have achieved their badges. The leaders take the children on camps in various locations, sometimes throughout Queensland but normally quite close to where the scout groups are, and they teach the children a number of things, including a significant degree of self-sufficiency. What I have seen from my association with scouting is that it certainly fosters and instils in the children and the young adults, who are far above the scouts groups, a sense of responsibility and a sense that they are part of a broader community that they can and do support.
I am certainly aware that scouts throughout Queensland have participated in some major fundraising exercises, not just for their local scout groups but for the local communities, and quite recently for the Wesley Hospital and the research department that was there, so the scout groups certainly do provide a major commitment to the welfare and benefit of the communities. Scout groups have been around for many, many years, and the commitment of the leaders and the supporters of the scout groups is to be commended. There is a significant time contribution for the leaders. They run the sections each week, and they also have to prepare for the sections; they take the children away on camps. Their commitment in terms of their personal time is enormous, and this is something that I have seen in many of our volunteers and our volunteer groups in the community. Our volunteers contribute their time and their efforts, but they also contribute in their own way to the funding of those organisations, whether it is through donations of equipment for use by the members or whether it is through the fuel that is used for transporting the members all around their community.
In concluding today, I would like to congratulate all the community groups that we have, not just the two that I have mentioned today—surf lifesaving and the scouts—particularly in my electorate of McPherson. I would like to congratulate all the volunteers for the contributions that they make, because, without them, these community groups would not be able to continue and provide the support that is so desperately needed in the community.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:13): There are many reasons to love this fine city of Canberra, but the No. 1 reason from my standpoint is its social connectedness. Canberra is a place to enjoy the simple pleasures of sharing time with friends and neighbours, working together in clubs, groups and associations and strengthening the social ties that bind us together. All of this, what academics have called social capital, is the idea that the ties that bind us together have an inherent value. When it was first introduced it was a bit controversial, much as the idea of human capital, that the skills that people have could have an economic value.
But, just as we have come to recognise that people's skills and education have value, like a bridge or a road does, increasingly we are recognising that social capital, the ties that bind us together, are economically important. They are important not only because they are fun but because they make businesses work better. The more you trust the person who is supplying the goods to your business, the less you have to have a contract that writes everything down in case something goes wrong. The bonds of social capital, the networks of trust and reciprocity, exist between two friends who meet for a beer on Friday night. They link together the members of a local cricket team, who know that the more they trust one another the more games they are going to win. And they link together, co-workers who find that working together gets the job done faster. From the year 2000, when I first came across Robert Putnam, the author in the US of Bowling Alone, until last year I was working on a project looking at social capital in Australia, the strength of community ties. The material was eventually published in a book by UNSW Press called Disconnected. The more data I collected the clearer it was to me that we knew what was going on.
In terms of organisational membership, surveys of Australians show we are less likely to be active members of an organisation than our counterparts were in the 1960s. Organisations themselves have gone out of business. There are fewer associations today in Australia than there were in the late 1970s despite a big increase in the number of people in the country. The average age of members of organisations has also risen. This is also because existing organisations have shed members. When I pulled together as much membership data as I could from bodies like Scouts, Guides, Rotary and Lions, I saw that the mass membership of organisations peaked as a share of the population in the late 1960s and has declined markedly since then.
As to people giving their time, Australia saw a rise in the share of people volunteering in the late 1990s—maybe an Olympic effect—but volunteering rates are probably still below their post-war peak. And the proportion of us who give any money to charity has stayed pretty stable over recent decades despite a substantial increase in average income.
On the matter of informal socialising, Randall Pearce of Ipsos Mackay was kind enough to field the same question to a group of Australians in the 2000s that had been put in 1984 when people were asked about the number of close friends they had and the number of neighbours they could rely on. Even on that measure too social capital had declined. The respondents in the 2000s had shed two friends who would keep a confidence, and half a friend who would help them through a difficult patch. Compared to respondents two decades earlier, the typical Australian in the 2000s has one and a half fewer neighbours of whom they can ask a small favour and three fewer neighbours they could drop in on uninvited. We are also more likely to live alone.
I am pleased to inform the House that in Canberra, although our community strength is probably below what it was, we are the most active in a civic sense in Australia. A cornerstone of social connectedness in Canberra is the community of Hall, and there the Hall Progress Association is a critical organisation. When the original boundary was drawn for the then Federal Capital Territory, the direct line from Mount Coree to One Tree Hill took in the village of Hall. Since its official proclamation in 1882, the village of Hall has had a long and rich history of community engagement and civic spirit. The Hall Progress Association, formed in 190, has been meeting and working for the development of Hall and its residents for 110 years.
I recently had the privilege of meeting current members of the association to learn about local matters of interest. Over coffee at the general store, first opened in 1889 and still a hub in the community, I was told of the vision the association has for preserving the historic value of Hall, making it a great place for families and having an eye always firmly to the future.
One idea that we talked about over a terrific coffee, was the establishment of Hall as a 'green village', where solar power generation can meet the energy needs of Hall's 350 residents and, through the retrofitting of sustainable systems for energy, water, waste and landscape management, provide a demonstration case for other communities.
In the face of declining social capital, Canberra and the community of Hall are working strongly to maintain and build social networks. I would like to commend the Hall Progress Association for the role it plays in the process, particularly Bob Richardson, Helen White, Alastair Crombie, John Starr, Phil Robson, Paul Porteous and Trudy Mansfield for their hospitality, enthusiasm, energy and dedication to the Hall community.
I am proud to say that you see a lot of community spirit in the rest of Canberra. On virtually every social capital measure, Canberra is at or near the top. Compared to other states and territories we have got the highest share of charitable donors and the highest volunteering rate. If any Canberran listening to or reading this would like to be recognised for their volunteering we have even got volunteering awards on at the moment. Eighty-five per cent of Canberrans give money to causes in a given year, compared to 73 per cent in New South Wales, the next closest jurisdiction. In terms of giving time, 38 per cent of Canberrans volunteer in a given year compared with 33 per cent of Victorians, the next closest. In terms of sporting events, 47 per cent of Canberrans attended a sporting event in the previous year, compared to 44 per cent nationally, and 41 per cent of Canberrans actually take the field, by playing organised sport, compared to only 30 per cent in the rest of Australia. On the cultural front, Canberrans are twice as likely to attend an art gallery or a museum than other Australians. They are more likely to go to the movies and more likely to go for a stroll around the National Botanic Gardens. They can cheer for the Raiders, the Brumbies, the Capitals and the Prime Minister's XI. They can see Alfred Deakin's portrait in the Museum of Australian Democracy and Ned Kelly's death mask at the National Portrait Gallery. They can enjoy a cool stroll through the Botanic Gardens.
Canberra's community organisations may not have the same level of exposure as its well-known national institutions, but the role they play in building social capital is just as valuable. Community organisations are an integral part of the fabric that forms social capital. They bring together a wide cross-section of members of the community. They build networks of trust and reciprocity, and they link together individuals from diverse backgrounds. It is one of the reasons that living in Canberra is such an enjoyable experience and why so many people from throughout Australia choose to come to our city for work or to study. Community organisations lend a helping hand to help people newly arrived in Canberra. They help new residents connect to established members of the community.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge Jessica Woodhall, an intern in my office who is working with me for the week. I pay tribute to her favourite community group, the Peregian Beach community school. I would like to acknowledge Alisha White, an Indigenous intern from Airds High School, whose favourite community group is the Iragmga Dance Group, and Damien Hickman, an adviser in my office. His favourite community group is ACT Veterans Rugby, which works to raise money for Clare Holland House, an activity that I am sure makes his wife, Kate, and his daughter Liesel greatly proud. I would also like to pay tribute to ACT volunteers: those who care for people with a disability; who help out at the school tuckshop; who assist refugees, such as the organisation Companion House does; or who campaign on issues that matter to them, like the Australian Youth Climate Coalition does.
Yesterday I enjoyed competing in the Canberra Times Fun Run to raise money for the Heart Foundation. My staffers Gus Little, Louise Crossman, Damien Hickman, Lyndell Tutty, Ruth Stanfield and Claire Daly all joined me, and they were willing to put their pride aside and all wear an 'Andrew Leigh—Supporting Our Community' t-shirt for the run. I thank them for being part of a terrific community event and for their role in raising money for the Heart Foundation. On a gorgeous Canberra spring day we ran down Adelaide Avenue, looking up at Parliament House and recognising what a wonderful city this is, how lucky we are to live in it and how terrific our community organisations are in building the social fabric of Canberra.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (12:23): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Banks. Community organisations play an integral role in all of our electorates and deserve to be recognised for their ongoing commitment to the people they serve. The electorate of Hasluck has a comprehensive network of community organisations providing emergency relief, advice and support to the vulnerable people of our communities. More often than not, the people these organisations support are those on low incomes, those who have hit rock bottom, or those who find themselves in a difficult situation, in need of some immediate stop-gap assistance to get them back on track.
One cannot underestimate the dedication and the true humanity of those people across Hasluck who work in these organisations. They are literally at the coalface of the human experience. They are dealing with the acute and often desperate basic needs of fellow human beings. I would like to recognise the contribution of our many church organisations to the relief and support programs operating across Hasluck. I believe every denomination is actively involved in making a difference to their local community. The network of community groups operating across Hasluck includes groups providing assistance in the areas of food and emergency relief, accommodation and housing, legal advice and advocacy. I will start with the most basic of needs on Maslow's hierarchy and share with you some of the organisations handing out food to families in Hasluck.
There is a very strong connection with many of the churches across Hasluck in the provision of emergency food relief to families in need. Dorothy Grimshaw and Wendy Smith of Thornlie Anglican Hampers work tirelessly to provide food hampers to Thornlie families. There is the work of the Anglican Parish of Gosnells Welfare and Community Service and Audrey Shalley and the team. The Kenwick Real Life Church runs a weekly cafe and opportunity shop and has activities for children. This church also runs after-school activities—collecting children from different schools—and activities for preschoolers and the elderly. It is a community hub, a safe place for many to come and to be welcome.
Another organisation I have had a close association with is the Highways Cafe, run from the Gosnells Baptist Church. Patrick and Suzanne Gorgan run an extremely efficient and much-needed service in the area on Monday evenings. They can serve up to 290 families in one evening. Crossways Community Services operate pantries, op shops and computer workshops. For those of us to whom computers and computing are a way of life it is worth remembering that this is not the case for all members of our communities. With so much information, particularly government information, available only online, computer literacy is an important skill.
Communicare, Mission Australia, the Salvation Army and St Vincent De Paul all have extensive networks throughout my electorate of Hasluck. The support and care these groups give to those in our community—for whatever reason people find themselves in need of relief—is priceless.
I would like to mention in particular Ruah Tenancy Fast Track in Maddington, who assist the most vulnerable—those with a mental illness. Manager Tony Chorley provides outstanding assistance and support in a difficult area of assistance. So often we forget the needs of those who experience mental health problems.
Foundation Housing, Centrecare and Access Housing all provide long-term low-rent accommodation options to those on low and middle incomes. With public housing waiting lists up to seven years, this is an important adjunct to accommodation options for the people of Hasluck.
We have several wonderful organisations which provide legal and financial advocacy within Hasluck. They are the Gosnells Community Legal Centre; MIDLAS, the Midland Information Debt and Legal Advocacy Service Inc.; and the Foothills Information Referral Service, FIRS. I have met with staff at all three organisations and have seen firsthand the work they do on a day-to-day basis. I do not think we should underestimate the commitment of the staff of these organisations. It takes a special person to work with those in crisis on a day-to-day basis. Our communities owe the staff at Gosnells Community Legal Centre, MIDLAS and FIRS a debt of gratitude for the work they do and the way they reach out.
All these organisations deal with the pointy end of relief and support. Hasluck is lucky to have other organisations which provide essential relief, support and help to the elderly in their homes and to families who are getting by but need that extra bit of assistance to make it through the week. These groups include People Who Care. Based in Guildford, they provide home help, gardening and transport. Allan Yule and his team of amazing volunteers are assisting and enriching the lives of all those they help.
Social isolation is developing into a significant issue in many urban landscapes. We are all guilty of being too busy to look in on the older neighbour in the street. People Who Care and other organisations, such as the local government Home and Community Care organisations, provide much-needed social contact and engagement for many lonely and isolated people. The Gosnells Women's Health Service provides family and relationship counselling, parenting classes and events for both mothers and children. We owe so much to those who give willingly to others and who provide a point of support that enhances the humanity of compassion for both the giver and the recipient.
I am often amazed at the capacity of individuals who give of their time so freely in community organisations. When you consider the salary, that is not the factor that drives them, but rather it is their commitment to providing a level of support and intervening in a constructive way in the lives of ordinary Australians who live within their suburbs and communities. We underestimate the effectiveness of the work that they do. As we know, if we were to fund the real costs, governments would not be able to afford the work that is done by those who volunteer in community organisations.
I thank the member for Banks for giving us the opportunity to stand in this committee room and in this chamber to acknowledge the contribution that community organisations make to our way of life as a country. I spent some time recently with MIDLAS and in talking and meeting with individual staff I asked them what it was that drove them. Each of them made the point that what they wanted to do was to give back and help those who did not have the capacity, and in many cases the educational level, to be able to engage constructively with the organisations that make the difference to their daily lives, but also to have that strong advocacy role.
More recently I have become engaged with another organisation in Midland that is looking at the employment pathways and opportunities for those who do not complete their schooling. What they do is connect young people into pathways that engage them in lifelong learning and in the opportunity of being engaged in a workforce in a real and meaningful way.
I think too often we take for granted the work that community organisations and the non-profits do and make some assumptions. I certainly dedicate my time and commitment to the work that they do and will advocate very strongly so that they are able to enhance their capacity to reach those Australians that we know need levels of support and intervention in a way that enriches their lives. Because unless we do that, we lose the essence of the humanity that should always prevail within our societies. I would hope that each of us, as members of this parliament, engages with some rigour with the non-profit organisations that provide so much.
I want to conclude by saying to all of those, particularly in my electorate of Hasluck, but in all electorates, congratulations on the work that you do. Continue to give with the passion and the belief that you have and thank you for the difference that you have made for ordinary families, those members with mental health challenges, but particularly for those who engage in wanting to improve their lot in life whose circumstances do not enable them to do that. So to all of you, thank you deeply.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Thank you very much for your contribution.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (12:33): Can I at the outset mention the presence of Andrew Hunter from Sir Joseph Banks High School, Revesby, and Peter Spinner from Rockhampton SHS who are part of an Indigenous students program with myself and many other MPs who have taken up that office. They have just missed out by a few seconds on hearing a contribution from the member for Hasluck, who is the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives. So it is great that this program can occur and that many MPs can participate on both sides of politics.
I am not surprised that the member for Banks is the person sponsoring this resolution. We all claim to be fairly close to our electorates, but he is—as president of the Revesby Workers Club, in his intimate involvement with the Bankstown Cricket Club, as a strong adherent of the Western Suburbs Balmain Tigers and involved in local Catholic parish activities—very close to non-government community organisations in his electorate. I want to join with him in supporting this resolution.
The American sociologist Robert Putnam is the acknowledged expert in regard to community organisations, the breakdown of communities and the challenges in making sure that they exist. I noticed in the last week or so, just coincidentally, he is co-authoring another publication which is about to hit the bookshops. He has written about the breakdown of society—the fact that Lions clubs, Elks in the US, tenpin bowling clubs he was once a member of et cetera have all declined.
We know in Australia, whether it is Rotary, Lions, local churches, or people that formerly did tuck shops where now we have to pay contractors to do that in every second school around the country, or whether it is on weekends in regard to sporting organisations and getting people to train or to run down the sidelines putting down those lines and running canteens there, it is extremely difficult. It is all the more necessary that we recognise community organisations that are still struggling to fulfil these requirements of society.
I should say in passing that in my old electorate at the weekend I went to the centenary of Granville scouts, which was the second earliest established in this country and probably the longest continuing. To see those people, through various ups and downs, various struggles, very strong retractions of memberships and the disappearance of people from the community, still persist is a great thing.
I want to turn to the electorate of Werriwa and mention a few organisations that are doing what the member for Banks indicates in his motion and which are, as I say, so necessary for society. Break the Cycle, Macquarie Fields, provides effective assistance to people in crisis/need/hardship by providing assistance with electricity and gas bills, no interest loans and counselling. Beautiful Minds, Ingleburn—and I have met the main organiser of this group—are doing active work to provide intensive support to people suffering a mental illness through the Day 2 Day Living Program. Most particularly, they are focused on schizophrenia.
People in New South Wales would be fairly aware of Odyssey House, Ingleburn. I am not sure whether it is national. It assists participating individuals to overcome their dependencies upon harmful external agents by empowering them through the concept of self-help and the ability to integrate. I have had the opportunity to be there, see the graduates of their courses—people who were indeed very challenged but have come through the program and some of them now are out there assisting new students. It is tremendous to see what they have accomplished with education and employment as a result of the efforts of Odyssey House.
AFFORD, Prestons, is a not-for-profit organisation that is dedicated to helping people with a disability. They provide community participation programs, skills development, transition to work, training, supported and open employment, respite and accommodation to their clients. Over 500 people with disability work at their five factories. Of course, many of us are aware of the abysmal management that led to the failure of another company in the sector, Cumberland Industries, which certainly caused a major crisis in this field over the last few years.
PCYC—the Police and Community Youth Club—at Minto works with young people to get them active in life. They provide activities both sporting and recreational as well is offering programs and opportunities for participants to develop skills. I note in the past the conduct of a variety of Department of Immigration and Citizenship funded programs out there as well, basically working with the police to have young people who have come to their attention participate in trips away, building their confidence and their interaction with others. That is one of the many programs that operate out of there, and I congratulate the police who give their time towards it.
Macarthur Diversity Services, while their name might not imply it, are essentially what was previously a migrant resource centre. They provide an integrated delivery system. Programs are specifically tailored to meet the needs of the community through four broad service areas: child, family, youth and aged. They offer a selection of 13 settlement and community services in over 15 community languages from over 18 cultural backgrounds. They have volunteers fluent in 14 languages and 20 cultural backgrounds. Once again, I have been active with them in trying to get them access to electricity and the rights to distribute those passes. I still question the continued decision of the department federally to not make them a provider, as they certainly have close contact with the community and are on the ground in a very real sense.
The final group I want to talk about, and I went to their 11th anniversary last week, is Macarthur NILS—No Interest Loan Scheme. They were established in 1998 by the Presentation Sisters out of Wagga, believe it or not. They receive significant help from NAB, the Catholic Club at Campbelltown and St Vincent de Paul, who I understand provide office space. A lot of people have been very instrumental down the line, including Father Kevin Goode, Jan St John, Jenny Shepherd and Sister Noela Fox, who wrote their history, which was launched last week along with their new website.
I am getting correspondence from these payday lenders at the moment, concerned about the threat of government action to restrict their interest rates. This has happened in a number of states already. I am quite supportive of any legislative endeavour to do something about this and quite frankly prefer very strongly community based organisations such as this No Interest Loans group. It is impressive to note that this group have received a large overdraft and have measurably increased the number of loans that they provide locally. These loans allow people to obtain white goods in particular. At the same time, they are educated about how to manage money. This gives them confidence and the ability to interact with others and gets them into a habit of repaying loans.
The member for Banks's motion is commendable, as it makes sure that groups locally are recognised. I finally mention Myrtle Cottage, a community based organisation providing activities for frail aged people and younger people with disabilities and respite care for people with dementia.
One of the things I noticed in moving quite a few suburbs in Sydney, from the Reid electorate to the Werriwa electorate, was the enormous presence of disability organisations in the Werriwa electorate. In 20 years as the member for Reid, if I was invited to one disability organisation event a year, it would have been a big year. In Werriwa this year there will probably be about 30 fundraisers just in the disability sector. The area is characterised by a high presence of community workers, volunteers and family carers—people who really give a lot in this sector. It reflects to some degree the housing department presence in the region but also, as I have said in this House before, perhaps a stronger inclination by Anglo-Saxons not to hide these problems or think that they are some kind of stigma and to be more open about disability.
All of those organisations are doing worthwhile work. I can talk about groups—particularly in the Bangladeshi community—that run language schools on weekends. These do not just happen out of the air. It requires people to do the booking, get the teachers and make sure they have significant enrolments. All these groups provide services where there is otherwise a gap in society, a vacuum. I think all sides of this House would join very strongly in commending them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Sidebottom ): Before I call the member for Bennelong, I think everyone in this chamber would join the member for Bennelong in his elegant congratulation of Sam Stosur on her fantastic victory earlier today. We join you and thank you for that very, very good speech.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:43): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Community based organisations are the lifeblood of our local regions, a point that has been repeatedly pressed upon me during my last year as representative for the electorate of Bennelong. Over this 12 months, and the six months prior on the campaign trail, I have visited many volunteer and not-for-profit organisations that perform such a huge task of promoting strong community values, social cohesion, health and welfare programs.
These activities occur across the nation, but, as Bennelong is one of the most culturally diverse regions of Australia, these groups greatly assist people here to integrate into our broader culture as well as vibrantly maintaining these beautiful, strong cultural traditions and building bridges across ethnic groups that can sometimes have troubled backgrounds and tensions in their home country.
Recently I spoke of the Australian Asian Association of Bennelong, who work on behalf of the Chinese and Korean communities. Last week I was delighted to represent our party leader at the Australia India Business Council. I have spoken previously of our vibrant and active Armenian and Sri Lankan communities, to name just a few. Over recent months I have also visited the Korean Chamber of Commerce, the Shack at Epping, Achieve Australia in Top Ryde and Minimbah Challenge in Marsfield. I have joined seniors for social club activities at the Granny Smith Day Club in Epping, been to a men's health group in Ermington and had lunch with volunteers at North Ryde Community Aid. However, with the restriction of just five minutes to talk on this very broad topic and with so many fantastic community based organisations in Bennelong, I will focus on one in particular. Next week is Dementia Awareness Week and in light of that I met with John Watkins, CEO of Alzheimer's Australia, last Friday in their offices in North Ryde. This meeting further highlighted to me the difficulties and realities of living with and caring for those with dementia.
The causes of dementia are not well understood but scientific research and the great work of organisations like Alzheimer's Australia has given us a much better understanding of this disease and its impacts on the individual and those caring for them. There are over 250,000 Australians with dementia and over 1,300 new cases each week. It is anticipated that by 2030 there will be over 560,000 Australians with dementia and by 2050 almost one million. Dementia is the third-largest cause of death after heart disease and stroke. Dementia is already the single largest cause of disability in Australians aged 65 and over.
In 2008, dementia care was estimated to carry an economic cost of $5.4 billion per annum. This is just one figure that highlights the size of the challenge that our nation is facing. Unfortunately, dementia carries a social stigma to go alongside the medical condition, having a profound impact not only on the life of the person with dementia but also on the lives of those around them—spouses, partners, families and friends.
Caring for a person with dementia is an incredible challenge. The progressive degeneration of a person's cognitive ability will often lead to a reduced ability to communicate and to complete regular daily activities. Alzheimer's Australia plays a great role and is a beacon of hope in our local community. John Watkins, the former member for Ryde, is a valuable and effective CEO and his organisation is just one example of an inspiring community based organisation that performs an incredible task both in the electorate of Bennelong and in our broader nation. All these volunteer and not-for-profit organisations deserve the recognition of this parliament and are to be commended on the contributions they make to our nation.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:47): I also congratulate the member for Banks on bringing this motion before the House as it gives all of us an opportunity to reflect upon the good work that various organisations do within our community to enhance not only community spirit but also the general operation of the community.
I would also like to indicate that I have Comissa Hunter with me today. He is part of the Indigenous student program—a program absolutely worthwhile supporting. I and the member for Werriwa have one of the biggest Aboriginal populations in New South Wales in our electorates. I pay particular respect to Aunty Norma Shelley and Aunty Mae Robinson who do an extraordinary amount of good work for the Aboriginal community of the south-west of Sydney. Both are former teachers—I would hate to say 'in their twilight' so I will not say it—and both are very committed and active in supporting the Indigenous communities of the south-west of Sydney. Their passion and commitment is something that should be recognised and they have played an extraordinary role in looking after members of the Indigenous community.
I also reflect on an organisation which is making a huge difference in Fowler. There are many things in Fowler that I am particularly proud of but I am certainly not proud of the unacceptable high level of youth unemployment. One organisation which is committed to making a difference is South West Connect, which operates throughout my electorate. South West Connect works with schools and businesses to provide placements for year 11 and year 12 students in the Fairfield, Cabramatta, Merrylands and Liverpool areas, particularly those who are studying vocational education and undertaking appropriate training courses. Many students have been offered part-time, casual and full-time work as a result of their participation on completing their work experience. This is a good result for students and a fantastic result for local businesses and for anyone who believes in our local community.
Recently South West Connect won a number of awards, particularly for the most outstanding specialised business in 2011 in the Fairfield local business awards. These achievements are a testimony to the hard work of the board members and volunteers, including its executive officer, Carol Richardson, and her team, among them Heather Doyon, work placement team leader, and Trish Booth, partnership brokers team leader.
As I mentioned at the outset, there are a range of organisations that do wonderful work in our communities with the sole intention of making the community and community life better. One such organisation, which I know that the member for Werriwa has also had an association with, is the Autism Advisory and Support Service, led by Grace Fava, a woman who has two autistic sons. She has thrown herself in in a voluntary capacity and set up an organisation which goes out very actively to advocate on behalf of and support those families in our community which are afflicted in some shape or form with autism. I wish we could do more for people such as Grace Fava, because her organisation is very much funded and operates through her commitment and that of her fellow volunteers.
In the brief time I have available I also acknowledge the Victory in the Pacific committee led by Taffy Richards and his executive, which each year commemorates the momentous Australian military history marking the end of the Second World War, particularly in regard to Australians in the Pacific theatre and what it meant for our country. I am very touched by having been invited to speak at that commemoration, not all that long ago. The number of young people who turned up for the commemoration was particularly impressive.
I also acknowledge the work of the Lions Club that operates in the area and particularly, at both the Canley Vale High School and the Cabramatta High School, the Leo clubs that operate to encourage young people to put providing service above self. I pay particular respect to and acknowledge the Cabramatta Lions Club president, Jenny Tew, for the invaluable work she does throughout our school based community as well as the broader community as a whole. (Time expired)
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (12:52): In joining the debate on this motion I will particularly focus on the work of two community organisations in my electorate which have been doing some outstanding work for many, many years, those being Rotary and Landcare. It is probably a bit unfair to single out two organisations, because there are volunteers across my community who make an extremely valuable contribution in organisations like surf lifesaving clubs, Lions clubs, school parents clubs, hospital auxiliaries and sporting clubs and as committee members.
I preface my comments by pointing out that I am a little bit concerned that in our community at the moment, with so many people having such busy lives, there is a noticeable greying of the volunteer workforce. The burden unfortunately is falling on too few, and our volunteers are ageing. It is not a criticism of younger people in particular, because there are many who are doing an outstanding job in my community, but we do need to encourage more younger people to get involved in community life through volunteering. In regional communities like Gippsland we recognise that we all have to pull our own weight and it is up to all of us to do our own little bit. I encourage people to find an organisation that suits their interests, to join up and get involved and to help make a difference in their community. They will certainly benefit from the experience, and so will our wider community.
As I said, I want to refer specifically to Landcare. This week we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Maffra and Districts Landcare Network and we launched a booklet which commemorates some of the great achievements of Landcare in my community. While it was an opportunity to celebrate and give the members of Landcare, along with the professional staff, a chance to reflect for just a moment on some of their outstanding achievements, I believe that there are some significant concerns facing the future of Landcare in the government's failure to commit to the $11 million it originally had in its forward estimates to pay for Landcare facilitators throughout Australia. It is a concern to me because we have Landcare volunteers who I describe as the practical environmentalists of our nation. These are the people who are prepared to get their hands dirty. They do the tree planting. They do the erosion control work. They do the weed removal programs. They are helping to boost biodiversity in our community. I think it is up to governments at both state and federal levels to deliver on the funding for the Landcare facilitators, who do a very good job of leveraging additional volunteer effort in my community. On a more positive note, I would also like to comment briefly on the success of the Rotary movement in the Gippsland region. I attended a fundraising function on Saturday night for the Gippsland Rotary Centenary House. I have spoken about Centenary House in the past in this place, but it is worth recapping just for a moment on what an outstanding job Centenary House does. This organisation was established to provide accommodation for people as they attended the Latrobe Regional Hospital, normally for cancer treatment. The Rotary club volunteers from across Gippsland have done an outstanding job in terms of fundraising and were instrumental in establishing, with support from the previous coalition government and the former state Labor government in Victoria, the first stage of this project that provides accommodation. It has had very strong bipartisan support from day one.
The people of Gippsland have benefited for several years now from that work of the state and federal governments, philanthropic organisations, local businesses and Rotary members. I am pleased to report that that spirit of bipartisanship has continued with the current federal government. The Minister for Health and Ageing announced earlier this year $1.5 million for the next stage of Centenary House. While it is depressing that we need to build an additional nine units at Centenary House because demand is so high for cancer treatment at the Latrobe Regional Hospital, on the positive side it has also brought out the best of the Rotarians right across Gippsland. So in addition to the government's $1.5 million, which the community is very thankful for, Rotary members from clubs right across the Gippsland district have been fundraising again over the past 12 months. On Saturday night the fundraising function was very well attended. I would like to congratulate the organisers, Kay and Tony Radford, Carmen Cook and the rest of the fundraising team, along with the Chairman of Centenary House, Mr Ken Peake, his team and the house manager, Carol Crewe, who does such a great job in accommodating Gippslanders at a time of great need in their lives.
These are just a couple of examples of some great Australians, some great Gippslanders, who are setting an extraordinary example for our community. I think it further highlights the importance of volunteering to help others. I encourage Gippslanders who are interested in getting involved in community groups to join up and help make a difference in our community. I thank the House for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the volunteers throughout the Gippsland region.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (12:57): I am really pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this motion on community based organisations. I think both sides feel very strongly, regardless of their politics, about the value of people being able to join together in their local communities to improve the lives of the people who live within those communities. Their day-to-day existence is boosted and benefited by the work done by a range of different community groups. These groups may have their focus on a whole range of different areas. As contributors have reflected on today, they could be sporting groups, veteran groups, environmental groups or groups who help newly arrived migrants boost their contribution to Australian society, like those I have been associated with. All of these groups, regardless of their focus, have the overriding objective of helping in some way, shape or form people engage in their local community.
Certainly from my perspective diversity is one of the greatest strengths in our communities as a result of the different groups that exist and operate on a day-to-day basis. As a country our national identity is based on mutual respect and shared values, and I see this on a day-to-day basis in the electorate of Chifley, having worked with and engaged with many community groups across the various neighbourhoods that make up Chifley. I have seen and made lasting connections and friendships along the way in Chifley. I want to particularly highlight a number of groups I have had the pleasure of being associated with.
I am especially focused on and have a personal interest in technology, especially the rollout of the NBN and the way it provides people with an opportunity to engage with the internet. I note that the member for Ryan is here. Recently we were involved in the major inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications that looked at the projected benefits of the NBN on a range of regional communities. One group I want to mention in the time allowed is Computer Pals Blacktown. I want to congratulate Wendy Lambert and her volunteers in carrying out its mission, which is to help people over the age of 45 become familiar with computers, with IT technology. For many people of an older generation, who may have been in workplaces that had no reliance on PCs, laptops, BlackBerries or iPhones, the issue of technology is quite confronting. That particular community group, Computer Pals, takes people in and shows them right from the start how to turn on a computer, how to work their way around a computer and then how to determine the best things to get out of that—for example, typing up resumes, connecting to others through Skype or videoconferencing, a concept they may never have thought possible. Up to that point they relied on telephones. To then be able to use that as a means of communicating is a total eye-opener.
Computer Pals is not just a facility for senior Australians; it is also a group that has helped, for instance, people who are still in the workforce and who are 45 years plus. For example, in the construction industry, people are being told that when they submit plans they have to submit them in a form that they may never have heard of—but that we might be familiar with—called PDFs. They have no idea what that means, how to generate it or how to then distribute it.
Computer Pals is a community group that is opening up the eyes of people in a way that, as I said at the start of my contribution, maximises their engagement and participation in the community. They do it through a lot of support from other community groups, but an enormous voluntary contribution is made to ensure that a group like that is successful. It is building meaningful links within the broader community for people who, rightly, as senior Australians, have contributed to the development of our nation, to the development of the communities in which they live and who also have a right to be able to participate through technology in decisions that are being made in the future for them, their children and their grandchildren. I want to commend this motion and commend all the work of the community groups that will be mentioned through the course of this debate and salute them for what they are doing to help our nation prosper and grow.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:02): Community service organisations are a vital part of our social fabric. They help countless Australians and indeed citizens around the world not only in times of headline-grabbing disasters but also with the everyday needs of the vulnerable in our communities.
Whilst the member for Banks's motion today specifically recognises his local organisations, I am grateful for the opportunity he has provided for all of us to acknowledge the work of community services in all of our electorates. My electorate of Ryan is home to countless organisations which are always there to lend a helping hand. In particular, I take the opportunity to acknowledge Father Bill of the Holy Family Parish in Indooroopilly and Reverend Costa at the Moggill Uniting Church, who continue to provide support to those affected by the January floods and to let them know they are not forgotten, even though the floodwaters have receded. Recently, with my colleague the member for Hasluck, I met with Aunty Jean Phillips and Reverend Heather den Houten, who are in the process of setting up a safe space for Indigenous youths to drop in for a hot meal at night. These are just two examples of hardworking altruists who are determined to make a difference in our community.
The first two parts of this motion are without doubt commendable. I had originally intended to use this time to speak further about the benefits that community service organisations provide. But I am troubled by a recent newspaper article which reported that, as a result of new federal regulations, many not-for-profit community service providers are facing the potential of becoming insolvent within weeks. Given we are here today to acknowledge the great work of community service organisations and the government's support, I feel it is timely to question both the federal government and the Queensland state Labor government about why this has happened. The report states that new federal regulations were put in place on 4 August and have left some not-for-profit community service organisations with bills of hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay after the state Labor government requested that pay increases be retained after Queensland transitioned to the federal industrial relations system. Salaries have risen between 18 and 37 per cent, leaving not-for-profit groups with 18 months worth of back pay. The Queensland Council of Social Services warned that some groups will have no choice but to fold, let staff go or reduce services, potentially affecting tens of thousands of people and indeed the tens of thousands of people who rely on these services.
Many groups will be affected by this change. This sector employs 50 per cent more people than the mining industry and it is estimated that 45,000 employees will be affected in Queensland and 280,000 nationally. In Queensland alone it is estimated that more than 2,000 employees will be laid off and potentially more than 12,000 nationally. This summer in Queensland, with 90 per cent of local government areas affected by natural disasters, it was the Red Cross which was on the ground delivering services to the community. Imagine the cost, the time and the effort Red Cross Queensland alone saved government, both state and federal, during recent disasters. And yet the Red Cross is just one of hundreds of community service organisations these new regulations have hit.
However, when both the Queensland Council of Social Service and Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, wrote to the Prime Minister seeking a lifeline to ensure that jobs and services would not be compromised, this report states that the federal government simply said that the new regulation was at the request of the state. More buck passing! It seems that both levels of Labor government have some explaining to do and, more importantly, they need to ensure the future viability of these essential community service organisations.
I call on the government to act now, to slow down the proposed timetable and to provide a comprehensive industry adjustment package. If the member for Banks is genuine in moving this motion today, he will now call on his caucus to remedy the untenable situation in which his party's policy has left these organisations.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:07 to 16:00
CONDOLENCES
Lambert, Private Matthew
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health) (16:00): Today I rise to offer my deepest sympathy to the friends and family of Private Matthew Lambert. My thoughts go out to his spouse, his parents and family, his fellow soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and his mates in the Army.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Private Lambert was killed during operations in Afghanistan on 22 August 2011. He is sadly the 29th member of the Australian Defence Force who has been killed in action in Afghanistan and the eighth operational death this year. His death comes just six weeks after that of Sergeant Todd Langley and will be a reminder for those families of the other 28 Australians who have fallen in the Afghan conflict. I say to them: we have not forgotten your sacrifice.
Matthew was killed while supporting a mentored patrol in the vicinity of Qadam Shalay, Khas Oruzgan, some 85 kilometres north-east of Tarin Kowt. He suffered fatal wounds when a suspected improvised explosive device, IED, detonated. The incident occurred near a patrol base in Khas Oruzgan in the north-east of Oruzgan province. Private Lambert was initially treated at the scene and then aeromedically evacuated to the Role 2 Medical Facility at Tarin Kowt where he subsequently died of his wounds.
In conducting the patrol, Private Lambert was contributing to our overall mission in Afghanistan training the Afghan National Army and the Afghan national and local police in Oruzgan province to put them in a position to take responsibility for security in 2014. Even on sad days like today, I do not believe it is in our national security interests to walk away from our mission in Afghanistan. We must continue.
Oruzgan province is a long way from Kogarah in New South Wales where Private Lambert was born in 1985, so he was a very young man. Private Lambert enlisted in the 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment in August 2005. He then transferred to the Australian Regular Army in February 2007 and then was posted to 2RAR in Townsville. He was a very well-respected soldier who excelled at any task he was assigned and was looking forward to serving his country in Afghanistan. Commander of 3rd Brigade, Brigadier Stuart Smith, said:
Matthew was widely respected for his professionalism and commitment to duty, and his death has been felt deeply within our army family.
He was a decorated soldier. He had been awarded the following honours and awards: the Australian Active Service Medal with clasp International Coalition Against Terrorism; the Afghanistan Campaign Medal; the Australian Service Medal with clasp Timor-Leste; the Australian Defence Medal; and the Timor-Leste Solidarity Medal. During Private Lambert's service in the Australian Army, he deployed in the following operations: Operation Astute, Timor-Leste, June 2009 until November 2009; and Operation Slipper in Afghanistan from June 2011 until August 2011.
For those of us who work in this place, we need to understand what it is to wear the uniform of the Australian Army—indeed, any of our Army, Navy or Air Force uniforms. These brave men and women who wear these uniforms do great deeds for us, and when you wear that uniform, as we in this place do not, you stand the possibility of being killed in the service of your nation. Those men and women who wear this uniform sacrifice a great deal for us. I know that their families sacrifice for us as well, and we owe them a debt that we can never repay. Private Lambert was returned to Australia from Afghanistan on 29 August and was farewelled by family and friends at a private funeral. I offer my prayers and support to Private Lambert's family and his mates, those in the Defence Force and in the broader community.
I know that the 3rd Brigade is focused on providing the best possible support to Matthew's family as they cope with their tragic loss and to Private Lambert's mates so they continue their vital work on deployment. I can assure them that we will never forget the service and sacrifice of this outstanding young man, and I know that Australians will always remember Matthew's contribution and that his death has not been in vain.
Sadly, there are too many occasions now when we in this place have condolence motions for those who have sacrificed on our behalf and as I said earlier, it is very difficult for us in here to understand the implications of wearing the Australian uniform, of putting yourself in harm's way at the direction of your country. We in this place wear a special responsibility because ultimately it is us, the government of this country, that tells its Defence Force what to do. We engaged in this war in Afghanistan, they are engaged on our behalf, they wear the sacrifices that are being made, they wear the threats as a result of wearing this magnificent Australian uniform. We say goodbye to Matthew Lambert. Lest we forget.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify, at this stage, their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the committee.
Mr HUSIC: I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Business Names Registration Bill 2011
Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (16:07): I rise to add a few thoughts about the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration Bill (Fees) Bill 2011 and Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011. These bills aim to ensure that entities behind businesses can be identified, that the inconvenience in compliance costs of multiple registrations is avoided and that names that are undesirable, offensive or misleading are not registered.
I indicate the coalition's support for these bills, we think they are a step in the right direction and follow on from some work that was instigated, interestingly, by the coalition back in 2006-07.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Mr BILLSON: Gee, they have peaked early haven't they. They must have got slapped around a bit much over border protection this morning. They have come in a little bit politically punch drunk. Whoever would have thought that this would have inspired—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): The member will return to the bill. Order!
Mr BILLSON: Not even one minute in.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order!
Mr BILLSON: I get excited about business names registration, I do not think there are many who normally do in this chamber, but it is good to see the level of vigour that you guys have about this is in vivid contrast to speaking up about the impact of the carbon tax on the small businesses in your electorate. It is quite remarkable.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Blair will listen in silence.
Government members interjecting—
Mr BILLSON: As I continue to be very objective and very balanced in accounting for the history that has led to where we are, it was during 2006-07, long before the colleagues that are so vocal now were making any contribution in this place, that the opportunity for regulatory reform and red-tape reduction in the area of business names registration was recognised by the coalition government and pursued. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken in September and October 2006. Market testing was completed, you might be interested to know, in October 2006. A discussion paper, always a great output from Treasury, was released to accompany consultation with industry associations in those halcyon months of September and October 2007—a time of feverish investigation and activity relating to business names.
On 3 July 2008 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to develop a single national system for registering and regulating business names, and that was not a bad conclusion to arrive at as it built on that outstanding impetus and early work the coalition had done. This proposal was identified as one of 27 regulatory reforms that form part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. Public consultation on the second exposure drafts of the bills took place in April 2011.
The Senate Economics Legislation Committee, equally captured by the excitement of this topic, investigated the bills and released its report in August 2011 on the second exposure drafts of the bills and recommended that they be introduced and passed. We think that is all perfectly reasonable—an orderly process instigated by the coalition that led to some good constructive work through COAG and to the government arriving at an improved bill, which we are now debating.
Currently, businesses are required to register their names in each state and territory in which they trade. Each state and territory jurisdiction has its own fees and processes. There is a useful comparison of those fees in the explanatory memorandum that shows that the anticipated national fees for registration and renewal should produce some savings across all individual jurisdictions with the exception of the Northern Territory. For those businesses operating in a number of jurisdictions there are savings to be had. If you are operating a business in every state and territory, you may well face costs of around $1,000 for three years worth of registration.
This legislation will establish a new national business name register operated by ASIC. To trade under a business name an entity will be required to register and include the business name in written communications relating to the commercial dealings of the business. An ABN will also need to be displayed on a smaller number of documents consistent with ACN requirements for incorporated entities under the Corporations Act. Interestingly, any new application for a business name will need to be accompanied by an ABN or a concurrent ABN registration application. The existing business name holders will be able to renew their business names without an ABN. However, they will require an ABN if they wish to register for AUSkey. The reason that is relevant is that, at the moment, this change will represent an added administrative burden for businesses that currently are not required to have an ABN under existing legislation. They will now be required to register their business name regardless of their turnover or current exemptions from holding an ABN. That is a new impost but we think on balance it is not a completely unreasonable expectation. For those microbusinesses planning to establish under this new regime, there will be that additional action step and the administrative tasks associated with it.
If a business name is currently registered on a state or territory register, once transferred to the national system the entity's registered name will remain the same. There is provision in this legislation for duplicate names that may be perfectly valid in individual jurisdictions but when brought under a national framework create some confusion. Under this legislation a geographical identifier will be attached to that registration. Under the bills a business name will be available to an entity if it is not identical nor nearly identical to another business name, company name or a name on a notified state or territory register. There is still some illumination required of what those protocols about identical and nearly identical names will be and also of how to identify undesirable names. We could all probably think of a few and a few come to mind occasionally, but there is still a bit of work to be done on that determination. We are very interested in seeing how that is handled, given some practical experiences where names have slipped through that have certainly raised my eyebrows and those of many others. A useful step in the right direction and one that really opens up a whole new conversation is the positive idea of linking business name, trademark and domain name registration systems to facilitate efficient identification of suitable identifiers. Basically, the bill is saying, and we think it is a positive step, that if you are contemplating a business name and you find that there is already a trademark or a domain name in that space—as I understand it and as has been conveyed in the material available to me—you will be notified that you are not far off or that you may even be treading on the toes of someone who already has a trademark or a domain name. Because of jurisdictional issues about what the Commonwealth in Australia can do, that in itself may not stop the registration of the business name. The business name may still proceed, although you will be doing so having been informed, hopefully, that you may well face civil action, some litigation, for you to desist from doing that by those who feel that their trademark or domain name has been infringed upon.
My colleagues have asked me to mention that they wish the reverse applied, that if someone were actually registering a domain name there would be some reference back to registered business names. Ambush marketing, or opportunistically spotting domain names that may be of interest to a company and then making that name available at a considerably inflated price, is an enterprise that some carry out. I am particularly familiar with that as it has affected me. It is very difficult to deal with that and no streamlined, satisfactory process has been put in place. I am flagging that in the context of the connections that are drawn here to make sure that business names are entered into in an informed way, with an awareness that you might be infringing upon trademarks and domain names. It would be nice, particularly in the domain name space, if the reverse applied. I understand there are some jurisdictional issues that would need to be resolved. That is a cause of great concern for many small businesses which feel that ambush marketing is being directed at their business, and there is concern at the detrimental impact on their reputation and on their commercial prospects. It is a problem that would require considerable expense to turn around. It was flagged that this bill may be an opportunity for that. I am not sure that that is quite the case but I put on the record that concern.
Another issue I touched on earlier is where a name is not available because it contains words or expressions that are identical, restricted or undesirable, as per a plan determination. We are particularly interested in how that will operate. The determination is not available as yet for us to know what may offend in terms of an undesirable or a restricted name, but no doubt we will get to see that at some point.
Some strict liability offences are established under the bill, such as carrying on a business under an unregistered business name, failure to include a business name in written communications, failure to display a business name at a place if the business is open to the public, carrying on a business while disqualified and a failure to comply with a request from ASIC to provide some of that information.
Also noteworthy is that there has been some thoughtfulness and sensitivity towards home based businesses. I can understand the detail and the specific location of a commercial premise being identifiable in publicly accessible information. I am not certain that is the greatest idea for a home based business and some regard has been given to that by not including street addresses and details of that kind. Again, I think that is a thoughtful improvement in the legislation and I congratulate the government for doing that.
There is also a hanging question, which was identified in the Senate committee process—that is, the extent to which information held by the register and available for government use might also be made accessible to external agencies or even to private organisations where they are fulfilling a Commonwealth obligation. The example that was raised at the Senate inquiry process related to finance providers. You would be aware of the considerable obligations on finance providers to provide details to the government about financial transactions, AUSTRAC obligations, money laundering and the like. A lot of the back-end mechanics of identifying who is involved in those transactions could well be assisted by access to the material being held by the register. On balance I accept the government's advice from its department that that was not the reason for which that information was provided and that, under privacy principles, it would therefore be unwise to expand its use, given that the material was provided for business name registration purposes not for some financial service compliance obligation. I understand that point and we accept on balance the conclusion that the government has arrived at. We are just highlighting where the Commonwealth is imposing obligations on organisations and individuals. If it can assist those people in fulfilling those obligations, that is probably not a bad thing. We will keep an eye on that. We will just see how that plays out, because there seems to be some opportunity there was well.
The only other things I would touch on relate to some questions that I posed to the responsible minister. I have identified a number of those areas already, and I have touched on the issue of trademarks as well. Trademarks are quite a challenging area for small business. At the moment we are seeking to assist a small business which operates in the electricity space—measuring and monitoring technology, energy efficiency and all of that. The business has been doing a great job for a number of years; business is fine. But a multinational has come along and decided that it wants to do something where the name it is using includes an acronym, and the acronym has two of three letters which are the same as the second word in this business name. Now, they are not even in the same space. One operates in agriculture; the other operates in electricity and energy efficiency. But, because the small businessman does not have the deep pockets of the multinational, he is being subjected to an action demanding that he desist from using a business name that he has been operating under for nearly a decade.
Now, he has come to me saying, 'I do not have this money.' He knows what area he is working in and things are going okay for him as a small business. But, faced with a multinational agricultural and food processing company that seeks to use the acronym GAP to talk about a quality process for manufacturing food and saying, 'Well, your three-letter word that finishes with AP is very similar to GAP,' what is he supposed to do? Where does he go? He is pulling his hair out; he has been given these deadlines and a pile of paper you cannot throw your leg over which has obviously been produced at great expense. But where is his justice? It is just another example in my mind of how often legal processes and even government decision making is very much shaped through the eyes of big business and big parties, with which you can negotiate and consult, while the small and microbusiness communities are just left to deal with it—and deal with the collateral damage, almost, of being expected to be a multinational, to compete fairly on a question where they have been drawn into this having committed no wrong. But someone thinks they might take them out because they can.
This is an area of some concern. This space touches on it; I mentioned the domain name example earlier. I would encourage the government to turn their minds to these kinds of practical challenges that are being experienced by small and microbusinesses to find some remedies that are affordable and accessible. We had some ideas prior to the election about a small business and family enterprise ombudsman and some dispute resolution processes. I am pleased that the government that took no new specific small business commitment to the last election has decided to outsource its policy development. It has picked up a few of ours. Wherever they might come from, if they are a good idea and they help small business, I say to the government, 'Knock yourselves out; there are probably a dozen more good small business and family enterprise ideas they might want to pick up on the way through.'
Finally, I touch on another one of these interconnected issues. If you are denied an ABN for whatever reason, you are then denied a business name under this framework. Now the problem is—and I know that the portfolio involved would of course be very judicious in the way it is exercising the discretions these bills provide them—that if you run into an obstacle and you do not get an ABN from the tax office, ASIC and the departmental officials responsible for this area would basically say, 'Well, you take that up with the tax office; that is a decision made somewhere else.' But the cascading effect is that you cannot actually trade. And at this time when the government has instigated the most appalling attack on independent contractors I have seen, when two million Australians, legitimate small businesses, derive their livelihoods from independent contracting, the government has asked the tax office to give independent contractors a bit of a hard time, to try to push them more into this traditional employee-employer type of relationship. I can understand the government wanting to do that when the Prime Minister talked about—
Mr Tehan interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wannon will be quiet.
Mr BILLSON: These are gripping contributions. I am saddened that government members are heckling me about a very important point about how independent contractors are a legitimate force—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dunkley will come back to the bill, please.
Mr BILLSON: And if I can illustrate the connection again—which I thought I did, but I will do it again—if you are denied an ABN, you are denied a business name. That then makes how ABNs are allocated and the grounds on which they might be refused incredibly relevant to this bill. I am just touching on the point that, at this time when the government has such poor form about its sustained and coordinated attack, at least three government agencies are going after independent contractors because they operate outside this employer-employee paradigm, which is the only kind of livelihood the government seems to be able to understand. That then can result in people being denied a business name, which then risks triggering the strict liability penalty in the year of trading without a registered business name, so it is incredibly significant. I would like to think that at some time the government will have a realisation that independent contractors are very legitimate as a business and that they make an invaluable contribution to the Australian economy. They are a legitimate way of engaging expertise and talent and recruitment of people for a fixed period of time under quite specific rules about who is a legitimate independent contractor and who is not.
What those independent contractors do not need is yet another coordinated assault on their livelihoods, and on the livelihoods of those they facilitate through their work, by some dodgy use of ABN denial to deny them a business name which makes them in breach of the law if they trade. So I think it is very relevant and a very important point. We know there is a shifty crowd that have organised secret meetings—originally denied by government ministers and subsequently confirmed in Senate estimates—a coordinated strategy between this Labor government and the union movement to conduct an organised campaign against independent contractors. Here there is risk of another point of attack, of the denial of an ABN; therefore the inability to have a business name registered and therefore the risk of strict liability, an offence of carrying on a business that is under an unregistered business name. I think those connections are fairly clear.
In supporting this bill, I have outlined a number of areas where we will maintain a watching brief. There are some opportunities to improve the mechanics, but we should not lose sight of these interconnections between other areas that impact on small business viability and their chance to trade and to participate in the Australian economy because the record of the government in this is not flash, with 300,000 thousand jobs lost in small business since Labor was elected. There is no sign of relief on the radar screen and you can understand the considerable suspicion about what else might be going on as relates to the ABN process of registering a business name.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:28): I speak in support of the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and cognate bills. I have a confession to make. I am rather fond of the member for Dunkley. Sometimes he can be cheeky and sometimes irreverent. But one of the things that he has not done today is listen to what former Labour Deputy Prime Minister in the UK Michael Foot once said, 'When making a speech always surprise,' because today we had the Tory tosh, the salivating of sloganism across the chamber from those opposite, from the member for Dunkley. We had that diatribe. In the past it was the communists, then the socialists, then the unions and now it is government. It is extraordinary. They are always campaigning on fear, never on hope, even in this good legislation before the chamber today. If you listen to the member for Dunkley, he might have supported it in the 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th year of the previous coalition government but, no, this is good legislation initiated by a federal Labor government. What he did not recognise, when it came to national competition policy, was that that was initiated by the Keating Labor government, and when it came to microeconomic reform and national regulatory reform, it was the Hawke and Keating Labor governments which did these sorts of things. Those opposite never actually walked the walk; they just talked the talk when it came to support for small business. Take this particular legislation, and the Australian Consumer Law which came into operation on 1 January this year, which replaced 20 separate acts and provided a single national law concerning consumer protection and fair trading, to make sure we have that seamless economy. Those opposite did not do it. But the Productivity Commission estimated that this reform would deliver a net gain to the community of between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion every year. Or take the consumer credit legislation—a new national consumer credit law which commenced on 1 July 2010, replacing eight state and territory regulatory regimes and providing a range of financial services reforms, including to mortgage broking, margin lending, non-deposit-taking institutions—all done by a federal Labor government. Those opposite did not do it. And this legislation—the primary purpose of which is to establish a national business names registration scheme—again, was initiated by a federal Labor government; those opposite did not do it in 11½ years. There were papers. There was discussion. There was lots of process. But there was no action—they talk the talk, not walk the walk.
The primary purpose of this legislation is to make sure that any business that does not operate under its own entity name registers its name and details on a national register to enable those who engage or propose to engage with that particular business to determine the identity of the entity behind the business name and its contact details. This is important. If you are dealing with a business, you want to know who you are dealing with. If they are in debt to you and you need to take legal action, you need to know who is behind the business. Who actually runs it? Who is the mastermind? Who are the company directors? Who are the shareholders? Who are the people who actually run this business? It is not just a name. Who actually owns it? So this is important for business, and for business certainty; it is important for making sure that, whether you are in the Torres Strait or Tasmania, in Palm Beach or Perth, you have the same access to the same kind of registration and the same kind of opportunity to make sure that you can deal with certainty with another business.
The legislation will develop a national business name registration system with seamless online registration for both Australian business numbers, ABNs, and business names, operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Currently, each state and territory runs its own show. Presently, if you are going to register across the states and territories of Australia, you can pay up to $1,000 if you are a business for registering a business name for three years. That is just an unacceptable business cost. So, from now on in, under the national registration scheme, you will only pay one fee of about $70 to register for three years, with the option of paying $30 to apply for a one-year registration. This comes about through a process—and I accept, the member for Dunkley, that it came through a process: the national partnership agreement, and of course through the COAG process in which there were coalition governments and Labor governments.
In his media release of 17 August, the federal Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Nick Sherry, has made the point that our proposed national registration scheme will mean that business will pay one fee and face only one process to register their business names nationally. He said:
Together with related initiatives such as the Australian Business Licence Information Service and the Australian Business Account, the benefits of the national business names registration system amount to $1.5 billion over 8 years.
That is an enormous sum of money and it will save business a lot.
Locally, this will make an impact. I contacted Tony Axford, the manager of the Business Enterprise Centre Ipswich Region—and I want to commend Tony and his team for the work they have done in the Blair electorate, in Ipswich and the Somerset region, in relation to the floods which have hit my area so hard. They have done a great job, and recently we gave them $100,000 of small business advisory money, which is making a difference in the local area through workshops, mentoring and the assistance they are providing as well. Hundreds of businesses in Ipswich and the Somerset region were flooded. In an email to me he made the point that the business enterprise centresaround the country:
… are in full support of this bill, as most of the small and micro business cannot afford in the past to register business names in all states …
And he said:
The BEC network which works with over 160,000 business per year, have said the most common issue is to be able to afford to register the business name Australia wide which will enable branding protection.
I think that is an important point: make sure that someone cannot gazump you in another state, because we know the dingo fences no long apply. It does not matter whether it is accountancy practices or legal practices or if you are selling curtains or carpets because across the country people have businesses in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. We have great metropolises along the east coast and throughout areas like Albury-Wodonga and places like Tweed Heads and Coolangatta where the boundaries between the states are quite artificial. I have always made the point that there are a lot of oddities and eccentricities about our federation. I am sure our founding fathers would have thought differently in relation to this.
I want to acknowledge the work undertaken by the Minister for Small Business on this. I think this is a big issue. To understand why it is so important you need to understand the cost and the certainty. Currently, as I said, businesses face different fees and a bureaucratic process to register their business in each state and territory in which they undertake business. I make the point that in my home state of Queensland a business has to pay $133.60 for a one-year registration or $255.60 for a three-year registration, but that varies with other states. In New South Wales a business has to pay $160 a year to register a business name. In the ACT it costs $151 for a three-year registration or $221 for a five-year registration. In Tasmania this same business would have to pay $140. In Western Australia it would pay just $90. In Victoria it would pay $85.50. In the Northern Territory it is really just $66 to register a business name. There are more than 30,000 businesses that operate in multiple jurisdictions and this equates to thousands of dollars in fees a year. That does not include the figures for what I have said: the ongoing fees, the late fees, the extract fees and those for the different forms that might apply and the cost to a business of the man-hours that are undertaken. So there are red tape and fees associated with this.
The system will eliminate frustrations for businesses that want to expand interstate, going from, say, Coolangatta in Queensland to Tweed Heads. No longer will they find a similar name already registered elsewhere. When they register in Queensland through online registration, the name will be, of course, registered nationally. There will only be one registration form to complete, not the multiple ones across the country. There will be one place to search for business names and there will be one place to pay your fee, being the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. When they register for an ABN they will register their business name and they will receive confirmation of the registration at the same time. It makes good sense to use the ASIC to manage and administer the business names register. It is responsible for the registration of companies, and I think that makes for a sensible outcome.
As I said, this is important for business and, of course, we are committed to lifting productivity. This will lift productivity in the workplace. It will enhance the quality of the regulatory framework and it will make a difference: it will reduce business costs and it will create an easier environment for businesses to compete interstate, globally and domestically as well.
I made the point at the beginning of this speech that this Labor government is a reforming government, as were the Hawke and Keating governments, in delivering microeconomic reform. We believe it is essential to have a strong commitment to a national regulatory system and to undertake reform of that. COAG has been the building block to do that, and I acknowledge the work that is done by the states and territories as well. The Department of Finance and Deregulation has estimated that 10 out of the 27 business regulation reforms under our agenda are worth about $3.5 billion a year for the economy and about $1.8 billion of this will flow directly to business. That is a big enhancement of our economy and a big enhancement of the productivity and the profitability of our businesses. The national partnership agreement is designed to enhance long-term growth and improve our workforce participation and improve overall labour mobility. We want to expand that and we want to make sure that we undertake to get rid of the inconsistencies.
I cannot let it go that those opposite want to whinge about jobs. We heard a diatribe from the member for Dunkley about jobs and business operations. At the height of the global financial crisis those opposite did not even provide the necessary support for nation building to support jobs, as this reform will undertake, by creating greater business productivity. We have this mindless mantra of economic malarkey from those opposite, on these issues, talking the economy down. It is a bit rich—this is the mob with the $70 billion black hole. What we have from those opposite on this, and you heard it from the member for Dunkley in his speech today, is mindless economic recklessness and irresponsibility when it comes to the economy. I am starting to think that those opposite are not just mindless and irresponsible but also economic vandals.
The opposition's economic policies depend on which way the wind is blowing. You heard the vacillation from the member for Dunkley in his speech on this bill. One minute he was supporting what we had said and the next minute he was criticising us about the process we are undertaking on this bill. So those opposite have no plans and when it comes to these economic reforms there is nothing they can say. They really are hopeless, hapless and helpless on this stuff. They did not do it when they were in government and they are criticising us for trying to do it now.
They come with this nonsense about independent contractors. Independent Contractors Australia, which represents about two million self-employed businesses, had this to say about the legislation and the government's efforts and I think the member for Dunkley should have a good listen:
This is what red tape-cutting is about. It’s the boring and tedious side of government, but it’s this sort of commonsense reform that makes for better business. We encourage the government to continue this type of effort.
That is what the mob opposite did not say about this bill. They tried to invoke Independent Contractors Australia to say that we are not in favour of small business, but Independent Contractors Australia supports us on this legislation. We on this side know that independent contractors are an important part of the economy because small business is an important part of our economy. There are about four million small businesses across the country and they employ people. They export goods and services and they employ people—including people in my electorate.
This legislation is important, like consumer credit, the Australian Consumer Law and the regulatory reform we are undertaking across the length and breadth of the country. Everything we are doing here is about supporting small business and making sure it is profitable because small business employs people. Cooperative relationships between labour and capital are important for small business. We understand that. We understand that is what drives productivity. We understand that when labour and business works together in the small business environment that is when business becomes more profitable. That is when wages rise, that is when business becomes more productive, that is when productivity rises, that is when the economy improves, that is when communities prosper and that is when the country develops wealth.
Those opposite do not understand that. They do not understand that partnership and cooperation is important. They only understand a monetarist Friedman style market economy, which does not do anything. The economy is about partnerships and we support this legislation. (Time expired)
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (16:43): I rise today to add my voice to this series of bills, the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011. I hope the member for Blair never organises a surprise birthday party for me because there was not much of a surprise in anything he had to say.
This bill is supported by the coalition. Once again, we have seen good cooperation from the coalition and now by the current government in bringing these bills into this place and into fruition. This was a process which started in 2006. It was the result of the Regulation Taskforce, a task force on reducing regulatory burden on business, and was released on 7 April 2006. It followed a lot of consultation, especially by the Office of Small Business as it was then in 2006. It followed this process right the way through to where we are now. I commend all the people who have worked in that office from 2006 to today for the wonderful work that they do, in particular in bringing this bill to fruition, because it is a good bill and it will help reduce regulation for small business in Australia.
I want to go a tiny bit into the detail of the bill. As the intergovernmental agreement states:
A. The parties agree to establish a national system for business name registration to be implemented by Commonwealth legislation, supported by State text‐based referrals of certain matters to the Commonwealth Parliament, in accordance with paragraph 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution.
B. The Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory and the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory have legislative powers in relation to business names and the registration of business names under Commonwealth self‐government legislation, and therefore the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are parties to this agreement, but, having regard to paragraph 51(xxxvii) and section 122 of the Commonwealth Constitution, they will not make a referral.
C. The Commonwealth will introduce legislation to establish a national system for the registration of business names.
As the chief of staff for the former Minister for Small Business and Tourism, I played a very small part in helping this reform get off the ground. I acknowledge the former Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey, who also drove this, and the small business adviser with responsibility in the minister's office at the time, Kate Davies.
It is a good reform. One has only to look at the comparison of fees in state jurisdictions for registering a business name. For instance, in the ACT it is $151; in Queensland it is $255; and in Victoria it is $85.50. For us now to have a uniform rate is a very good start, as is making sure that we have a national register. The way that it will be implemented I think also shows that the government and, before it, the coalition in framing the way these bills have been set up have done it in a very common-sense and sensible way. Where there are business names that will coincide, businesses are able to list the state they come from so that we will not get a lot of discussion, a lot of debate, over whether a business in Queensland with the same name as one in Victoria will then have to go through all sorts of issues as to who can keep that name and who cannot. We also have the situation now where, for every new business that is registered, that name becomes unique. That is a very good outcome. I commend everyone who has been involved.
There will of course be some teething problems. The member for Dunkley has mentioned the issue of independent contractors. I think he is right to note that issue. The former shadow minister for small business, Craig Emerson, before the 2007 election, gave ironclad guarantees to the independent contractor segment of our business community. I do not think that what we have seen since then has honoured those guarantees that he gave. It would be a terrible shame if this reform were used against them, and that is something that we here on this side will be watching.
Other aspects of the bill are that to trade under a business name an entity will be required to register and include the business name in written communications relating to the commercial dealings of the business. An ABN will also need to be displayed on a smaller number of documents, consistent with the ACN for incorporated entities under the Corporations Act. So there is a very sensible approach to the registering of a business name.
This will be important for my electorate of Wannon because we have a lot of small businesses in the electorate. The total of small businesses—that is, people who employ one to 19 employees—in my electorate is 13,376. Ninety-seven per cent of all businesses in Wannon are small businesses. As you go around especially regional and rural Australia, it becomes apparent how important small business communities are to these sectors. That is why we have to do everything we can to reduce regulation on these small businesses. This is a good bill because it does that. Unfortunately, in 2007 we also saw a commitment by the government of a one in, one out rule when it came to regulation. Sadly, we have not seen that commitment honoured and, at the moment, 220 regulations are being introduced for every one that has been taken out. That is adding to the burden on small business in my electorate and across Australia, which is a shame. But I commend this bill because it is 'one regulation in,' which will help reduce regulation, unlike what small business will be facing, especially when it comes to the carbon tax—and it looks as though we will see the legislation on that this week.
We have 6,028 small businesses in my community which are in the agricultural sector, 358 in the manufacturing sector, 820 in the retail sector and 599 in the transport sector. It is important that we do all we can for these small businesses in reducing the regulation burden. I hope that we will see more bills from the government along these lines, which are actually reducing regulation. It does not seem that we are seeing proper scrutiny of the bills with regard to their regulatory impact. In fact, some of the major bills which have been presented in this parliament are not having a regulatory impact statement conducted on them and I think that is a shame. Since 2007 we have lost over 300,000 jobs in the small business sector. Every regulatory burden that is added will increase the number of job losses in that sector. It makes it so hard for small business to operate if they have a regulatory burden around their neck. We have to do everything we can to ensure that they operate in an environment which encourages them to employ and hire people—whether as casual or full-time employees—and to expand and grow their businesses. What we are currently hearing from small business, especially in my electorate, is that they do not want to expand or grow at the moment because the burdens of doing so are so great.
Hopefully, we will see more action on this, more use of regulatory impact statements and regulations removed from small business. It gives me no joy to mention that, since 2007, over 12,000 regulations have been introduced and only 58 repealed. Sadly, that makes a bit of a mockery of this one in, one out promise.
On our side, our record in government clearly demonstrates that we were committed to growth in the small business sector and committed to easing the regulatory burden when it came to the workplace and to taxation and superannuation. We were committed to reducing regulation for small business. At the last election the coalition committed to reducing the regulatory cost to all businesses by at least $1 billion a year and not changing current laws relating to the treatment of personal services income, which is obviously so crucial to the independent contractors segment.
Practical examples of the coalition reducing the red-tape burden are highlighted by giving small businesses the option to remit the compulsory superannuation payments, made on behalf of workers, directly to the ATO. That is a very good, commonsense approach to helping small businesses reduce the regulatory burden. The coalition also recognised for small business men and women that less paperwork means higher profits, boosted sales and more time with the family. We were also looking at doing other things to help them, especially helping them create more paperless businesses so that they could operate their businesses and get on with what they do well, which is earning income, growing their businesses and employing people. I commend this bill. I think it is a bill which, if implemented correctly, will reduce red tape, allowing us to have a national registration system. It means that small businesses can freely operate, as they grow, between states, and that is a good move. They do not, as they expand, have to go to state-by-state seeking to register their business. So this is a good move. I would like to once again commend the Office of Small Business. This bill started there in 2006. I would also like to commend the people involved with the report in 2006, which suggested that this was a way forward. This is good, commonsense reform for small business. It reduces the regulatory burden. I hope that we will see a lot more of it and I hope, in particular, we will see a lot more of it for the 14,184 businesses in Wannon.
There is no question at the moment that the retail sector is suffering and, if it were not for the strong growth in agriculture at the moment that is propping up the retail sector in many of the smaller towns, we would be facing a more difficult time in my electorate. Manufacturing is also struggling at the moment. We need to see rules and regulations put in place that will support small businesses in those areas. Transport, fortunately with the dairy produce, the grain, and the timber, which is being transported in my electorate at the moment, is doing reasonably well at the moment. But what the transport sector does not need is extra burdens added to it and, sadly, the carbon tax will do that to the transport sector, especially with the impact that it is going to have on fuel when that is implemented in a couple of years time. That is going to have a detrimental impact on the transport sector, many of whom are single operators in my electorate and do a great job. I commend this bill to the House. I thank all those who helped to bring it to this chamber for us to debate. A lot of hard work has got this bill where it is. Those people who played their part deserve to be commended.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): I thank the member for Wannon. He showed great restraint.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:58): As a former small business owner I am absolutely delighted today to be able to support the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and the other associated bills. Over a century ago the colonies that made up this country agreed to join in one federation. There were many reasons for this, but chief amongst them was the need to streamline and make commerce easier between the states and to ensure that businesses from one state were not unduly prevented from trading in another state. It is for this reason that I continue to be amazed that after over a century of Federation we are yet to achieve one national economy and that businesses are discouraged from engaging in trade between the states. In so many ways we continue to operate eight different economies with their own rules and regulations. They are often more at odds with one another than in cohesion with one another.
As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport noted in the Canberra Times earlier this year, it is 110 years since Federation and Australia is now one of the most prosperous and stable nations on earth, yet if we look at the statute books of the states and territories on some issues it is as if federation is as elusive as it was for Henry Parkes. In his speech to the Committee for Economic Development earlier this year that commemorated their 50th birthday, the minister also spoke about the work he is doing trying to harmonise and streamline infrastructure in this country. It is a massive reform program, and he spoke then about the draft national freight strategy that had been out for consultation and also the progress that had been made in the creation of a single national regulator in maritime, heavy vehicle and rail safety.
What struck me in this speech was the fact that he mentioned that there were currently governance arrangements set by 23 regulators with inconsistencies across state borders that create confusion, excessive red tape and productivity losses. The thing that struck me most was the example of the hay bale. He also mentioned in question time just recently the issues that hay bale producers in the country's south-east have to endure because of the quirkiness and the legacies of pre-Federation arrangements. Trucks in Victoria are allowed to carry more bales across their width than they can in New South Wales. How that continues to exist after all this time I do not know. It is 110 years on and we have still got differences in hay bale weights that we can carry across borders. It is absolutely extraordinary.
The reform that we are talking about today, like so many of the reforms that Labor is introducing, is very welcome and very overdue. In a globalised world, with access to modern communications and transportation technologies, the notion that businesses should forsake the opportunity of engaging in business across state lines due to the prohibitive costs of business registration names is truly bizarre. I cannot possibly see why the states and territories would maintain their own different business registration practices. I have been there myself—in the ACT I registered and paid I think $130. I got the registration for five years and I think it is $70 in another state and you get it for three years. It is completely ludicrous, and small businesses do not want a wall full of business registration names just to make them feel important. It is all just work that we do not need to do.
We need to operate as one national economy. I think this issue is a very clear-cut case of the need for the Commonwealth to take some power from the states in order to advance the national interest. If we are to be committed to the free market as a basic driver of economic life and growth, as this government is, then it is a duty incumbent on us to examine critically the obstacles to the operation of a free market that may have arisen historically. Hay bales are one example; business registration names are another. Part of the unfinished business of Federation is the removal of obstacles that make life harder for businesses. It is also our duty to make it less difficult for businesses to enter into commercial life and, most importantly, expand, prosper and become more productive.
As I mentioned, as a former owner of a small business and a sole trader, I know full well that it is hard enough to operate your business and maintain your records without the need to engage in repetitive and redundant regulatory requirements. I believe this represents the very worst of red tape. This is the kind of issue that strikes a chord with me as I believe these regulatory requirements represent the everyday obstacles at a microlevel to the smooth operation of the market. We are talking at the microlevel here, but it is just another barrier to being productive, getting out there and being successful in business—making money and employing people.
This reform, like many other regulatory reforms of this government, represents the hard slog of a good economic reform agenda. It may not be the large-scale reforms that catch our attention but it is nonetheless an essential building block. Therefore, this bill represents a small but important piece of the great mosaic of economic reform in which this government is engaged.
At present, a business operating in every state and territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. This is simply the cost of registering and it does not represent the opportunity costs associated with getting across the various regulatory practices and forms associated with eight different sets of regulation. There are opportunity costs because people quite often forget that, when you are running around town signing up for business registration names, paying your $130 and getting your little business thing framed, time is money in business. Time spent not marketing yourself, not doing administration and not doing your core business—the business that you were set up to do—is wasted time. As I mentioned before, it is unproductive time. It does not enhance in any way the success of the business. It is just dead time, and it impacts on the nation's productivity.
This is a massive cost and represents a deterrent to businesses that may wish to expand to other states. If you have to fly down to Melbourne or send down to Melbourne, pay your money and go in and fill out the form there, it is just a complete nonsense. It is a deterrent to expansion, a drag on productivity, a drag on the future growth of business and a drag on the prosperity of the economy.
This kind of regulatory burden is one of the reasons that it has long been part of this government's reform agenda to take a look at the regulations that exist and, where necessary and appropriate, reduce or eliminate them. A big part of this reform agenda has been to work with the states and territories on realising the idea of Federation and to have one national economy. This cooperative approach, led by COAG, will drive this economy forward into the future and ensure Australian businesses can maximise their commercial opportunities, increase their productivity and not be weighed down by redundant and repetitive regulatory frameworks.
The legislation before us today is another part of this cooperative reform agenda. It was agreed by COAG in July 2008 that all states and territories and the Commonwealth would work towards one national scheme for the registration of business names. Finally, we have got it. In July 2009, COAG signed an intergovernmental agreement, and the states agreed to refer their powers on business names registration to the Commonwealth. This legislation is the culmination of that agreement and will develop a seamless national business name registration system that will include online registration for business names and Australian business numbers, to be operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
This change will mean that, instead of the thousands of dollars currently charged to business for operating nationwide, they will now be required to pay just one fee, in the order of $70, for a three-year registration of their name. It is a significant saving, both in the direct cost of registration and in the time and opportunity costs required by the current fragmented state based system. As I mentioned, time is money in business, and running around doing this sort of thing is dead time. This change is not only going to make it easier for businesses but it will make it easier for consumers to quickly and accurately identify the entity behind the business name. It is proposed that, with continued cooperation, this new system will be in place by May next year.
This kind of legislation may not appear on its surface to be of great importance to the affairs of the nation, but for a small business owner it is very important. Certainly it does not attract the media or the public spotlight, but I can assure this House that it is very important for that great engine of the economy that is small businesses and microbusinesses. By ensuring that these everyday mundane tasks are made easier and cheaper, we can ensure that business is not held back by the burden of unnecessary regulatory duplication and can maximise its outputs, improve its productivity and improve the economy as a result.
I strongly support the measures in this legislation and encourage the government to continue its great reforms in making sure that the vision of one national economic framework dreamt about so long ago at Federation is finally made possible.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (17:09): I rise to speak on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011. The coalition supports this legislative change. Why do we support it? Because the coalition identified, during 2006, that the burden of having to register a business in each of the states that its operations go through was red tape that was just not required. Stakeholder consultations were undertaken between September and October 2006 under the coalition government, market testing was completed in October 2006 and a discussion paper was released to accompany consultations with industry associations between September and October 2007. On 3 July 2008, COAG agreed to develop a single national system for registering and regulating businesses. This has been identified as one of 27 regulatory reforms that form part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy.
The second issue is not just having to register businesses in each state but, as other colleagues in this House have raised, the cost and the differences of costs in each state. What is proposed is a three-year national registration fee of $70 or a renewal fee of $70. But if you were to register your business in the ACT it would be $151; in New South Wales it would be another $160; in Victoria, another $85.50; in Queensland, $255.60; in South Australia, $159; in Tasmania, $140; in the Northern Territory, $66; and in Western Australia, $90. When it comes to renew, as I said, the national fee would be $70. But, under the current regime, to renew it would be $127 in the ACT; $115 in New South Wales; $60.10 in Victoria; $206.85 in Queensland; $128 in South Australia; $140 in Tasmania; $56 in the Northern Territory; and $75 in Western Australia.
Today more and more businesses are conducting business events across borders, particularly with the advent of internet and e-trading. It is important that business owners have their business registered and have an ABN. There is a requirement to publish your ABN on a variety of documents, and that will not change. In fact, it will need to be included on certain documents lodged with ASIC, on a statement of account including invoices, on receipts, on an order for goods or services, on a cheque, on a promissory note or bill of exchange, or on an offer to provide goods or services rather than an invitation to treat. I see this, and the coalition sees this, as a plus for business, particularly small business.
In my shadow portfolio of tourism and regional development, but primarily tourism, the number of people in small business, medium business and large business is high. A microbusiness employs one to four people; a small business employs five to 19 people; a medium business employs 20 to 199 people and a large business employs 200 or more people. In June 2007, in the statistics from the ABS, in the microbusiness category there were 26,788 businesses, in the small category there were 20,358 businesses; in medium there were 8,973, and in large there were 522—a total of 56,631. There were additional businesses called non-employing businesses, of which there were 61,398—a total of 118,029 businesses. Those are total tourism characteristics. The numbers amplify when we start to look at those that are tourism connected, tourism related and even non tourism related. When you get the mixture of total tourism related and non tourism related industries, there are a total of 2,011,902 businesses. So the cost savings will be massive. It has been put that the national Australian Business Licence Information Service and the Australian business account will provide benefits of some $1.5 billion over eight years to business, governments and consumers.
Quite regularly I am contacted in my office by constituents who are trying to identify a business. Given the advent of things such as the pink batts and other various schemes, a lot of contractors move from state to state to pick up opportunities that are there. If those consumers have issues and they try to track the person to identify who the operators were, if there is no ABN or the ABN is registered in another state but not clearly identified, it makes it somewhat harder for those people to seek recovery action. The coalition support this legislation because we believe in reducing the red tape burden upon business in general but, in particular, on small business. As I said, the tourism industry has a large number of small businesses and the costs and impacts are massive. To have to stump up around a thousand dollars over three years is quite a considerable cost impact on those businesses.
There is an issue that will arise. For example, if John's Diving Services is registered in New South Wales and there is a John's Diving Services registered in Victoria and another one in Queensland, whilst all three may have a different ABN, how will people be able to identify him? One of the things put forward by ASIC is that they will insert a distinguishing mark or expression on the register, and the identifiers may be John's Diving Services, Port Stephens; John's Diving Services, Hervey Bay; or John's Diving Services, Port Melbourne. There is no restriction on someone registering a business name which is their own name. If we are looking at John Smith, plumber, I can imagine how many John Smiths are actually plumbers and who are trading by that name. So I think this is a positive move. I am glad that the states have agreed to forgo a level of revenue which would be quite substantial to their bottom line. But, as I say, when we look at reducing the red tape and the regulatory burden on business, it will have a positive effect.
I say to the government that there are also a number of other regulatory burdens placed upon small businesses that need to be addressed urgently. Small business is suffering very much. It is incumbent on a government that declares that it supports workers, for workers can only ever be employed by employers, to take a positive and proactive step to address further regulatory concerns held by business, and it needs to do it as a matter of urgency. Given that the coalition support the bill, there is not much point in taking up more time in the debate, but I did want to highlight the number of people who are involved in small business, in particular those who are involved in the tourism industry. We support the legislation.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (17:17): I agree with some of the things that the member for Paterson had to say, particularly on the burden of regulation on small business. I know, when we first came to government in 2007, one of the matters we considered quite urgent, and are working on quite hard currently, was a national, seamless economy that would start to take away some of the duplication of regulation across the states. In this bill, we are dealing with something that should be simple, the registration of a business name, and which currently takes place across each state separately. It is not an easy thing if you are a business that works across all the states; but it applies equally to the registration of medical practitioners, workers compensation, the curriculum in our schools—you name it. The history of Australia, with six states and a Commonwealth government without full constitutional capacity to regulate in those areas, has created a whole range of areas where people do more work than they need to because of the structures that we have.
This package of three bills, the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011, creates a national business names registration system—in 2011, after more than 100 years. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that businesses not operating under their own entity can register their business names and details on a national register so that those who wish to engage with them can identify the entities behind the business names as well as their contact details. The national registration scheme will also remove the inconvenience experienced and compliance costs incurred in the current situation, where business names are registered across the various states and territories, each with its own business names registration scheme. Currently, each state and territory operates its own business names scheme. The creation of a national register removes the inconvenience and compliance cost caused by the registration across the various states. At present, for example, a business operating in every state and territory faces the cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. That is just the financial cost; it does not include the cost of the effort, keeping track and remembering to renew every three years. Under the national registration scheme, businesses will only pay one fee, which will be in the order of $70, to register for three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.
This reform proposal is one of 27 regulatory reforms forming part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. When combined with a number of other related initiatives such as the national Australian Business Licence and Information Service and the Australian business account, it is estimated to provide benefits of $1.5 billion over eight years to business, government and consumers and will go a long way to removing a lot of regulatory burden, which the member for Paterson was talking about earlier.
The Seamless Economy reforms will make it easier for Australian businesses to operate with a range of national or regulatory frameworks in diverse areas such as consumer credit, consumer policy, trustee corporations regulation, trade measurement and health workforce registration. These reforms will make a real difference for business. For example, in the standard business reporting which commenced on 1 July 2010, instead of filling in a range of forms through multiple online and paper based state, territory and Commonwealth systems, businesses are now able to quickly and efficiently electronically prepare and lodge business information using a single system.
There have been reforms to occupational health and safety laws which will make it easier for businesses and workers operating across state borders to comply with work, health and safety requirements, as these requirements will be the same regardless of how many states and territories they operate in. This reform is expected to return around $180 million to business each year.
The national trade-licensing system will enable tradespeople to obtain a single licence which will enable them to practise their trade in any Australian state or territory. This will enhance labour mobility and boost productivity by making it easier for tradespeople to work in other jurisdictions and for employers to hire interstate staff to address local skill shortages.
Consumer policy and product safety reforms which commenced on 1 January 2011 are providing improved protections for consumers and reducing costs to business. The ACL replaces at least 20 different and overlapping Commonwealth, state and territory laws and is estimated to benefit the Australian economy by $1.5 billion to $4.5 billion in each year.
The health professionals reform commenced on 1 July 2010. Health professionals including nurses, midwives, medical practitioners and dentists now need only to obtain a single registration to work anywhere in Australia. This reform has cut red tape for health professionals and businesses that employ them and will reduce costs and contribute to the development of a mobile and responsive health workforce.
Consumer credit reform, of which phase 1 is now operational, established a national regulatory framework for consumer protection regulation for mortgage broking, margin lending and non-deposit-taking institutions on 1 July last year.
From next year, a national construction code that consolidates building and plumbing regulations will be in place. The code is expected to cut costs for the building and construction sector, as they will no longer have to deal with different requirements in different building and plumbing jurisdictions. This reform is estimated to deliver benefits to the industry of at least $460 million each year.
So this reform on business names registration is in very good company when it comes to building a national seamless economy. The total package will, along with subordinate legislation, create a national business names registration system. Existing businesses will not need to do anything when the new national business names service commences. Their existing state and territory business name registrations will automatically be transferred into the new national business name register. Where there are identical business names currently registered in different jurisdictions—and no doubt that is the case—the proposed arrangements under the legislation will not require existing businesses to spend money on reissuing stationery or replacing signage. These businesses will be able to keep their existing business name; however, a distinguishing mark will be placed on the business name register allowing specific businesses operating in different jurisdictions to be identified.
The Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011 defines the term 'chargeable matters' in the context of the registration of business names and imposes a fee for chargeable matters related to the registration or renewal of a business name as part of the national business names registration system. At present the cost of registering a business name differs between the states and territories. A business may also be required to register a business name in two or more states depending on the number of states that the business operates in. The Business Names Registration Bill and its cognate bills, through a national system, will make it no longer necessary to register a business name in each state and territory. I commend the bill to the House. It is a very important part of our move towards a national seamless economy and it will make significant reductions in the regulation of small businesses around the country.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (17:26): I am pleased to speak on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 along with the associated bills before us today. The core bill aims to establish a national business names registration system for both ABNs and business names and thereby simplify the registration process for businesses and provide clarity for customers dealing with those businesses. As it stands, the states and territories operate their own business name registration regimes and these proposed changes mean that businesses which operate across Australia will have to register with only one authority, not separate authorities in each of the eight jurisdictions.
These reforms were first started under the former coalition government, which saw a clear need for regulatory change and for red-tape reduction in the area of business name registration. Throughout 2006 and 2007, background work was done on improving the regime, including stakeholder consultation and the production of a discussion paper for industry associations. It was not until mid-2008 that COAG agreed to develop a single national system for registration and regulation of business names. It is to be hoped that these new measures will reduce compliance costs for businesses and provide certainty as to the identify of proprietors. I will have a bit to say about that later because I think the Business Names Registration Bill is deficient in one field. This is not the coalition's view I might add; this is my personal view and I will outline that in a minute.
Clearly, there has been a need to bring all of this into line. A quick study of different fees and regulations associated with registering a business name in different states gives you a strange and unbalanced outlook. Currently, to register a business name for three years can vary from $66, in the Northern Territory, to more than $255, in Queensland. I might add that no other state or territory comes anywhere near Queensland in terms of slugging entrepreneurs looking to establish a business. The closest cost is that of New South Wales, $160. So that is $160 as against $255.
Similarly, the cost of renewing business registration varies widely across Australia. Again Queensland's stands out as the most expensive. For a business which has a presence in a number of states and territories, the costs can mount up very quickly in some cases to more than a thousand dollars over the first three years. When reregistration comes along a similar effect applies. As other speakers have said, it is anticipated that the introduction of a national scheme will bring the cost of original registrations and renewals down to $70, an enormous saving with, hopefully, enormous simplicity in all jurisdictions. So that is one benefit expected from the legislation. One of the other stated goals of the legislation is to drive productivity. But there is one aspect that I hope the minister is mindful of, which is the added complexity that inevitably arises when trying to streamline state and Commonwealth regulations. The last thing business needs at this time is to have an operating environment which is unnecessarily bureaucratic and overly complicated, which is what we have seen with the establishment of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.
I would like to do a brief parallel with this organisation. The ideals behind the registration of AHPRA were fair enough, in fact they were quite sound. Yet in practice the actual operation of the agency has not been covered in glory, as I am sure members who have been fighting red tape with doctors will readily attest. I think most members would be aware of the difficulties health practitioners faced when dealing with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in trying to have themselves reregistered as health practitioners. I personally had GPs contact me absolutely frustrated by the delays, lack of response and lack of communication that they experienced when dealing with AHPRA. It is a scenario which needs to be remedied as quickly as possible. This is a scenario that I do not want to see repeated in some failed effort to streamline and simplify name registrations. I hope the minister will take note of that.
I also question whether the bills go far enough in ruling out an anomaly I referred earlier that we have at present whereby registering a business name does not prevent someone using the name for their own internet enterprise. I cite one example from Bundaberg last year where a florist business contacted my office to find out what their legal rights were in terms of an internet domain name. At that stage the business had a generic type name and its website address finished with .com.au as many of them do. But when people googled the generic name searching for the florist the first web link that appeared contained the generic name and concluded with .net.au—the point being that the domain name was the interloper. This is where it gets a bit unusual. When you clicked on the web link it directed the customers to a separate website which was operated by a business with a totally different name. In other words by using a phony domain name they were able to throw customers through the internet from a legitimate business that had been operating in the town for many years over to another business.
I took this matter up with the Queensland Office of Fair Trading to find out what rights the business owners had in terms of protecting their name and their online presence. To my surprise I was informed that because the name consisted of descriptive words the business operator did not 'have the right to appropriate to themselves the sole rights of use of the descriptive terms,' despite the fact that they had been operating as that business and that the domain name had not existed previously. My attention was drawn to a legal case in the Federal Court of Australia in which the following was stated:
So long as descriptive words are used by two traders as part of their respective trade names, it is possible that some members of the public will be confused whatever the differentiating words may be. The risk of confusion must be accepted, to do otherwise is to give to one who appropriates to himself descriptive words an unfair monopoly in those words and might even deter others from pursuing the occupation which the words describe.
I understand the reasoning behind that but you could have got to a better conclusion by having a look at how long the original business, the registered name business, had been there and when someone had appropriated the domain name. I have not used the actual names in this speech. To be fair to both the parties involved I do not want to drag it into the parliament as a dogfight, but to me it is a matter of ethics and I would recommend to the minister that they have another look at this.
To emphasise how this, taken to its ridiculous ends, might be used, bearing in mind you will know I come from Bundaberg, what say I bought a still—I was not much good at home-brewed beer but let us say I bought a still, as some people do, and decided to make spirits. I duly applied to the Commonwealth for a spirits licence and said I had paid the appropriate charges. Then I decided to call myself Bundaberg Rum. Do you think we would approve of that? Of course we would not, and I would have no right to that name. So I think sometimes just because the name is descriptive, if it has been used for many years by one firm as a registered name it should be protected from a domain interloper.
If we are establishing a database of names, we need to iron out anomalies like this whereby people can exploit an internet domain address to, in some cases, garner trade from a long-established and well-known enterprise. As people order more goods and services in the online regime as it expands, and we all know it is a growing commercial trend—retailers are complaining like crazy about it—and people buy through the internet, the regime needs to have provision to prevent what amounts to stealing of a company's identity through parallel internet online presence. If you have registered a domain name and you have established that and then someone under this legislation wants to garner your domain name by naming a business in the same name, that is specifically prevented in the legislation. I think that is fair enough. What I cannot understand is that when the case is reversed and the interloper is the identity establishing the domain name to garner the identity of the registered name, the legislation is silent.
Some say that may have implications to go into another ministry and some subordinate legislation in another department. I think that is quite weak. If you are going to have one which will apply in one way across the board it should apply back the other way. The fact that the web link of the interloper's garnered domain name often takes you to a website of a business of a completely different name indicates the intention to mislead. In a case I know of in Bundaberg, the business has a name—if you like, Bread Bakery—and someone goes and registers the domain name Bread Bakery to try to get Bread Bakery's business. But when you go to the domain name of Bread Bakery it flicks to Brown's Scones and Baked Products. In other words, the device is put in there purely to mislead the customer and take that customer to a separate site. I do not know if it is too late for amendments to this legislation but I think it is a gaping, cavernous hole in what is otherwise very good legislation.
The member for Parramatta was describing how it will be possible to use the same name in several states if the names are well established over a period of time and that the registration authority will have a distinguishing mark put in those names so that there is no confusion. If you can go to that much trouble to establish this new legislation, then it seems to me it would not have been a country mile further to go—in fact, it would have been only a few yards further to go—to clear up this abuse of domain names. Yes, you have cleared it up going one way: you have protected people with a domain name from having their business stolen by someone just adopting that name for their business. But you did not do the reverse procedure.
I support the legislation. The bill has a lot of potential. I understand the intentions behind it. But I think a lot of vigilance will be required as we implement the legislation, for two reasons, as I said: firstly, to make sure we escape bureaucracy as it is introduced; and, secondly, to try to close up some of these loopholes further down the track.
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Deputy Speaker) (17:40): I think most of us would appreciate that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy and that a very large proportion of the employment in this country is generated by small business. That is why the best way to create more employment is to enable small businesses to operate efficiently, to grow and to focus on what small business does well—that is, operating small businesses rather than constantly filling out forms and dealing with red tape and bureaucracy.
I am pleased to be able to join in the debate on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and cognate bills currently before the House. These bills aim to ensure that the entities behind businesses can be identified, that the inconvenience and compliance cost of multiple registrations is avoided and that names that are undesirable, offensive or misleading are not registered. The bills will provide for easier and lower-cost registration of business names, which will encourage businesses to operate across borders and from state to state. I think it is important to recognise that, while we have a number of jurisdictions, we are one country and, when it is possible to achieve, we should aim for a national, cooperative approach. In this situation, instead of having to pay a separate business name registration fee for each state in which a business operates—which can cost up to $1,000 in combined registration fees for business—this bill enables just one registration on a national basis. It will bring the cost down to around $70 for a three-year registration. It is a massive change that will make things easier for all small businesses, as well as for large businesses, in terms of paperwork. It also means it will be a lot cheaper for the business entity to actually get on and do business and create jobs—which is, of course, to the benefit of the Australian economy.
The bill allows for the creation of a new national business names register to be operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—that is, ASIC. This new register will come with various guidelines to ensure that it is fair for all businesses.
The streamlining of the business name registration system is a helpful initiative and an important development, but it is vital that support for small business generally be maintained and be lifted to make sure that small business is able to power ahead and create jobs. Unfortunately, since the current government came to office, some 300,000 jobs have dissolved from the small business sector. This is regrettable. It has a flow-on effect to other parts of the community as the combined spending power of those workers is diminished. We cannot allow this important employment sector to be left to flounder, because of the implications for families and communities across the nation.
Recently, I was pleased to welcome the shadow minister for small business, the honourable member for Dunkley, to the Sunshine Coast. When he spoke to small business operators, he spoke from his own personal experience as a business owner with his wife and he was clearly determined to do all that he could to make things better for small-business owners across Australia. Digressing for a moment, his visit to the Sunshine Coast was much valued and worthwhile. It was a jam-packed itinerary. We were able to have a small business forum. He was able to do a business breakfast at Maleny. He was able to listen to various concerns from small business operators as well as to share ideas on how to make things better for this employment sector. He then visited Maleny Dairies, where we sampled some of the delightful gluten-free custard and yoghurts. Ross Hopper and David McKinney have developed a unique and special system of securing milk from local dairy farmers. They are able to pay them significantly more than the major contractors for their milk, securing the deals all with an old-fashioned handshake.
We also visited Maleny Cheese and then went on to Pipeline Surf Company at the Stockland shopping centre in Caloundra. We spoke about problems facing small business. The items such as those included in the legislation before the chamber today will make it so much easier for small business operators to operate in a cost-effective manner. I applaud the measures that are included in this bill.
We also visited Fink Engineering at Warana. They have been quietly doing their thing for some time, building and exporting hyperbaric treatment chambers. The latest one they have is nearing completion and due to be shipped to Montana in the United States of America. Interestingly, as an aside, the firm also built the largest hyperbaric chamber in the world, at 85 tonnes, which is now located at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney. These chambers are built like high-tech hospital rooms with the capability to be pressurised to assist with a wide range of medical conditions from diabetes. The treatments can range from helping to improve circulation and revitalise dying tissue, often negating the need for amputation, through to treating whitetail spider bites. The chambers and the medical research have come a long way from the small cylindrical and uncomfortable chambers that treat only bends and sports injuries.
We also visited Advanced Aquarium Technologies. This is a revolutionary and awe-inspiring business that builds massive aquaria all around the world. The tour of their warehouse was quite daunting, as we were shown massive slabs of clear acrylic sheets and towering moulds. They have built world class aquaria in countries right around the world. The small business shadow minister also visited an IGA and spoke about the retail sector.
The bills currently before the House are important. They are incremental bills. They are bills that indicate that as a country we are operating more as an entity than as eight or nine jurisdictions. They indicate that as a community we are prepared to make it easier for business to operate in a cost-effective way. I am particularly pleased to see that there has been cooperation around the country in the introduction of these bills, which will improve outcomes for small business, which will encourage employment in this important sector and which, of course, will be to the long-term benefit of the Australian economy.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (17:48): I would like to thank all members for their contributions to this debate on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011. Australia is one economy, one market. Therefore, it is only appropriate that it should have regulatory frameworks that minimise fragmented and inconsistent regulation that makes it harder to do business across state and territory borders and adds to the compliance burden of business.
That is the purpose of the Council of Australian Governments' Seamless National Economy agenda, of which a national business names registration system is one of the key regulatory reforms. That is why this government is working with the states and territories to drive the Seamless National Economy agenda to ensure that we complete the transformation of Australia's regulatory landscape and bring it into the 21st century. Ultimately, such reform will lift productivity, keep our economy strong and create jobs.
The business names registration legislation package sets up a new national business names register to be operated by ASIC. Any entity carrying on a business in Australia using a name other than its own will be required to register with ASIC. The register will enable any party, be they a consumer or another business, to ascertain who the entity is behind a business name and provide them with the means to contact that entity. Under the new system, businesses will only need to complete a single online application and pay a single fee to register a business name nationally. This will mean for most businesses reduced registration costs and a simpler process, especially for businesses that trade in more than one state or territory. At present, a business operating and registering in every state and territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. Under the national registration system, businesses will pay only one fee, which will be in the order of $70 to register for the three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.
In most cases businesses that trade in just one state or territory will also benefit from this lower fee. For example, in my state of New South Wales, the three-year business name registration fee is $160 for new registrations and $115 for renewing registration. In Queensland, a three-year business name registration fee is $255.60 for new registrations and $206.85 for renewing registration. Given these cost savings for business, it is not surprising that the national business names registration system combined with a number of other related initiatives, such as the National Australian Business Licence and Information Service and the Australian Business Account, is estimated to provide benefits of $1.5 billion over eight years to business, government and consumers.
The Commonwealth has no power to regulate for business name registrations in Australia. Therefore, the establishment of a national business names registration system and the legislation which underpins it relies on a referral of constitutional powers from the states to the Commonwealth. The states therefore must enact referral legislation to give effect to the national registration system. States have agreed to pass referral legislation by March 2012 to enable data transfer to the national register to commence so that the system can be operational from the end of May 2012. Currently, referral legislation is before the parliaments of Tasmania and Queensland, with other states to progress their referral legislation in the coming months. I would like to express the government's appreciation for the hard work of all the Commonwealth, state and territory officials involved with the development of a national business names registration system. I would also like to thank all stakeholders who participated in the extensive consultation process involved in developing this legislation.
In closing, a national business names registration system is a long overdue reform. It is a sensible and practical reform which will deliver considerable benefits. Perhaps it can best be summarised by using the words of a small business organisation itself, in this case Independent Contractors Australia. I believe this quote was used by the member for Blair in his contribution to the debate a little earlier. In an email sent to their members after the introduction of this legislation in the Australian parliament, this is how they described a national business names registration system:
This is what red tape-cutting is about. It’s the boring and tedious side of government, but it’s this sort of commonsense reform that makes for better business.
And they are right. This is the sort of commonsense reform that makes for better business, and it is commonsense reform from this government, which is delivering. It is reflective of our firm commitment to supporting businesses and in particular small businesses.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr RIPOLL: I move:
That order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:56): I welcome the tabling of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into Australia’s trade and investment relations with Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. I thank the committee members, particularly my colleagues from our side—the committee's deputy chair, Joanna Gash, and trade subcommittee deputy chair, Bruce Scott—for what is an interesting report. Most of the report is unsurprising, and there are a number of recommendations of particular interest that the coalition will have no problem supporting. For example, I support recommendation 1 which states that we should:
Work towards the admission of India to membership of APEC as soon as possible.
The coalition also subscribes to recommendation 3:
That Australia continues to set an example to other APEC member economies by: (i) maintaining its momentum towards trade liberalisation; and (ii) encouraging the APEC membership to push strongly for a positive and forward-looking outcome in the Doha Round.
However, I do make the point that we should avoid putting all our eggs in the Doha basket.
I note recommendation 6:
That Australia should strongly encourage the complete acceptance of the APEC Business Travel Card by the remaining members of APEC; and also explore the possibility of establishing a similar arrangement with other trading partners, e.g. non-APEC economies in Latin America, the EU and India.
Recent changes to the eligibility requirements for the APEC business card have adversely affected hundreds if not thousands of smaller businesses in Australia. The government has dallied on this matter. I understand that the relevant minister has been sitting for weeks on a departmental report designed to ease the red tape burdens.
Recommendations 9 to 13 relate specifically to trade with Latin America.
Recommendation 15 states that:
The Sub-Committee expressed its satisfaction that AusAID has given some emphasis to gender issues in negotiations with the Pacific Islands Forum countries. It proposes that these issues should continue to be advanced by DFAT and AusAID as a priority.
I certainly welcome that recommendation.
So, while not formally expressing the coalition view, I do believe that all these recommendations should be given serious consideration. As one of the leading trading nations in the world, Australia's prosperity depends on open and transparent international markets. Our national livelihood is reliant on international trade and the jobs and economic growth it creates. It is estimated that one in seven jobs in Australia is directly linked to exports, while one in 10 is dependent on delivery of imports.
The highest trade policy priority for the coalition remains the World Trade Organisation Doha development round and this has been a bipartisan position. With its global framework of agreed trade rules, the WTO remains crucial in preserving the openness of markets around the world and delivering further trade liberalisation. However, despite Australia's support for the Doha round, we acknowledge that progress has been unacceptably slow and there is increasing pessimism about the prospects of a successful conclusion to the Doha round. This slow progress in the major multilateral forum has led to increased focus around the world on regional and bilateral free-trade agreements. The coalition has a proud tradition of negotiating free-trade agreements. In many instances, regional and bilateral free-trade agreements offer the prospect of quicker and more extensive gains in the trading relationship between individual countries or groups of countries than can be achieved through the WTO. However, it is important to ensure that all free trade agreements are comprehensive, ambitious and WTO-plus. The proliferation of free trade agreements around the world means that to secure and protect Australia's competitiveness in our key export markets, Australia must be prepared to be bold in negotiating free trade agreements.
Despite the success of the coalition's trade policy when in government and the benefits derived from securing a number of agreements, including with the United States, Singapore and Thailand, virtually no progress has been made since Labor came to office in 2007. Specifically, this Labor government has made little progress in ongoing negotiations or ongoing discussions after feasibility studies were completed with China, South Korea, Malaysia, Japan, India or Indonesia and also, I point out, the Gulf Cooperation Council. I remind members that all these discussions started before the Howard government left office in 2007.
The final chapter in this report on the inquiry is about the government's trade policy statement released in April this year. Whilst the statement makes some worthwhile observations, there are some disturbing signs emanating from government ranks. The government's current trade policy has actually exposed deep divisions within Labor. For example, during an interview on the day the policy was announced earlier this year, Labor senator Doug Cameron labelled the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement a 'lemon' and a 'bad deal'. Senator Cameron was openly contradicting the Prime Minister, who had praised the tremendous benefits the agreement had brought to Australia during her visit to Washington DC just prior to his comments.
Senator Cameron has form with his anti-free trade agenda. When working as national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Senator Cameron led a union campaign against Labor members who supported the free trade agreement with the United States. According to media reports in 2004, Senator Cameron wanted the union to withdraw financial support to Labor MPs who voted for the agreement stating:
I don't think we should be rewarding stupidity and cowardice.
Given that the current Labor Prime Minister was one of only 15 Labor members of parliament who voted with the Howard government in support of the agreement, I can only assume that Senator Cameron still holds that view. It is important to remember that such was the pressure from the union movement that 41 Labor members of parliament walked out of the House of Representatives to avoid having to vote on the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.
Senator Cameron's views, along with a number of other Labor MPs, tie in closely with the extremist position of Labor's formal alliance partner, the Greens, which openly advocates the abolition of the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as well as the removal of Australia from existing free trade agreements.
The internal division within Labor was also on display with strategic leaks from the Gillard cabinet when Treasurer Wayne Swan apparently warned against the unilateral trade liberalisation proposed in the government's trade policy statement. It is an interesting position for an Australian Treasurer to take but clearly the story was leaked to indicate to a certain Queensland union that the Treasurer was not really a supporter of free trade—there was a protectionist heart beating within.
It is also illuminating that under the Labor government resources for trade negotiation have been cut back. In 2007, there were cuts to the number of staff working on Australia's free trade negotiations with China. This would contradict the government's claims that a high-quality free trade agreement with China is a key government priority. The failure by the government to progress free-trade agreements has meant the loss of real export dollars. One case in point is the adverse impact on the rock lobster industry caused by the failure of concluding a China free trade agreement while our competitors in New Zealand concluded an agreement with China in 2008.
Economic modelling contained in the various joint government feasibility studies suggests that billions of dollars in benefits may flow to the Australian economy from the successful negotiation of comprehensive free
trade agreements. For example, it is estimated that Australia would achieve a US$18 billion increase in GDP over 10 years from a free trade agreement deal with China. While there can be a valid debate about the accuracy of the economic modelling, it is an indicator of the benefits that may flow. The Australian government should devote proper resources to free trade agreements, including fast-tracking current negotiations. Australia should fully engage with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations and explore the feasibility of an agreement on services with the European Union. There is also a need for the government to work harder to complete negotiations launched by the Pacific Islands Forum for a regional trade and economic agreement, known as PACER Plus. It was disturbing to note that not one mention was made of PACER Plus, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, in the government's trade policy statement. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia's primary motivation in supporting PACER Plus is to help the forum island countries promote their own economic growth. In 2009, the then Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, described the agreement as an 'important commitment to the future prosperity of our immediate region'. The government must explain why it no longer considers PACER Plus as crucial to regional prosperity.
PACER Plus presents a unique opportunity for Australia and Pacific island countries to look beyond development assistance and cement closer economic relationships that will promote economic growth and open up new employment opportunities. The Pacific region is of key strategic and economic importance to Australia, and Labor must ensure there is no doubt in the minds of Pacific island governments that the region remains a very high priority for our national government.
In the absence of gains through the WTO, bilateral and regional free trade agreements can have a positive effect on the multilateral system and act as building blocks for global trade liberalisation and reform. I commend this report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Infrastructure and Communications Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (18:06): I am pleased to speak on the recent report of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications concerning the role and potential of the National Broadband Network, a report which rejoiced under the title Broadening the debate but which could have been better entitled Sticking to the line, because that is what government members sought to do in the conduct of this inquiry. When you consider the matter, it is a remarkable proposition that an inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network should have commenced in late 2010, after the government announced its decision in April 2009, over 18 months earlier, to spend $43 billion on a national fibre-to-the-home network. It is really quite remarkable that so little detailed work had been done in advance of that April 2009 decision and that it took until the end of 2010 for the government to think it was worth while to establish an inquiry into the things that might actually be done over this $43 billion network.
One of the very clear conclusions that emerged from this inquiry is that very little work had been done by the major departments of government in advance of that decision being taken in April 2009—a decision that represented a complete reversal of the Labor government's previous broadband policy, which, as members would no doubt recollect, was to spend not $43 billion but $4.7 billion and to have not a fibre-to-the-premises network but a fibre-to-the-node network. I was therefore interested to ask witnesses from a number of departments about the nature of the advice they must surely have given this government in the first part of 2009 in advance of that dramatic change in policy. Remarkably, very few of them were able to provide any compelling evidence that they had even been consulted, let alone given detailed and compelling evidence. It was interesting to note that the Australasian Telehealth Society gave evidence that they had not been consulted at all in advance of that decision, although we are repeatedly told that telemedicine is a justification for the National Broadband Network.
This report was the wrong kind of inquiry at the wrong time. It was a highly political exercise designed to generate a feelgood report offering support for the rollout of the National Broadband Network. As I have already indicated, it occurred after the decision to spend the money rather than before, and it was not structured to be an effective analytical exercise. It should have been structured as a cost-benefit analysis. Instead, it was merely a shopping list of benefits without any consideration of cost.
It is certainly the case that there were a number of extremely interesting and impressive examples of the way in which broadband can deliver benefits in health, in education and in other sectors. But this has never been in dispute. What is in dispute is the right way to secure those benefits—what kind of networks are required to deliver them and who should own and operate them? One of the standout conclusions from this inquiry, which went around the country and heard from a significant number of witnesses, is that there were very few persuasive examples given of applications which actually require the speeds that the National Broadband Network is being engineered to deliver. If 100 megabits per second is something that is of such vital importance that we should spend $43 billion—or, in reality, a number which now looks likely to exceed $50 billion—then what is to be delivered that requires these speeds as opposed to, for example, five megabits per second or 10 megabits per second or 15 megabits per second?
What is remarkable is that the examples that were repeatedly given did not require NBN type speeds. At paragraph 3.53 of the majority report there is a discussion of the remote home monitoring application, developed by Intel and GE Care and used in the Hunter nursing trial last year. This is an impressive application. It is a very sensible use of broadband—to put remote monitoring devices in patient's homes so that rather than requiring a visit from the nurse every day instead the patient's condition can be monitored remotely. There is no dispute that that is a sensible thing to do. What is in dispute is whether you need 100 megabits per second to deliver that application. In fact, what we were told, is that you need 512 kilobits per second, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you, I am sure, would not need my assistance to do the maths. That is 1/200th of the speed that the NBN is going to deliver.
At paragraph 5.28 of the majority report there is a discussion of smart grids—that is to say, electricity distribution networks which contain smart meters at the customer end which feedback data about electricity usage in real time. Again, it is a very sensible application. There is no dispute about that. But is there any discussion at all of the fact that smart meters in fact use quite limited bandwidth? There is only the most cursory discussion with language buried deep in paragraph 5.28: 'Individual smart meters do not require high bandwidth in themselves.' That is absolutely right, they do not, so why are they being rolled out as a justification for building a 100 megabit per second network using taxpayers' money?
I could cite—indeed, I will cite—the discussion of agricultural sensors at paragraph 5.35 and following in the majority report, which fails to disclose that the data requirements for such sensors are quite low, as the witness, Mr Robert Walker of AgForce agreed readily when he was asked, 'Isn't it the case that the bandwidth requirements for agricultural sensing is quite low?' 'Indeed, it is.'
After all this exercise what we have found is, unsurprisingly, there are many good things that broadband can do. That is not in dispute. But there was very little persuasive evidence given of the applications that in fact require 100 megabits per second or anything like it at this point. What was also extremely troubling was that the central premise of the National Broadband Network policy that there is overwhelming and immediate demand for fibre to the home is clearly wrong. It is evident from the poor early take-up, from the relatively poor response to the inquiry, from the relatively limited number of submissions and from extensive evidence that we received that many stakeholders are not that interested or engaged.
Again, let us be clear: there is no dispute on this side of the parliament that upgrading Australia's broadband infrastructure is a worthwhile thing to do. But what we have not seen is the evidence that this enormously expensive network configuration, involving 100 megabits per second fibre direct to the home to some 10 million premises, can be justified, as opposed to the many available options which would be substantially less expensive.
On a related point, we heard a lot of evidence about the value which may be achieved from connecting, for example, all schools, all hospitals, all libraries or all clinics. But I merely make the point that there are only 10,000 schools in Australia; there are fewer hospitals. The numbers involved to connect selected categories of institutions, as opposed to this government's enormously expensive policy of connecting 10 million premises, would be fewer and very much more cost effective.
The final point I wish to highlight to the parliament in the brief time available to me is that we were, again, struck by some of the very nasty side effects of this government's National Broadband Network policy through the establishment of a government owned monopoly. This policy will suppress competition and hand enormous power to the management team of the National Broadband Network Company, and that is not in anybody's interest.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (18:16): I appreciate the opportunity to make a more extensive contribution to the debate than that which I was able to do in presenting the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communication entitled Broadening the debate: inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network . I acknowledge the member for Bradfield's contribution, addressing the dissenting report. Personally, I think it is a pretty sad dissenting report that will not stand the test of time. I think if those who submitted the report were standing here 20 years ago, they would be saying, 'Who needs 512k speeds? What would you use that for? You could pick up the phone. Why would you send an email?' That would have been the whole context of their contributions to the debate. And the member for Bradfield, as much as anybody, knows the speed and rapidity with which people take up technological developments when the infrastructure is available. So in 20 years time, when his son or daughter is reading in Hansard his contribution on this debate, I suggest they will be saying, 'Dad, what on earth were you thinking? How limited was your imagination in looking at what that technology would deliver to this nation?'
I merely say to those who are looking at the dissenting report that it is a valiant effort to maintain the political debate on this issue, but I am sure those who have signed it will be hoping that it gets buried in the dust of time and that generations that follow them never look at it and see what they actually had to say about fast, ubiquitous and symmetrical broadband extension in this country.
I would also make the point that some contributions of members reflect a very city-centric view that presumes that people have access to 512k, let alone ADSL2. In fact, there was significant evidence that even the rollout of those technologies is far from satisfactory in regions and, indeed, in suburbs of cities around our nation.
In my contribution today I want to take us through a couple of the points in this report that I think are really exciting. I would certainly encourage people to have a look at this report in detail, because a lot of people put in a lot of time and effort to indicate to us why they feel this is transformative infrastructure that will make a significant difference to the way we live, work and indeed play. But the important thing as a national government is how we live and work.
The member for Bradfield referred to some of the health initiatives in his contribution. He did make the point that some of them indeed do not require the speeds which will be available under the NBN. But I will tell you what they do require, and that is symmetry. They require good upload capacity, as well as download capacity, and these sorts of service delivery models will be delivered under fibre based technologies. In particular, I want to take three issues, if I can get them done in a few minutes. The first one is the health sector which, indeed, indicated not only important improvements but significant improvements in the delivery of services, particularly to people in more remote areas, people with disabilities who have trouble accessing health services and young people who are more likely to access, in particular, mental health services online. The report goes through many examples. In particular, I would refer people to the section on mental health and the evidence, provided by, in particular, Helen Pepper, who is the youth ambassador for Inspire Foundation, about the importance of good-quality online mental health services for young people. The Inspire Foundation indicated their desire to expand their model, which they would be able to do if they could get high-quality, synchronised video based services available online, which would enable them to have more group interactions and better quality service delivery.
Another point that is made about health delivery, which I would remind people is an important aspect of our consideration, is the Access Economics study in 2010 that found that the benefits to Australia from extensive implementation of telehealth could be in the order of $2 billion to $4 billion per annum. The delivery of telehealth is only one area which would result in significant cost savings to us as a nation. So when those who oppose this model talk about a cost-benefit analysis, they quite significantly ignore the evidence that is available on some of the significant improvements, efficiencies and savings that we could make.
I also want to take people to some of the excellent evidence that was given to us about the education sector— obviously something that I am very passionate about—and the capacity for these sorts of high-quality, high-speed and synchronised services to provide a new and richer variety of online services in education. In particular, we had some excellent evidence from people such as the National Library of Australia, the National Film and Sound Archives and the National Archives of Australia about some of the digitisation initiatives that have enabled young people to get much better quality information and to interact with it in far more effective ways when you have got this level of technological support to deliver that.
I also would encourage people to look at some of the information provided by the Open Universities Australia about things like their 3D animated virtual world where students can go on an archaeological dig in a 3D simulated place, ancient Kashgar in Western China, and the students get a real sense through a second-life experience what it is like to actually be on a dig. There is no way that that sort of thing can be delivered over existing services and technology. It requires this level of technology to support that. Importantly, we have heard of examples like the YouTube symphony orchestra and the capacity for students to be at master classes in music with experts in their field, linked up around the world, and to participate in that in a way that allows them to form an orchestra and actually participate in a group, again, requires this level of technology.
Many of these examples that are throughout the section on education particularly make the point that many students now seek to do these extracurricular activities from home, whether it be music, learning a second language and so forth. So we need to provide these sorts of expanded educational experiences for students, school students and university students. Indeed, there are articles in the paper today about the importance of online post-graduate courses for students.
Many students are participating in education online and, indeed, even mature age members of our community are looking to engage by watching uni TV and participating in guest specialist lectures, an excellent example of where people will be able to be part of the community from home. And these things do require us to lay down the infrastructure of the future for this to happen.
Finally, in the few minutes left to me, I want to draw people's attention to the section in the report on economic development and diversification. I think it is very important for us to acknowledge the extensive evidence we received from regions around the country about the capacity of videoconferencing, teleworking, cloud computing and voice-over-internet protocols to completely expand the capacity of regions to engage in not only the national economy but indeed the international economy. Videoconferencing capacity is to enable professional development and professional connections and to support staff in our regional and remote parts of the country. Indeed, Mr Tony De Liseo, from my own area of the Illawarra, was talking about his business. He indicated that they are a staff development and training business and that about 30 per cent of their non-project billable hours are currently done online. This is an expanding model for businesses. He said that the problem they hit up against, of course, is the technological support that people have to enable them to participate, but it has a significant cost difference for businesses. They can participate in staff development and training in a more effective way and, if it is a half-day course, it does not require them to take three days because they have to have the staff member off travelling to a capital city or major centre in order to participate.
Also, obviously, the big capacity for regions is the capacity to telework. We had excellent evidence from people like Rising Sun Pictures, who won a technical Academy Award for their model of how they are able to access their creative people from around the country. Where otherwise the musician who would do the music for them, who lives in Byron Bay, would have had to go and live in Adelaide for three months while they were doing the project, now that they have him fibred up he can do all the work, interacting with them, and stay at home, so there is not a drain of these people out of our regions. It enables them to stay in the regions and expand the life of our regions as well.
Finally, I want to touch on tremendous evidence from Townsville about 'mumpreneurs', the expanding role of women participating in our economy by running home based businesses and how this will enable them to do that so much more effectively into the future. I commend people having a good look at this report and the wonderful story it paints about the hopes that people in regional and rural areas of our nation and the suburbs of our cities have for this infrastructure.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011
Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (18:27): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011, a bill that has been brought forward by the shadow Treasurer, whose objects are very clear. The objects of this bill are to establish an independent statutory office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide objective and impartial advice and analysis on the Commonwealth budget and budget cycle, medium- and long-term budget projections, the costs of policy proposals and other matters as requested by members and senators.
This is something that we on this side of the chamber understand is very critical to an open and transparent analysis of the budget. The coalition felt it so important that, before the last election, we brought forward this proposal as an election commitment. In government, it is something that we would implement directly. The government agree—belatedly—that there is a need for a parliamentary budget office, and they agree that it is world's best practice to have a parliamentary budget office, an independent body that can provide impartial advice on and analysis of the Commonwealth budget and major policy announcements and costings. However, we disagree as to the best way to implement the Parliamentary Budget Office.
I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office, which delivered 28 unanimous recommendations for the parliamentary budget office. We all agreed on the importance of and need for a parliamentary budget office. Indeed, this was something that the Independent members also agreed was critical to the functioning of the government, with the member for Lyne, the member for New England and the member for Denison, as well as the Greens, all making it a condition of their agreement to form government with the government just after the last federal election. The shadow Treasurer brought forward this bill on 22 August. He brought forward this bill because the government, which proclaimed that this was an important reform, had done absolutely nothing about it. Today, though, the government has brought forward its own bill for debate on the second reading. Its bill in comparison to the shadow Treasurer's bill is deficient in a number of ways. I would like to use the time available to me to outline to the chamber the key differences between the shadow Treasurer's bill and the government's bill.
First and foremost, we believe it is important for the Parliamentary Budget Office to be effective, and to achieve that it needs to be independent. There is only one way we can ensure its independence and that is to make sure it has the full powers granted to it to obtain information as and when it requires. By contrast, the government has taken a different position. The government's position under its bill is not only to establish the PBO with limitations but also to ensure that, if the PBO requires information, it needs to request that information by arrangement in writing from the Department of the Treasury, and Finance. It is also prevented under the government's bill from preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates. This goes to the very heart of the functioning of the Parliamentary Budget Office. To not allow the Parliamentary Budget Office to do its job, to gain the information that it requires and to prepare economic forecasts, means that it would be a very anaemic parliamentary budget office indeed. It would be a parliamentary budget office in name only.
The contrast between the government's bill and our bill is stark under the powers granted to obtain information. This is the second fundamental difference between the two bills. The government's bill requires the PBO to make arrangements, in writing, as I have said, with Commonwealth bodies to obtain information and documents relevant to the Parliamentary Budget Office's functions. It needs to agree to various memorandums of understanding, which, we know, would put limitations upon the information that could be obtained by the Parliamentary Budget Office. We will not constrain the Parliamentary Budget Office under our bill as brought forward by the shadow Treasurer. We understand that to do so would mean that they could not properly go about their business, role and function. So we will give them considerable information-gathering powers, and an additional element, the element of secrecy, so that any discussions that take place between it and a senator or a member take place in confidence so, again, the Parliamentary Budget Office can provide full and frank and fearless advice.
The third element that I wish to highlight tonight is that of the government's bill restricting the functions which can be performed by the PBO. This is of course at odds with what was provided for in the explanatory memorandum bought forward by the minister, who said in the explanatory memorandum when they were establishing the mandate for the PBO that the mandate of the PBO is to inform the parliament by providing:
… independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals …
However, to restrict the Parliamentary Budget Office from providing and preparing economic forecasts and budget estimates, whether as a whole-of-government agency or at program level, means that they are restricted in the functions that they can perform. This of course goes to the ability of the PBO to, as I said, do its job: provide frank and fearless advice, and perform all those roles and functions that we would expect of a parliamentary budget office—particularly one that this government lauds as being modelled on the Congressional Budget Office in the United States. This, with the restrictions brought forward by the government's bill, as opposed to our bill, would mean that it could not do those things.
Finally, I wish to also point out the difference between the government's bill and the bill that is brought forward by the shadow Treasurer, and that is the confidentiality of policy costings performed during and after an election period. It is important that, if we are to develop policy and develop policy well, the costings be done in a way that is confidential so that, when an announcement might be made, at the appropriate time, those policy costings can be released. This sometimes will take a variety of iterations. The Parliamentary Budget Office should be fully able to engage with the senator or member who has brought forward the request for policy costings. To pre-emptively make public those policy costings before a final decision is made by the senator or member or their party would mean that policy would not necessarily be brought forward or into the public domain at a time where it is final and complete, which would have adverse consequences for proper policy making in this place.
These are the fundamental differences between our bill and the government's bill. It is important to get the detail right, which is why we have brought forward amendments and why we say that the government should scrap its bill and instead implement the coalition's bill. We have seen before, when the government has got the detail wrong, just how dramatic those consequences can be. You only need to look at the pink batts saga to see how wrong and how devastating the impact can be not only from an economic perspective, with billions of dollars blown out in the budget, but also from a personal perspective, where we have seen people lose businesses and, most tragically, lives.
It is critical that the government get the detail right on this bill, which is why we encourage and commend them to resolve to implement the bill that has been brought forward today by the shadow Treasurer, the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011. We commend that bill to the chamber and we ask the Independent members and the government members to join with us in implementing that bill.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (18:37): I rise to speak in support of the shadow Treasurer's motion relating to the establishment of a parliamentary budget office, the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011. The people in my community are fair minded people. When they make a decision about which policies are best for them and their families, they want to know that they are making those decisions based on the best possible information and advice. That is why the coalition has a history of supporting open, transparent and independent advice on the budget, the government's fiscal position and any financial implications of policy proposals. In fact, the coalition's policy for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office, together with the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011, would establish an independent parliamentary budget office for the first time in Australia's history.
In 2009, the opposition called for an Australian parliamentary budget office modelled on the US Congressional Budget Office. The US CBO does not provide policy recommendations but it does independently analyse the revenue and spending implications of policy proposals. It also provides an analysis of the President's budget. In 2010, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, called for the creation of a PBO, and a private member's bill was introduced into the Senate by Senator Barnett in June 2010. The Senate referred the establishment of the office to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry. But the heart of the Labor government has never been in the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office. It was only at the insistence of the Independents and the Greens, whose support this Labor government needed in order to form government, that the government committed to the idea—the coalition's idea. It ended up being a promise the Labor party made to the Independents and the Greens as part of their much talked about agreement for a better parliament. The agreement provided that:
A Parliamentary Budget Office be established, based in the Parliamentary Library, to provide independent costings, fiscal analysis and research to all members of parliament, especially non-government members.
So why has the government been dragging its feet on this? What does it have to hide? Could it be that the Labor government's much promised surplus is looking shaky?
An opposition member: Yes.
WYATT ROY: Could be. This Labor government has finally been shamed into delivering on its commitment, at the coalition's insistence on action in this area. As the previous speaker, the member for Higgins, established, when the government has acted it has acted to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office in name only. The Joint Select Committee on the PBO tabled its recommendations on 23 May 2011—months ago. The 2011-12 budget provides funding of $24.9 million over four years, an appropriation welcomed by the coalition.
Again I ask: why did the government drag its heels on a reform designed to ensure the integrity and the sustainability of Commonwealth fiscal policy? The establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office has been an important part of coalition policy for some time and is a key election commitment. Following the coalition's lead the Treasurer flagged in his economic note of 24 August 2011 that it was finally going to move on its promise to deliver the Parliamentary Budget Office. But now we are faced with a proposal that is inferior in many ways to the coalition's proposal. Instead of being a mechanism where the governance processes are improved, such as the case with the US Congressional Budget Office, it is yet another mechanism where Labor can perpetuate its political spin.
The coalition, unlike the government, would establish a new body accountable to the parliament not beholden to government departments. The Labor government, for example, does not offer a confidential costing service for all members and senators who are not members of the government during the election caretaker period, something the coalition would do. This is an essential component in ensuring that members of parliament and senators can have private discussions with the PBO about the financial implications of policy proposals, and this is a non-negotiable aspect of the coalition's bill. We fear that this Labor government is playing politics with the Independents on the Parliamentary Budget Office. The coalition provides an independent statutory body that has strong powers to request information in order to provide comprehensive advice. We look forward to the support of the Independents and the Greens for an office that will be able to provide truly independent advice and policy analysis.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (18:43): It is terrific to see you again in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, and I hope you are well. I rise tonight to speak in the debate on the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011, which has been put forward by the shadow Treasurer. I commend the shadow Treasurer and I commend the cooperation on the coalition's side that has led to this legislation being put forward. The government should think again next time when it says that the opposition is all about saying no, no, no, because this bill to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office is leading the way on reform and on how policy costings should be looked at with regard to government, moving it away from the executive and placing the power back with the parliament.
The idea was first put forward in May 2009 by the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, when he was opposition leader. He was incredibly worried about the expenditure that we were seeing from the Rudd government which has now become the Gillard government. He was incredibly concerned by the level of spending and the way we were racking up debt for this country. He thought that the best way to provide analysis of fiscal policy would be the establishment of an independent Parliamentary Budget Office which could provide confidential advice. It was then supported, in June 2010, by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. We picked up on this very good idea from the member for Wentworth and it became a coalition commitment—a very good one—which was taken to the last election. It has fallen to the shadow Treasurer to implement this policy, and he has done so.
It is rather sad to see how it is the opposition setting the agenda in the country today, because it was only after the shadow Treasurer put forward his bill calling for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office that the Treasurer decided that he needed to act as well. It is a bit like 'Wayne's world' at the moment—the Treasurer seems to operate in an area where he does not seem to have too many clues about what is happening in the country.
This was an idea put forward by the coalition in 2008. It was a coalition commitment taken to the 2010 election. We put forward a bill to establish the Parliamentary Budget Office last month. Then we saw the Treasurer finally deciding that this was an area that he needed to engage in. But, when he engaged, he missed the two key components that a parliamentary budget office needs. A parliamentary budget office needs to have confidentiality and it needs to have independence. Yet the Treasurer, with his bill, really set up a sub-branch of the Treasury and of the Department of Finance and Deregulation. It is a sub-branch that, if it were to do its work, would need to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the department of finance and with the Treasury. This is somewhat of a joke, but it does not surprise me, when it comes to the Treasurer, that what he is proposing is somewhat of a joke.
The shadow Treasurer has put forward a model which is based on the US congress's Congressional Budget Office. All members who have visited the United States congress would know that that is a model which works. It works because it is independent and it is confidential. The Greens and Independents have made much of the need for us to set up a parliamentary budget office. I hope they have the common sense to realise that, if we are going to do this, if we are going to spend $24.9 million over four years to establish this office, we must set up an office which has teeth, which puts the power with the parliament, which enables the parliament to scrutinise the executive. These are all key components of a parliamentary budget office. This is what the shadow Treasurer has proposed. That is why the coalition's bill is far, far superior to what the Treasurer has put forward. I look forward to seeing the Independents and the Greens doing the right thing and supporting our motion.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Debate resume on the motion by Mr Hayes:
That this House:
(1) notes that the month of August is Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Awareness Month;
(2) further notes that:
(a) 52 Australians die each month from this rare genetic motor neuron disease;
(b) SMA is the leading genetic killer of infants under the age of two; and
(c) this debilitating disease can occur in both adults and children;
(3) expresses support for:
(a) the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Association Inc.; and
(b) all Australian families affected by this incurable disease; and
(4) calls for the Government to:
(a) lodge SMA as a keyword with the National Health and Medical Research Council;
(b) provide support for practical initiatives for those affected by SMA; and
(c) promote awareness of SMA.
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (18:48): I am sure the member for Fowler is on his way. The parliament must thank the member for Fowler for bringing the issue of spinal muscular atrophy to the attention of the parliament. I am the first to admit that I knew nothing about this until the member for Fowler brought to the parliament a group explaining spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA as it is commonly known. It is an inherited disease. It is believed that one in 35 people carry the gene that causes SMA. When two carriers have a child, they have a one in four chance of having a baby with SMA. That is interesting because, if you look at the parliament, on average there would be at least four of us that are carriers of SMA. I would suggest that most people would not know because it is a recessive gene.
SMA is a degenerative disease which causes loss of nerves in the spinal cord. Muscles become weaker over time and this weakness affects the muscles that assist with breathing, along with affecting arms, legs and neck muscles. SMA is the second most common autosomal recessive disease after cystic fibrosis. I think everyone has heard of cystic fibrosis. If this parliament can make more people aware of SMA I think we would be doing a good job. A baby is born with SMA every seven hours around the world. Spinal muscular atrophy babies catch germs very easily, so tasks such as washing hands before touching the baby are vitally important. There is no known cure for SMA. Babies born with the most severe type of SMA, type 1, rarely live beyond two years of age. Babies with SMA type 1 have normal intelligence and appear lively and alert like other babies. Diagnosis of SMA type 1 is often only made shortly before death and management is largely palliative in nature. Babies with type 1 are very fragile. Respiratory support and supplemental feeding can prolong life but a majority of babies succumb to the disease within the first 12 months.
It is estimated that approximately 630 people die of SMA every year in Australia. Genetic testing for SMA prior to or in early pregnancy is not widely publicised and the test does not attract a Medicare rebate. The cost is currently about $400 to the individual. Genetic testing for SMA is not routine in IVF either, which means that IVF babies can be and have also been born with SMA. The majority of individuals are diagnosed with type 1. However, there are a small number that have a milder disease and greater life expectancy, which is known as type 2 and type 3. SMA type 2 and 3 sufferers require different levels of support and medical care. Various pharmacological treatments give benefit to some patients but do not address the primary problem, which is caused by a deficiency of the SMN protein. SMN protein is essential for life and insufficient SMN prevents motor neurones from surviving and connecting with muscles, resulting in muscle wasting, progressive paralysis and death before the age of two years.
SMA Australia was founded by CEO Julie Cini after she tragically lost both her children to the rare disease. At the tender age of 10 months Julie's firstborn child, Montana, died from SMA. Julie told Sue White in the Mother and Child magazine of 2010 that everything went okay until the end of the pregnancy. Julie said that when Montana arrived she seemed fine but at three months they discovered she was not moving like a normal baby should. After being referred to the Royal Children's Hospital, Julie was told that Montana had SMA. She was told that the disease was rare and there was nothing she could do but take young Montana home and love her as much as possible, which she did. Montana died in hospital before her first birthday.
After the loss of Montana, Julie wanted to do something about the lack of support she had during Montana's illness, so SMA Australia was born. SMA Australia would like to see some important changes in the way SMA is dealt with. The first is carrier and prenatal testing. As I mentioned earlier, testing is not routinely carried out for this disease. If individuals are aware of the disease and want to be tested to be excluded, they must pay $400 to be screened. Carrier testing for the SMA gene could prevent the continuance of the disease. Sufferers of SMA need 24-hour care during their lifetime, and this is a huge burden on the health system. SMA Australia is calling for gold standard care and multidisciplinary clinics. Sufferers of chronic neuromuscular diseases need appropriate proactive care. These clinics offering standardise treatments should be available to all families, according to SMA Australia. The third point SMA Australia makes is that government rebates on the purchases of cough assist machines would enable these lifesaving devices to be used to manage the SMA sufferer at home and therefore reduce the amount of time spent in hospital. These machines are $12,000 each, and SMA Australia only has a limited number in its equipment and resources library. These have been purchased purely by fundraising efforts and philanthropists.
The fourth point made by SMA Australia surrounds research. The ongoing cost of research is a huge task for a small organisation, but SMA Australia believes that the benefit for the public purse would be immense should research funding lead to a cure. Further on research into SMA, there have been some promising clinical trials surrounding antisense oligomers, or AOs as they are known. AOs have been used as 'genetic bandaids' to modify gene expression. They have shown promise in clinical trials in another fatal inherited childhood muscle-wasting disease, called Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
AO compounds can be designed to alter the processing of a genetic message in a specific manner which results in the restoration of the expression of a missing protein. Western Australian scientists have been developing these compounds for 16 years, resulting in recent clinical trials for muscular dystrophy in the UK. SMA Australia made an approach to this group in late 2008, and seed funding of $20,000 led to preliminary data that was sufficient for a research project application to be made to the National Health and Medical Research Council and the European SMA association.
The application for the Australian funding was unsuccessful, and the researchers noted at the time that spinal muscular atrophy was not an NHMRC keyword. The researchers found this to be an extraordinary omission, given the severity of SMA. The European application, however, was successful and two years worth of funding was granted. This support, along with that from SMA Australia and individuals, allowed researchers to apply the expertise developed while working on muscular dystrophy to design compounds to treat SMA. This research has led to successful proof-of-principle preclinical studies, a funding application with UK collaborators to support clinical trials, and a provisional patent. All this has occurred in a little under two years from the initial approach by SMA Australia.
SMA is generally overlooked, along with other rare diseases, perhaps because the affected children are only here for such a short time. SMA Australia are seeking to raise awareness of the disease, but they cannot do it alone. SMA marketing trainee Elvira Alic, an SMA type 2 sufferer herself, and Julie Cini have come up with a unique marketing idea to raise awareness of SMA. They have used Australia's love affair with coffee to spread the message 'Take away SMA' by printing it on takeaway coffee cups. These cups are now used all over Canberra and Melbourne, and SMA hopes to raise money to purchase cough assist machines, which SMA has 15 of currently on loan to sufferers such as Elvira around Australia. I think we should thank the member for Fowler for bringing this cause to the parliament. I hope that we can sincerely as a parliament decide to ensure that that funding continues into the future.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (18:58): I thank my honourable colleague for his contribution and his interest in spinal muscular atrophy. Only recently we organised a forum in Parliament House, and I know that the member for Barker was one of those who attended and that he has continued his interest in this very debilitating disease.
Very few things are as tragic as losing a loved one, which I have only just been through, having lost my father last week. It is even more devastating when you lose a child, an infant. Last month was Spinal Muscular Atrophy Awareness Month, a month where the SMA association wanted to actually ensure that people start thinking about this very debilitating disease, a killer disease. I seek to draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the causes as, alarmingly, it is the leading genetic killer of infants under two years old in Australia. That is something I just did not know a couple of weeks ago. I am advised that internationally it is well recognised that a baby is born every six to seven hours with this disease. Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare motor neuron disease that causes progressive deterioration of the motor neuron and the spinal cord and the muscles surrounding that area. Muscles most likely to be affected are those around the neck, the trunk, the arms and the legs, the same muscles that control our posture, our movement and the respiratory muscles that control our breathing. Over time coughing becomes very, very difficult. As a matter of fact a lack of ability to cough is one of the things that actually people do die from. Alarmingly, it occurs not only in children but also in adults. A lot of people have had late onset of this disease and it has absolutely life-changing ramifications.
Just another statistic which is again something I was absolutely unaware of: one in 35 Australians carry the regressive gene and, regrettably, most people are unaware of it. Now, we do not know it in our family histories and if one carrier of a defective gene has a child with another carrier of that same gene, they have a one in four chance that their child will be born with spinal muscular atrophy. SMA is not a disease that is usually evident at birth itself, nor is it routinely tested for. For the most severely affected individuals, the symptoms develop as early as about three months and yet for those only mildly affected, evidence of this disease may not become manifest until a child is in their late childhood or even early adulthood. But I must advise that children with type 1 SMA usually do not see their second birthday. Tragically 52 Australian lives are lost every month to this, so far, incurable disease.
The greatest risk for parents coincides with the birth of their first child. This was horrifically the case for the CEO and founder of the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Association of Australia, Julie Cini, who is sitting in the visitors' seats second from the left. As the member for Barker just recounted, Julie lost two daughters to this disease, Montana when she was about 10 or 11 months old in 2005 and her daughter Zurlee that she lost in 2007. I also am aware that around about the same time she also lost her husband in a very tragic farming motor accident. Julie Cini, using her training, particularly in the disability sector and community service areas, now works tirelessly not only to raise awareness about SMA but also especially doing things within the medical community, providing a support network to those families affected, families that until they actually physically have the onset of this disease are completely unaware of it, as I was a few weeks back.
The issue is very close to home because Tamara Hayes, my cousin, is here with her mum and dad and she too lost her daughter, Summer, only last April. I have got to say it was an absolutely tragic and devastating experience for a family but it is certainly a credit to Tamara and the support of her mum and dad, Steve and Carol, that she now takes on the role of heavily getting involved and volunteering for the association to offer emotional support. The association also offers free medical equipment, a toy library, information and a network for other families who have been afflicted by this dreadful disease. Julie and Tamara and the SMA Association of Australia have been working tirelessly to raise awareness and provide support for other families. SMA Australia is currently the only support association for sufferers of this debilitating disease. It is a not-for-profit organisation and a charity but receives no ongoing funding from any government, state or federal. The association is urging the public to provide support to families. They have listed practical things they think could make a difference—things such as the provision of manual or powered wheelchairs; special beds; bath and toilet chairs; support and standing frames; breathing equipment; support seating equipment; switch toys for children; and travel assistance, particularly for regionally based families that must go to cities to be treated in hospitals.
In addition to the call for public support, the association has recommended several policy initiatives that they would like to pursue with government that they strongly feel would make a very significant, practical, beneficial change in the lives of sufferers and their families. First and foremost the association is calling for a national awareness and screening program. They advocate that routine testing and carrier testing for the SMA gene can prevent the continuation of this disease. Currently, individuals have to request such a test and it comes at a personal cost of somewhere between $380 and $400, none of which is rebatable from Medicare. Through this initiative, couples who are deciding whether to start a family would at least be able to avail themselves of the necessary information before pregnancy as to whether they are carriers. As I said, if they are both carriers they have a one in four chance of having a child with SMA.
SMA is also not tested in the IVF program. Subsequently, there have been numerous cases of IVF babies who have been born with and died of SMA during infancy. If this disease cannot be prevented, sufferers must have access to the appropriate, proactive care. Families with a member affected by SMA spend so much time visiting multiple healthcare areas. In order to ensure easier access to all-round care, it is suggested the community should consider access to multidisciplinary clinics offering standards of care for patients and their families.
The provision of government rebates and subsidies should also be recognised to enable the purchase of life-saving equipment such as the cough assist machine. As I said a little earlier, it is the lack of the ability to cough that generally causes death as a consequence of this disease. Providing rebates for such machines not only helps ease the financial burden; it also allows families the opportunity to look after and care for loved ones at home, as opposed to using hospital facilities.
In addition to these practical initiatives, the association is calling for spinal muscular atrophy to be listed as a keyword with the National Health and Medical Research Council. Though the association is making every contribution it can to further research into this genetic abnormality, public funding is desperately needed. Like SIDS, SMA is a silent killer and those suffering undoubtedly deserve our assistance.
I urge members of the House to take the opportunity to meet with members of the SMA Association to understand this debilitating disease and to be able to make a difference by being able to speak up about it. I welcome the opportunity to speak here tonight. (Time expired)
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (19:09): I want to thank and congratulate the member for Fowler for bringing this matter before the parliament. I note his contribution and also that of the member for Barker. I will endeavour to try and cover some other elements of this particularly tragic and debilitating disease, although, given the central nature of their contributions, there will be a certain amount of overlap. I also only have five minutes, as is the nature of the structure of the debate today, so I will endeavour to be briefer than I would normally be. I will start by reading into the record an e-mail I received from a constituent whose family has been touched by this terrible disease.
Dear Mr Griffin,
My name is Jan Hill. The Spinal Muscular Atrophy Group represented us in a letter to you recently. My husband Brian I had two amazing daughters, Laura and Suzanne, who were both diagnosed at about nine months of age with SMA—Werdnig Hoffmann disease. Laura was born in 1978 and Suzanne was born in 1982. Both girls were in electric wheelchairs by the time they were four years old (neither had ever walked on their own) which gave them the independence they so needed, although that was somewhat limited to where the wheelchairs were accessible. Laura and Suzanne at different times attended the local Pre-school Rosswood where my husband made a ramp up to the front door. They both attended Rosewood Downs Primary School with the support of the principal and some wonderful teachers. My husband also made some ramps there so that the girls could access different rooms. The Education Department provided money for a ramp to a portable which was the music room. Originally I went to school twice a day but was on call all day every school day. After the first year and a half we managed to have a nurse visit the school at lunch times (whom we paid for) which helped immensely until many submissions to the Education Department later we were able to employ an Aide who remains one of our dearest friends. The girls were extremely bright both becoming Dux of Year 10 and Year 9 respectively at Lyndale Secondary College in Dandenong North. Accessibility there was somewhat limited and it was quite a job to get the Education Department to provide some money for some ramps. Even then there were areas that the girls could not access. Hopefully new schools being built today are totally inclusive. It has been some time since our daughters died (Laura at nearly 17 years of age in 1994 and Suzanne at almost 16 years of age in 1997). No amount of time minimises the impact they have made on everyone who knew them. Meeting Julie Cini a few years ago was heart-warming and somewhat confronting at the same time. She is an amazingly passionate person who seeks to get a better deal for everyone touched by SMA. Her own story is one of great sadness yet she is focused on bringing her story and the SMA Group to everyone's attention so that others might have the help and support that she and others did not have. I hope your meeting yesterday with Lynette and Elvira helped you to see for yourself not only what Elvira has to deal with on a day to day basis, just as our own daughters did, but also what the SMA group as a whole has to offer all families who are dealing with this very sad disease. It would be wonderful for our Government to become aware of this amazing group who work tirelessly to raise funds and awareness of SMA within communities. Perhaps with that recognition might come some big steps toward research specifically on SMA and hopefully genetic screening.
I do hope that you will be able to take Julie's message forward when the debate comes up in Parliament. You will be representing so many families of children and babies who have not had a chance of life and also those who have amazing talents and abilities but who are severely restricted by SMA. A small voice in the wilderness can certainly be the start of something bigger don't you think.
Yours sincerely
Jan Hill.
I did recently meet with representatives of SMA, both today and last week, in my electorate. Jan mentioned Elvira Alic, a young lady I met with who is struggling with SMA type 2, who is an example of courage in the face of absolutely horrific adversity. It was an honour and a privilege to meet her and to hear her story and those of others who are suffering from this debilitating disease. Others have made the point that it is often at a very young age that these children are tragically taken from their families. But in the case of Elvira—and the daughters of my constituent—the circumstances where it is clearly type 2 have resulted in debilitating conditions being experienced over many years. Elvira has exceeded the life expectancy for her circumstances and remains an example to all of the terrible conditions that we can face and of how to handle that in a stoic manner and with great courage. I urge the parliament: this is a matter which the government needs to look at. The sorts of conditions that we are dealing with here, and the sorts of examples about the future of policy here, I think are matters we should be endeavouring to take forward. (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:14): Spinal Muscular Atrophy is the No. 1 genetic killer of children under two years of age. However, very few people have ever heard of it and are unaware that one in 35 people carry the gene. Research published in the Lancet, the world's leading medical journal, indicates prevalence of SMA is about one in 10,000 live births. The carrier frequency is about one in 50. SMA, although rare, is an inherited disease which results in the loss of nerves in the spinal cord and weakness of the muscles connected with those nerves. The muscles most frequently affected are those of the neck and trunk which control posture, and those of the legs and arms which control movement, and those of the area of the ribs which help breathing. When we want to move our body we do so without thinking—our motor nerves send the message from our brain to the muscles telling them to move. In a person with spinal muscular atrophy their movement is affected as their motor nerves stop this message from getting from the nervous system to the muscles. Over time the muscles become weak and atrophy.
People with SMA generally appear normal at birth. Symptoms develop as early as three months in the most severely affected, at around one to two years of age in the moderately affected, and more rarely in late childhood or early adulthood in mildly affected individuals. There are four main types. The severity of the condition and the life span depend on the type of spinal muscular atrophy a person has. Type I is the most severe and affects infants who rarely make it to their second birthday. How tragic is that. In contrast, adults with type IV are likely to have a normal lifespan, albeit with mobility and possibly other spinal muscular atrophy related problems. The child with infantile spinal muscular atrophy rarely lives beyond three years of age. There is no cure and treatment can only ease any associated complications. Thousands of stories of heartbroken parents flood forums, blogs and social networks describing the pain and loss of losing their child, born without any problems only to pass away before they were old enough to know the joy they brought to their families in the short space of time they were with them.
One story which struck me was Alex Lack, born on 8 October 2010. His big blue eyes are what draw you to hear his story, his smiling face masking the pain he endured in the small time he was here. His mother wrote on behalf of his family:
Alex was born on 8.10.2008 at 18.08, seemingly healthy. Around 4 weeks we noticed he wasn't moving as much as other babies of his age.
A week later he was diagnosed with SMA type 1, a terminal disease which doesn't have a cure.
He was given maximally 6 months of life, but he didn't even reach 3 months ... he passed away of breathing failure on 1.1. 2009 exactly on his sister's birthday.
SMA was completely unknown to us, as we didn't have any previous family history, our older daughter Madison is healthy, pregnancy was no problem, uneventful.
Later on we found that 1 in 40 people is a carrier of this genetic disorder, and if 2 carriers have a baby, there is 1 in 4 chance the baby will develop SMA ... 1 in 6,000 newborns is affected by SMA.
These are heartfelt words from a heartbroken mother.
Awareness of this disease is important as it is an inherited genetic disorder which is rarely detectable during pregnancy. Up to one in 40 people carry the gene responsible for the condition and each pregnancy of two carriers of the disease has a 25 per cent chance of the child being affected. Like Alex's mother, most often parents have never heard of spinal muscular atrophy until their child is diagnosed. They are usually unaware of their carrier status and unlikely to be aware of the family history.
I commend the member for Fowler for bringing this particular motion to this chamber and for his moving speech earlier this evening. I also acknowledge the members for Barker and Bruce for their words. Australia's Muscular Dystrophy Association has more information on its website about spinal muscular atrophy and neuromuscular disorders, and I encourage all those interested, particularly members of parliament, to find out more about this important medical matter. Spinal muscular atrophy is a silent killer. The more we know about it, the more awareness we have, the greater our chances will be to combat it.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (19:18): On Thursday 25 August I attended a meeting that was arranged by the member for Fowler and I was privileged to sit in the room with parents and grandparents who have been associated with spinal muscular atrophy and to hear their stories. I have to say that I was very close to tears as I sat there and heard Juli talk about her two beautiful children and to hear how she lost her husband and to learn that it has become a mission in her life to provide information to work for a cure and to not sit back and say, 'Poor me,' but actually get in there and try to make a difference and provide support to all those parents who find themselves in that desperate situation that she has been in. It is a privilege to actually have been associated with her. In this job so many of us end up seeing people who come to us with real complaints and they are absolutely devastated by the cards that life has dealt them. Instead of doing that, Julie was there saying, 'I'm going to make a difference; I'm going to change it'. I would like to commend her for that and commend the member for Fowler for bringing this important motion to the parliament.
When I went along to that meeting I did not know that one in five people carry this gene. It just shows you what a lottery it is; how fortunate all those parents are who have very healthy children. I did not know that when two parents of a child have that gene that there is a one in four chance of having a baby with SMA. I did not know that and I am a person who has been really involved in health issues for 20 or 30 years. It is something I did not know about. I felt that if I did not know about it, then the majority of the population would not know about it. I think it is really important to get that message out to people. The simple fact is that, around the world, a baby is born with SMA every seven hours. That is incredible; they are incredible figures. That shows that this is such an important issue. Genetic testing is an absolute imperative. We need to get behind the research that is being undertaken in a big way. We need to do something to stop the suffering of parents and not to forget those little people who are born with SMA. We need to address it and we need to ensure that the testing takes place and from the testing that proper research takes place and from the research then work towards developing a cure so that this is a disease that does not impact on any more parents.
In my role as a member of parliament I actually had a constituent at one time who had a little girl who had this illness. She nursed her, she looked after her, she ventilated her and she did all that hard work. There was not a day or an hour that she regretted putting in the effort to sustain her little girl. I know that SMA is the greatest killer of babies. I think that as a society, a parliament, a government we need to get behind the research that is needed to address this issue. We need to make sure that our society is educated about it and we need to act now to do every single thing that we can to support Julie and her research.
Congratulations, Julie, on the wonderful work and all those people who are here with you tonight on all the effort that you have put in to addressing this important issue. Thank you.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:23): Firstly, I would like to congratulate my neighbour in south-west Sydney the member for Fowler for moving this important motion. Although we do not always agree with each other, it is good that we can come together on this important issue. This motion deals with the devastating genetic disorder of spinal muscular atrophy, which follows a seminar presentation by the CEO and founder of the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Association of Australia, Julie Cini, held during the last parliamentary sitting. I know she is here tonight. I was in attendance during Julie's emotive presentation on the struggle and devastation faced by families of children suffering from SMA. It was an awakening. It was an experience that Julie faced with her two children, Montanna Jean and Zarlee Rose. I am in awe of Julie's inner strength. After facing such tragedy and adversity throughout her life, she has not allowed it to get the better of her. She is an inspiration to us all. As previous speakers have noted, SMA is the No. 1 genetic killer of children under two years of age. At the same time, it is a silent killer and one that has received little publicity. I note the wide interest among MPs here tonight to speak on this motion and associate themselves with such a worthy cause, and I take the opportunity to raise the case of a family within the electorate of Flinders. I do this on behalf of the member for Flinders, who wished to speak but, due to the limited opportunities of just eight speaking spots, could not.
The Gilchrist family lost a daughter, Ava, to type 1 SMA at just four months of age. The story told is one that is common to many families across Australia. Ava's grandparents, Aileen and Darryl, contacted the member for Flinders when they discovered that this motion was being debated. In an email, Aileen recounts the loss of young Ava to SMA as 'revealing myself as a carrier and two of my three children also as carriers of this regressive gene'. Aileen goes on: 'Once this gene is exposed in a family it is amazing how widespread it is in that family without knowledge of it until two of its carriers come together.'
What Aileen is referring to in the last passage of her email is that, when two carriers with a regressive SMA gene have a child, that child has a one in four chance of developing SMA. The rare genetic disorder is caused by the deficiency of an essential protein, SMN, and leads to the progressive deterioration of motor neurons in the spinal cord resulting in weakness and atrophy of muscles in the body, including the diaphragm and accessory muscles that support breathing, and progressive paralysis.
There is no known cure for SMA. Historically, nearly half of those born with SMA type 1 die before the age of two, and children with SMA type 2 generally die before adulthood. Some of the shocking statistics include the following: one in 35 people carries the regressive SMA gene. A baby with SMA is born every seven hours worldwide. Approximately one in 10,000 children is born with SMA, making SMA the most common cause of death by genetic disorder in children under two and the second most common autosomal regressive disorder after cystic fibrosis. Approximately 630 people die from SMA in Australia every year.
Genetic testing for SMA is available but it is not widely used and it is not eligible for a rebate under Medicare. But there is a glimmer of hope. Antisense oligomers, or AOs, have been used to modify gene expressions and are showing promise. I am proud to say that these advances over the last 16 years have been made here at home in Australia. Since then, and with funding from SMA Australia, clinical trials have commenced in Europe with successful proof-of-principle and preclinical studies. We must continue to fund this research and tackle this problem head on, not allow it to fall into the too-hard basket or overlook it entirely due to its rarity or the fact that the majority of sufferers are too young to have a voice. Let us be their voice and support this worthy cause.
I appreciate this opportunity to play a role in expanding the understanding of this disorder in this place and hope that this filters through to the public at large. We must all play our part in this. Finally, to Julie: congratulations. You are an inspiration to us all. No-one deserves the tragedy and hardships you have been through in your life. Keep going; you will eventually get there.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (19:28): I too rise to congratulate the member for Fowler for introducing this important motion and getting debate going in this House on this important topic. I also congratulate Julie Cini and the likes of Professor Andrew Kornberg, who have been leading the charge on trying to get many of us to understand SMA, some of the basic differences between dystrophy and atrophy and the implications of those differences. Like 22 million of us and like, I am sure, many of the 150 members of parliament I am guilty of probably not understanding or knowing enough about SMA until I was faced with it personally when a former friend I played football with, Simon Munro, met the love of his life, Donna Liver, whom I am sure the network all know about. Their lovely son Finn was diagnosed with SMA, and from Port Macquarie they started the very long journey to understand (a) what it was, (b) what to do about it and (c) to campaign on many of the broader issues still unaddressed in public policy that could help a lot. On a personal level, I congratulate Simon and Donna for turning something which was a shock at the time and which caused a great deal of distress for them and their family into plenty of positive energy. I can report to the House that Finn, having been diagnosed two years ago, is doing very well in the loving care of his two parents and is also getting some fantastic treatment via Melbourne and the work of Professor Kornberg and others.
But there is still plenty of work to be done. I am pleased to see that the Australasian Neuromuscular Network has been formed and I really encourage anyone who reads or listens to this to go to their website, www.ann.org.au, to really get the better understanding of what we are talking about and what needs to be done. There are policy issues that I hope the minister for health will take away from this debate, such as the points I made before about not having SMA sit under the muscular dystrophy banner and getting it to stand on its own legs and that it continues to be labelled as a chronic disease. I have heard every speaker already mention the fact that the majority of SMA deaths occur before the age of two, and that needs to get much more consideration in public policy. Also, for parents like Simon and Donna who are absolutely fighting for the survival of children like Finn, a great deal of help and support is needed through the maze of the health system. A family from Port Macquarie working their way through the system and ending up in Melbourne to get some support should not be an example of the way this works, if it is working. This is an example of how state and federal health systems can and should do a lot better.
There is a need to have SMA listed as an NHMRC keyword. Even though the government is assuring everyone involved and I understand that it is not a problem, the network, and certainly Donna herself, wants it to be recognised and listed so that there can be research and medical and clinical trials done as a consequence of that keyword being there. I hope that that is considered. Another point that has come up in conversations with Donna and Simon, and also in the speeches I have heard so far, is the surprise of so many of us with regard to the prevalence of the regressive gene. Therefore, there is a need for genetic testing in a more systematic way so that the carriers, if they do find each other and, with Cupid's arrow, fall in love, can at least make mature and difficult decisions in the full knowledge of the implications. So I would hope a more systemic basis around genetic testing could be considered.
It is fantastic that this is being debated. I congratulate the network on pushing the member for Fowler and all of us to get this issue up the public policy pile and I hope that SMA is now starting to find its place and that the health department responds accordingly. (Time expired)
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (19:34): I rise to speak about the heartbreaking disease spinal muscular atrophy and the devastating effect it can have on a child and their family. To help raise awareness of SMA I would like to share with you the story of a little girl named Brittney McKenna, from my electorate. Brittney's parents, Debbie and Andrew, described her as a social butterfly, a bright, bubbly and beautiful young girl with an infectious smile who always saw the glass as half full. She loved people and had the ability to make friends with anybody who crossed her path. I first met Brittneysix years ago and her zest for life, cheeky smile and bright personality have left a lasting impression on me that I will never forget. Sadly, Brittney was nine years old when she died in 2008—a beautiful life cut too short under heartbreaking circumstances. Brittney was diagnosed with SMA when she was 15 months old after more than a year of testing and weekly monitoring due to weak muscle tone, loss of deep tendon reflexes and an inability to walk, crawl or roll on her own. When she was diagnosed at Sydney Children's Hospital, her parents were told there was no cure and no treatment, and that the condition was terminal. Debbieasked all the basic questions. Would her daughter ever walk? Would she grow up? Would she have children? She was told that Brittney would never walk, would not live long enough to have children and would face huge respiratory complications throughout her life. I have two beautiful daughters myself and cannot imagine being told that my baby girl would probably die before she finished primary school.
After her diagnosis, the next eight years for Brittney and her family were intense. In total, of the nine years of her life, Brittney spent more than five years in hospital. SMA is an extremely difficult disease to live with. The loss of nerves in the spinal cord causes muscles to become weaker over time. The weakness not only affects the arm, leg and neck muscles but also the muscles which assist in breathing and eating. Brittney's muscles were so weak that she could not eat without choking and could not cough when she needed to and, at times, she struggled to breathe. She had 41 surgeries in her short life and suffered from severe scoliosis, chronic pain, ongoing pneumonia and multiple lung collapses. She had central apnoea which caused her to stop breathing in her sleep and her mum would often have to resuscitate her.
Children living with SMA are very bright, with above average intelligence, but unfortunately their bodies cannot keep up with them. Brittney was only four when, knowing she was going to die, she asked her mum, 'When I go to heaven, can you catch a plane to visit me when I'm lonely?'—a heartbreaking question that no parent should ever have to answer.
While telling Brittney's story, I must also mention the lack of funding and respite for families living with SMA. There was limited support offered to Brittney's family and no respite because she was classified as too high medical support and under palliative care. Brittney's mum was proficient at all her medical needs, including IV medications. At five years old, Brittney had IV feeding fluids through a central line in her heart, 24 hours a day, a tube in her stomach for some of her medications. She also had a large bowel completely removed at age seven. In between all the years spent in hospital, and the 41 surgeries and the 24-hour intensive care for their daughter, Debbie and Andrew also had to do their own fundraising for equipment, and home modifications to support Brittney. Life by the hospital bed included a constant struggle with red tape, bureaucracy, budgets and politics in an attempt to get some support. Brittney's longest single admission to hospital was 21. Her dad, Andrew, was working interstate to support the family financially. Her mum, Debbie, was by her hospital bed 24 hours a day. Their son Liam was passed around between family and friends to give him some stability and routine in life. With the help of the community, the family raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to give Brittney the life she deserved. It is no wonder that they were left financially, physically and emotionally exhausted.
It is the lack of government support and the memory of her beautiful daughter that has inspired Debbie to work with other families who have children living with disabilities and illnesses in Macarthur. She is a staff member of KU Starting Points—Macarthur, a not-for-profit organisation in my electorate that runs several programs and a great support network for the local families. Debbie said that her wish was for all children to have the right to be their best and to know no boundaries to their abilities. Despite the heartache and pain Brittney's family have been through, her parents say they were blessed to have such a beautiful daughter who touched the lives of so many and left a lasting impression on the Macarthur community.
I hope that telling Brittney's story will raise awareness of SMA and encourage families living with the condition to take one day at a time and enjoy those precious moments with their children. And while aeroplane trips to heaven might not be possible, I am sure Brittney is watching over her family with an enormous amount of pride as they strive to make this world a better place for all children living with disabilities and their families. Rest in peace, dear Brittney; you will always be remembered by your family, friends and community. I thank the member for Fowler and other members for bringing an awareness of SMA to this parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is an overarching term used to describe a range of physical, mental, behavioural, learning and development disorders that can result from foetal exposure to alcohol; and
(b) FASD is reported to be the greatest cause of non-congenital, irreversible and permanent brain damage to new-borns in Australia; and
(2) calls upon the Australian:
(a) Parliament to continue to facilitate and support the development of a FASD national diagnostic tool for the use of medical professionals and other health service providers; and
(b) Government to:
(i) give FASD the status of a recognised disability in Australia;
(ii) institute a national awareness campaign to raise community awareness of the risks to the unborn child when alcohol is consumed in pregnancy and highlight the potential cognitive and developmental consequences for affected individuals as these pertain to service providers, law enforcement and justice, the community sector and education; and
(iii) give support to the development of models of care and helping strategies for families and individuals dealing with the impacts of FASD
And on the amendment moved thereto by Dr Stone, viz.—
That the motion be amended to read—
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is an overarching term used to describe a range of physical, mental, behavioural, learning and development disorders that can result from foetal exposure to alcohol; and
(b) FASD is reported to be the greatest cause of non-inherited, irreversible and permanent brain damage to new-borns in Australia; and
(2) calls upon the Australian:
(a) Parliament to continue to facilitate and support the development of a FASD national diagnostic tool for the use of medical professionals and other health service providers; and
(b) Government to:
(i) give those with FASD access to disability support funding and services, where appropriate;
(ii) institute a campaign to raise community awareness of the risks to the unborn child when alcohol is consumed in pregnancy and highlight the potential cognitive and developmental consequences for affected individuals as these pertain to service providers, law enforcement and justice, the community sector and education; and
(iii) give support to the development of models of care and helping strategies for families and individuals dealing with the impacts of FASD
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (19:39): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this motion moved by the member for Murray. I thank her for her long-term concern and dedication in bringing this very serious and concerning issue to a high profile in Australia. From the debate so far, I know this is a problem that concerns members on both sides of the House. I have no personal experience with my own children or family members being affected by FASD. However, as the federal member for Cowan, I want to see every child in my electorate with the greatest opportunity to succeed.
As members of parliament we can work to better education and health outcomes across this country through mainstream and early intervention processes. But in the case of FASD the damage is already done. I therefore wish to be clear that I have grave concerns about the danger that unborn children in this country face. Intellectual problems, behavioural problems and learning difficulties are problems that seem to result in progress along an acknowledged route towards antisocial behaviour and crime due in no small part to an inability to fully participate in society.
What if those disabilities were not just a random combination of genetic conflicts but instead were the result of a specific incident caused by the behaviour of the mother when she was pregnant? This is the question I have always had regarding foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. In this country, we have laws that say that a person cannot be given alcohol before they are 18 and that is because their brain is not fully developed and some damage may result. As a society, we are rightly outraged if we hear of a child being given alcohol for whatever reason. Every responsible adult knows that alcohol consumption by children is wrong. But when we think of women drinking whilst pregnant, it does not yet have the same perception of harm to the child and that is why this issue of FASD requires a far higher profile in this country.
What we know is that alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream. In the case of a pregnant woman it is also absorbed into the baby's bloodstream thereby ensuring the baby will have the same blood alcohol level as the mother. It is therefore correct that any amount of alcohol consumed will see that alcohol enter the baby and impact negatively on the development of the baby. That impact will be permanent. The greater the amount of alcohol, the greater the risk. Also, when the alcohol is taken, it will impact in different ways. Permanent disabilities are likely but to various degrees and alcohol taken over a number of days early in the pregnancy will see facial abnormalities apparent in the child. foetal alcohol spectrum disorder including foetal alcohol syndrome may include abnormal facial features, growth problems and also problems with vision, hearing, learning, memory and communication. FASD also includes alcohol related neurodevelopmental disorder, which might create the same intellectual disabilities as FAS and which will result in the child doing poorly in school and having judgment and poor impulse control issues. Alcohol related birth defects may also see a person affected with problems of the heart, kidney, bones or hearing. The warning signs for infants include a low birth weight; irritability; sensitivity to light, noise and/or touch; feeding problems; and a failure to thrive.
Those with FASD problems will, to varying degrees, when they finish school have problems with managing money, time management, decision making, seeking and holding employment, and conducting a range of tasks. They are not likely to be able to function at the same level as those that have not been affected by FASD. Under such circumstances, given such outcomes, any alcohol use in pregnancy is highly risky. Beyond the damage to the child, I wonder what impacts alcohol consumption will also have for our society.
I also ask the question: what problems do we have in Australian with disabilities and with criminal behaviours that are directly linked to a person being permanently damaged by the actions of their mother consuming alcohol whilst pregnant? This is an issue that greatly concerns me. It could be a link to so many problems in our society and is thereby deserving of a far greater profile than it currently has. I certainly believe that more public education is required to highlight this issue as well as more education for health professionals to help identify the extent of the problem. It would also be right to conduct more research into the matter so that we can determine whether problems with intellectual disabilities and with criminal or antisocial tendencies in certain areas may also be linked to FASD problems.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (19:44): I congratulate the member for Murray for bringing this important motion on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder to the parliament. This is a very important issue. I do not think enough attention is given to it. I hate to say this, but I do not think that women are given the information they need about this vitally important subject.
I asked one of my staff members to get together some information for me on this issue and I had to ask if he could reduce the amount of information he had, because the more he looked the more information he found. He even discussed it with his wife, who is a registered nurse. She told him that the information that is given to women is inadequate and that there needs to be a lot more information out there.
As recently as yesterday there was an article in one of the Sunday papers in which a woman was saying that she wanted to drink and she was going to drink what she felt was a moderate amount of alcohol. She argued that there was no information that said that drinking while pregnant is bad for the baby. That is misinformation and the information needs to get out there.
The term 'foetal alcohol spectrum disorder' is used to describe a range of disabilities in children. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder affects every aspect of a young person's life as they grow up. It affects their work choices because it affects their intellectual ability. It changes their facial features and their appearance and that affects the way people relate to them. It affects them in so many areas.
The Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation have done a lot of work in this area. They have done some groundbreaking research and campaigns. I have met with them. They recently invested $500,000 in seven projects across Australia. A recent poll released by the foundation found that 80 per cent of Australians believe that consuming alcohol while pregnant can be harmful to the developing foetus and 72 per cent believe that drinking alcohol while breastfeeding is harmful to the child. A poll taken in Western Australia showed that a large proportion of women drank whilst they were pregnant. There was a random sample. The poll found that a high percentage of non-Indigenous women continued to drink during their pregnancy and that the percentage of Indigenous women who consumed alcohol was even higher.
I note that the member for Hasluck is here in the chamber. I think they have done more research on this issue in Western Australia than in other areas of Australia. The research that has been undertaken should be taken seriously. National guidelines in relation to drinking during pregnancy should be widely publicised. It is time that very strong statements are made about the impact drinking has upon the development of foetuses and the impact drinking alcohol whilst pregnant has on the life of the child once it is born. I refer members to an article in the West Australian on 1 September that showed that children from all socioeconomic groups are affected. This is a big problem. It needs to be addressed. It can only be addressed by making sure that information is out there for everybody.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (19:49): I rise to speak on the foetal alcohol spectrum disorder motion proposed by my colleague the member for Murray. This is a disorder that has been discussed for some period of time, and the previous speaker made reference to the number of reports. There are significant reports that have been undertaken, produced and circulated, but it seems to be a challenge in the way in which the public sector—that is the various state and territory governments and the Commonwealth—have failed to give due attention to a social problem that has significant health, psychological, learning and other challenges in the way in which a young child who comes into the world is affected by the impact of alcohol. One of the challenges we face in this day and age is that it is often thought of as being confined to Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal mothers and children but it is not. In some work we were doing in the Pilbara my colleague Dr Simon Towler, the Chief Medical Officer, made reference to one of the paediatricians saying he had diagnosed another nine new cases in the Pilbara. Dr Towler asked which Aboriginal community and the paediatrician said, 'It is not.' He said it is within the main community in the town in which he practices.
The challenge that we have is changing the thinking of women during pregnancy, but the other issue that arises out of this whole concept and construct of alcohol is that often women do not know that they are pregnant and the practice of using shooters or drinking heavily socially has an impact in those first six weeks of life. By the time they realise they are pregnant, the impact of alcohol in those formative stages has been quite marked. By the way, not all women suffer the consequences of alcohol consumption. There are children who are born without some of the spectrum of disorders associated with foetal alcohol. Nevertheless, we have an obligation to do something because the flip side to this is that I have seen adults who show all the attributes and meet the criteria against foetal alcohol spectrum disorder but nothing has ever been put into place that assists them to enhance their educative pathway in terms of the support they need, nor does it enable schools to identify that there is a need in this area for resources that allow teachers to provide education programs that at least give these children some skerrick of hope in receiving an education that will ground them well for some form of life in the future.
It is an area that has had significant key people do work but in particular I want to acknowledge enclosure Dr Gervase Chaney. I worked with him in WA Health. I asked the WA child health network to produce a model of care for foetal alcohol spectrum disorder so that professional colleagues could guide those who were raising issues but in particular to support the education department in Western Australia where school principals were asking for assistance from the health arena. The work they have done forms the basis for a direction of connectedness between two principal agencies that take over half of the state's responsibility in two key areas. If they take that on wholly and in the context of being focused on those children affected then I think we will see a better coordinated effort in impacting on mothers and some of their thinking but at the same time providing opportunities for children born with those disadvantages that will impact on their lives. The other thing is that it will enable us as a society to take some responsibility in the way that we guide. I certainly do not support a nanny-state approach in saying that thou shalt not drink, but at least allow people to make some decisions based on sound medical knowledge, based on the fact that their child is the ultimate essence of a continuing life and then for the mother to have a role, within that. I would support any work that we do in this parliament and any state and territory parliament on FASD. (Time expired)
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:55): I commend the member for Murray for actioning this motion. She is the deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and I am the chair. I commend her for the work she does in that regard.
People who are suffering from FASD and their families can get considerable support from the federal government, everything from the disability support pension to carer payment, carer allowance, carer supplement, the child disability assistance payments and, of course, there are the family support programs which we are rolling out across the country. Community organisations will share in more than a billion dollars over the next three years to support local families. In my electorate alone there is $5.9 million for family services supporting many vulnerable families and often there is the impact of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD. I commend the work that those local organisations do.
The standing committee of which I am the chair, received compelling evidence on the issue of FASD and the links with offending behaviour. FASD is a term encompassing a range of physical, mental, behavioural and learning disabilities. People with FASD are unable to learn from mistakes, cannot change their behaviour and many times do not understand the consequences of their action. There is really yet no diagnostic measure in relation to this, although DoHA has stated that it is in the final stage of procurement process for the development of a diagnostic screening test to assist clinicians in diagnosing babies and children affected by FASD.
Sue Miers, the spokesperson for the National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and Related Disorders, stressed that FASD is not an Indigenous problem, although it is compelling that it is more of a problem in Indigenous communities than in the non-Indigenous communities. But there is anecdotal evidence which the inquiry received, of the impact in Indigenous communities. Australian studies show that women who are most likely to drink alcohol during pregnancy have a high risk of their children developing FASD and clearly this is a significant problem. Early diagnosis is difficult, and problems with FASD compromise school outcomes, and lead to mental health problems, unemployment, homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse and often contact with criminal justice system eventuates.
In Australia it is pretty clear that FASD is certainly under diagnosed and there is no real concrete data on FASD prevalence. At most risk, as I said, are people with lower socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly Indigenous communities. The Equality Before the Law Benchbook of Western Australia discussed the lack of FASD data in Australia. The evidence that came from that was that the known birth prevalence for FASD in Aboriginal children is higher at 2.76 per 1,000 live births in WA and 4.7 per 1,000 live births in Northern Territory.
The federal government is putting money into the first study of FASD in Australian Indigenous community and it has been initiated by the Fitzroy Valley community and pools the expertise of paediatricians, allied health professionals, social workers and local Indigenous people. We have a group consisting of FaHCSIA, DoHA, the Attorney-General's Department and DEEWR, chaired by DoHA, tasked to report to the Australia Health Ministers Advisory Council in relation to this particular matter. Also we have made it clear that we need to take steps in relation to it.
Our committee recommended in recommendation 9 that the federal government urgently addresses the high incidence of FASD by developing and implementing a FASD diagnostic tool and therapy, particularly in partnership with Indigenous communities. The committee also recommended that there be a recognition of FASD as a registered disability, as a condition eligible for support services in health and education systems. We urge the government to consider carefully those recommendations. We also recommended that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I see the chair here, the member for Moreton, conduct an inquiry into FASD. This sounds a little incestuous but in fact, I am looking forward to that inquiry, I happen to be a member of that committee as well. This is a very serious problem and we need to address it. I urge the government to adopt the recommendations in the Doing time report that I referred to. I commend the member for Murray for the motion.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (20:00): I rise to speak to the motion moved by my colleague the member for Murray in relation to foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, is known to be one of the biggest causes of non-genetic permanent intellectual impairment and lifelong physical and mental damage to children, including permanent brain damage and increased chances of learning and behavioural difficulty as well as depression. One study, published in the Journal of Paediatricsand Child Health in 2003, stated that in the Top End of the Northern Territory, my home, an estimated 0.68 children per 1,000 live births were affected by foetal alcohol syndrome.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 20 : 01 to 20:1 5
Mrs GRIGGS: As I was saying, a study published in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health in 2003 stated that in the top end of the Northern Territory an estimated 0.68 children per 1,000 live births were affected by FASD. This figure was significantly more for Indigenous births, with the prevalence estimated to be 1.87 per 1,000 live births. Interestingly, researchers suggested that the non-Indigenous prevalence might rise to 1.7 per 1,000 live births where births were identified as partial FASD or alcohol related neurodevelopment disorders were assumed to be cases of FASD, whereas the prevalence was estimated to be a more significant figure of 4.7 per 1,000 live births for Indigenous births.
The public perception of alcohol in pregnancy is mixed. Generally people think it is okay to have alcohol during pregnancy. This motion identifies the need for a better informed community, alerting them to the potential dangers of consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
I currently have an 18-year-old work experience student from my electorate working in my office in Parliament House. Her name is Caitlin Carne. She was shocked after reading some research about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder earlier today. She said: 'Some of my friends have gone through pregnancies and there are some who are currently pregnant, and we thought having a glass of wine or two a day was fine. There needs to be more education and awareness; I need to tell my friends.' Caitlin is exactly right: there does need to be more education and awareness of FASD and the potential risks associated with drinking alcohol during pregnancy. That is why my colleague the member for Murray has brought this issue to this place, to ensure that the community is better informed and aware of this totally preventable disorder. Already today, as a result of this motion being brought to this place, there are a number of young people from my electorate who are now aware of the potential dangers associated with drinking alcohol.
A 2010 Western Australian report on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder suggests that an alarming 45 per cent of Australian women drink during pregnancy. Around half of those pregnancies are unplanned, so many babies will be exposed to alcohol in their first trimester. The member for Murray has indicated that some healthcare professionals may not be sufficiently educated to understand the condition and its effects. The member for Murray has also indicated in this place that there are instances of healthcare professionals aware of FASD who may be embarrassed to tell mothers that the child's condition may have been a direct result of drinking alcohol during pregnancy. The member for Murray also suggests that there may be children with FASD who have potentially been misdiagnosed with autism. This does not help when it comes to providing support services. Better awareness and education is key in helping those who suffer from this disorder. Early detection and support can assist those with the disorder to live a better quality of life.
There is bipartisan support for this motion. Both sides of this House agree that it is important to highlight within the community the potential risks associated with drinking alcohol while pregnant. This House, through this motion, is required to support the idea that there is a need to develop models of care and helping strategies for families and individuals dealing with this disorder. There is no doubt that the awareness program that this motion calls for actually started here today. I am confident that Caitlin will be sharing with her friends the potential risks of drinking alcohol during pregnancy. There is no cure for this disorder, but with better education and awareness starting here today we can bring about prevention. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (20:19): I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Murray. I commend her on her efforts, through this motion, to shine a light on the dangers associated with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. I am on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs with the member for Murray, and she is acting deputy chair at the moment on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, where we intend to commence an inquiry into FASD as soon as we finish the inquiries we are conducting at the moment. Most members would be aware of the risks to unborn babies associated with pregnant woman consuming alcohol during pregnancy. However, in some sections of society the dangers are not as well known. The number of babies affected by foetal alcohol syndrome is thought to be as high as 2.7 per 1,000 babies born. It is even higher in Indigenous communities. Some studies have found that 60 per cent of cases of FASD were Indigenous.
There is still debate about what level of alcohol can be safely consumed by pregnant mothers but it is interesting to note that the World Health Organisation now recommends that women should be advised not to drink at all. Babies born with foetal alcohol syndrome face a range of difficulties later in life including lower IQ, developmental delays, behaviour problems, learning difficulties, memory problems, increased risk of behaviour problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, increased risk of mental health difficulties such as depression and psychosis and increased risk of alcohol and drug misuse. Sadly, there is no cure for foetal alcohol syndrome and those who suffer from it suffer for a lifetime. Only prevention is the answer.
I understand that the Gillard Labor government has developed and distributed materials advising pregnant or breastfeeding women that not drinking is clearly the safest option. The government is also investing $700,000 to the National Drug Research Institute to develop materials to assist health professionals and alcohol and drug workers, especially those working with ATSI people. The Gillard Labor government has also provided $450,000 to the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research to develop a diagnostic instrument to assist clinicians in diagnosing babies and children with FASD. More importantly, the Gillard Labor government is also supporting people with foetal alcohol syndrome and their families.
People with FASD who are over 16 years old may qualify for the disability support pension if their level of impairment prevents them from working for 15 hours or more a week for at least the next two years. The government's range of payments to carers is also available to carers of children and adults with FASD who, because of the demands of their caring role, are unable to support themselves. The rates of FASD are much higher in remote Indigenous communities and this is a national disgrace. The government has a range of actions in place to help reduce these chronic rates but obviously we need to do more.
Through our income management initiatives, the Gillard Labor government is working to ensure that welfare payments are always spent in the best interests of children. These measures limit expenditure of income support payments on excluded items, such as alcohol and tobacco, to help ease financial stress and ensure these payments are spent on essentials—it seems ridiculous but things, for example, like making sure there is food on the table for children.
We are also investing $1 billion in the Family Support Program to support families, improve children's wellbeing and safety and build more resilient communities. The saying that it takes a village to raise a child is true. It is clear that the Gillard government is doing a lot to increase public awareness and reduce cases of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is also clear that there is much more work to do. For all too many years my wife, who has worked in child protection now for 21 years, has told me so many sad tales of children that have experienced foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and the sad lot that awaits them later on in life. Sadly, the cycle goes on and on. There is much work to be done and I look forward to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs doing its little bit to contribute to knowledge in this area and I commend the member for Murray for bringing this issue to the attention of the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Football Queensland Licensing Scheme
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the Football Queensland licensing scheme is anti-competitive because it:
(a) excludes smaller and new apparel manufacturers who cannot afford to pay the annual fee from the market;
(b) increases costs for clubs and players as licensed suppliers pass on the cost of the licence fee and the ‘Q Logo’ to consumers;
(c) forces clubs to purchase what some regard as inferior and expensive products as Football Queensland strictly enforces penalties against clubs that wear apparel from nonlicensed suppliers in competitive matches;
(d) increases cost for regional clubs as manufacturers large enough to pay the licensing fee are based in the large population centres, not in the regions; and
(e) protects licensed suppliers fr o m true competition as there are only a limited number of licensed suppliers and most are aware of each other's prices;
(2) recognises that the current immunity from prosecution granted to Football Queensland by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been instrumental in allowing Football Queensland to conduct this anti-competitive behaviour and sets a precedent for other sporting administration bodies within Australia to instigate similar schemes;
(3) calls on the ACCC to consider the anti-competitive nature of the Football Queensland licensing scheme when deciding on the continuation of the immunity from prosecution granted to Football Queensland; and
(4) acknowledges that Football Queensland and other similar organisations have special exemptions and conditions in relation to their status in their community and as a consequence also carry special responsibility and duty of care in the exercise of its charter for clubs and players, as well as its commercial relationships.
Mr RIPOLL ( Oxley ) ( 20: 24 ): At the outset of my contribution I want to make a few things clear. One is my great support for football in Queensland. It is a great code and a great sport. Soccer—football—has one of the highest participation rates of any sport in Australia if not the world. Particularly for young players, juniors and kids it is a big part of their sporting life and upbringing. It was for me as a youngster and it was for my kids when they were a bit younger as well. In fact, I think it even goes deeper. On any weekend you can go out and see countless numbers of fields being used by young people playing football—soccer to the uninitiated—and it is truly a great code. Like all great codes, of course, it has associations at state and federal levels. It is made up of a range of people—mostly parents and volunteers—who put in an enormous effort, their own time, resources and money, ensuring the code succeeds and delivers on its charter. There are also paid people in associations, chief executive officers and other people, with different responsibilities and different roles.
I am a big supporter and I brought this forward because of that and because of my concern for a number of years that there are some issues in that Football Queensland has a special exemption on competition from the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Football Queensland Ltd is an Australian public company. It is limited by guarantee and is responsible for the administration of football in Queensland, including the collection of national fees on behalf of the Football Federation of Australia. It covers all of Queensland. It is in nine regions, which is great, right up and down the state from the most remote areas to the metropolitan areas around Brisbane. Again, we all support that. We think it is a great thing. There are approximately 340 clubs. It is quite big. There are 66,000 players participating in Football Queensland, so it is a big code and I am a big supporter. I have got many local clubs myself.
Of note, interestingly—and I will come back to this—from 2008 to 2010, the total number of players has actually gone down. I do not have an explanation for that. It has only gone down a little but still it is an issue and something that we ought to look more closely at. We all support young people, seniors and female players being involved in the sport.
Football Queensland lodged notification on 28 April 2008 asking the ACCC for a special Football Queensland teamwear program. The ACCC gave a special exemption to Football Queensland from prosecution, so it would not need to abide by the normal laws and regulations that other codes, businesses or anyone else in the community have to on the basis that it would do a number of things. In particular, Football Queensland's teamwear program was likely to—and this is what Football Queensland said—generate some benefit through ensuring a minimum quality standard for teamwear products. This is commendable, as it should. It would generate revenue through suppliers paying the FQ licence fee, fees and royalties and so forth. The extent of damage this would do in terms of the extra costs built in for football players would be outweighed by the public benefit. They said they would do that as well. Licence fees payable, while they are a public detriment, would be passed through to clubs and would be minimal. Football Queensland said that no clubs had complained about the apparel costs when they increased.
In March 2010, the ACCC received a complaint regarding the teamwear program and has been pursuing a number of issues with Football Queensland. That there had only been one complaint, Football Queensland stated at the time that that justified the program and there was nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, a number of people disagree. I am one of those people who have written to the ACCC and have been following this up. I believe that the teamwear program damages the code. It damages the code by increasing the cost to players, and perhaps one reason—there may be others; I do not have any evidence of this—why numbers have been steadily falling since 2008 is cost.
It is expensive to play; I think we all agree on that. In the end, we all agree that we want to make it affordable for young players. We want to make it affordable for families and that, where special exemption is granted from the ACCC, it meets the objectives. The whole point is you get an exemption based on a number of objectives.
Football Queensland did a survey requested by the ACCC and only five submissions were returned: three from existing licensees who supported the program, as you would expect because they are in the program, but only two from associated clubs who did not like the program. They thought it would be better to levy the players directly and it would be cheaper for them. There is certainly plenty of evidence that that would be the case. The board concluded from the lack of response that there was a general satisfaction with existing arrangements. I would actually say that rather than satisfaction there was perhaps disinterest or a view that their views may or may not have counted. Again, I do not have evidence of that but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that it is because of one thing unless you can confirm it. So I am not prepared to say why that is the case.
But of real interest and of real significance is that the ACCC has now given a draft notification in respect of Football Queensland's exemption to revoke that exemption. There is a fairly hefty document, and this has been the subject of a couple of years of review by the ACCC, which actually says that Football Queensland has failed on the counts that it is meant to meet. Football Queensland, by having its third line forcing conduct, actually distorted demand and supply and made equipment more expensive. It actually did not improve quality but diminished quality, and did not follow through on its claim that it would ensure quality by perhaps going out to the market and testing it. Rather it said that it was the end user who would test that quality and give feedback through to Football Queensland. That has not happened. It has created a number of distortions in the way that the licensing takes place. And it created a false market. Football Queensland's view is that the market is not unique or special in any particular way. Others would disagree. But most importantly it is the ACCC that disagrees rather than me. Football Queensland submits that the teamwear program delivers public benefits, including ensuring a minimum standard of quality, timely supply of teamwear, apparel and equipment, the promotion of the game image, the promotion of the FQ brand and the generation of income for Football Queensland. It certainly generates income for Football Queensland; that no-one argues. But on all the other counts it actually fails. The ACCC agrees that it does not meet its objectives.
The reason it has taken so long—it has taken two years—is because the ACCC did rightly give Football Queensland time to respond. When Football Queensland was granted a special exemption from prosecution, the idea was that it would, like any other organisation having been granted an exemption, come back with a follow-through on that exemption—an explanation and evidence based on what Football Queensland had said it would do. Football Queensland did not do that and to date has still not done that. There is now a process in place to revoke that special exemption.
When I first spoke about this in parliament—and I am not the first member of parliament to speak about this, either, or the first person from the community to have a view on this—I did say that I was disappointed. I am disappointed because I think that Football Queensland, like any other peak body, has a special responsibility, a special role in our community. They have a special responsibility not to me, but to the players, to the teams, and to the clubs. It is price sensitive and we have to do everything we can to ensure that we deliver value, quality, minimum standards and all the rest of it. If you are going to claim to do that, then do it. That is all; just do it. Do what you are claiming to do; don't do the opposite. That has been the case, and now it is up to Football Queensland to prove to the ACCC that their exemption should not be revoked because right now that is what is happening. The ACCC has said it is going to revoke their special exemption from prosecution because in the way they are operating this program they are not meeting any of their objectives. That is the concern for me.
I think there is an opportunity here because Football Queensland is made up of good people, and a good board. I think it is just a matter of them actually getting their house in order, getting their ducks in a row, and getting on with the job of what they are meant to do on two fronts. One is in addressing the ACCC concerns so they do not have their exemption revoked. I do not want that to happen unless it is the best thing for the code. I should not be the arbiter or the judge of these things. When people read the document by the ACCC they will understand the extent to which Football Queensland has failed the code, failed the clubs and failed the players.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (20:29): I rise to speak on this motion as well. Whilst not discounting the previous speaker's motives at all—I think in this House we are all in favour of sporting organisations, of proper administration and of our children and our friends playing sport—but I do not support the member's motion. To look at these sorts of things without taking the holistic view is to promote ambush marketing. Football Queensland's licensing scheme has been running for around 30 years and has been proven to be a successful arrangement. Licensing policies such as this one are standard and are in use in several sporting bodies across Australia.
The previous speaker, the member for Oxley, spoke about cost. It is true that as a parent with two children currently in sport, it is a big cost. Basketball is by far and away my biggest concern in the city of Townsville. I am with the member for Oxley; it still is soccer to me. I ran a rugby club in my youth and I know the very real financial pressures on all clubs at all times, and the opportunity to save money at any time can never be ignored. This, I am afraid, is a very small-picture response. What this thing does is provide Football Queensland by licensing these things with another source of revenue, allowing them to reinvest in the sport, including at a junior level—especially at a junior level—and helping them to keep club fees as low as humanly possible. We all know the cost of insurance; we all know the cost of these things that have gone up exponentially. It also allows for the proper paid and professional administration at the highest possible level, and that is where a game will change. That is where a game will go into the 21st century. If you think about where the Queensland Rugby Union was in the 70s and 80s, we were a fantastic team but as a code we were being held back administratively. I think everyone will agree now that the administration of the Queensland Rugby Union is a lot better. I am not sure that the FFA will stand up to that tonight.
I have discussed this motion with Townsville Football and Helen Stalin, who is the administrator and life member of Townsville football, and they have no issue with it. Townsville and North Queensland as a region have a wide range of supplies that are licensed with Football Queensland and through these suppliers clubs are able to choose from a range of different price and quality levels when selecting apparel manufacturers. My son plays for Saint Sand Crabs. They were unlucky on the weekend but football was the winner: they lost one-nil. Of course my son played absolutely brilliantly. They looked sharp and everyone out on the field looked sharp. I helped out with the trophy presentations and medal presentations because it was the end of the junior season in Townsville. To see the kids there in their match uniforms and their post-match uniforms with all their socks, and as the member for Oxley said, everyone wearing boots and everyone wearing shin guards, it is a wonderful thing to see out there. The kids will get out there and enjoy themselves.
Far from increasing the cost and reducing the quality of apparel for regional clubs as the motion suggests, this scheme has helped foster local football with greater investment and lower club fees without impacting the price manufacturers are charging or their choice of supplier. I congratulate Townsville Football on the job they did in the season just passed with Cyclone Yasi going through Townsville. I take this opportunity to heap praise on Greg Riddington, Helen Stallan and all the volunteers and administration staff at Townsville Football. The damage is still being assessed and it is still being fixed post Cyclone Yasi and the tremendous amount of rain we had in the off season.
One of the great things you do when you are there is when all the under-eights, 10s and 12s kids are standing around you get them to give three cheers for all the parents, coaches and managers. I think that is something we should do in here—have the day of the parent, the coach and the manager who take their time and give of their time to take children to sport, to take other people's kids to sport and to have a great time. To the groundspeople that produce a quality product every weekend for not only Townsville Football but for the Razorbacks and what used to be the Fury before the FFA did the dirty on us, should never be underestimated. I would like to say thank you to Townsville Football for another great season and, which ilst I understand the motives behind the member for Oxley bringing this motion forward, I simply cannot support it.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (20:39): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Oxley on the Football Queensland licensing scheme. I am proud to say that I can support it and that is particularly tough for me with Football Queensland being based in my electorate. I have looked at this matter and when you have a draft notice from the ACCC you know that you are on the right track. It is unfortunate that the previous speaker, the member for Herbert, was not able to support it.
Every Australian would agree that club sport is a quintessential part of Australian culture. I see a football-playing member of the House opposite in the member for Forde and he would agree that it is arguably more important than the big clubs like the Roar or the Broncos, the Lions, the Reds or the Firebirds. Whilst it is important we have our teams to follow, club sport is going to touch more lives and is more important for our communities. It is a great way for men, women and children to get active, which is important, to stay fit and, more importantly, to learn social skills and to make friends. Sometimes friends we make in junior sport stay with us for the rest of our lives. Sport also teaches us to work as a team, to develop leadership skills and, very importantly, to learn how to lose. I know some people find it hard to accept when they have lost, but it is an important skill that we learn in sport.
Sport does not happen at the local level without many volunteers and coaches who give their time to help keep club sport alive. I particularly thank the coaches for my son's team, the under-6s, playing at El Salvador in Yeronga, and the great work they have done this season. That is why, with all those great features of local sport, the behaviour of Football Queensland seems so insulting to players, volunteers and parents. The ACCC has previously issued a competition law exemption which enables Football Queensland to require its member clubs to use only apparel and equipment from licensed suppliers. Suppliers purchase a licence from Football Queensland to supply gear, and clubs have limited options as to who they can purchase gear from. Known as third-line forcing, this arrangement must pass the public benefit test and deliver significant benefits to players and clubs that outweigh the higher costs of a closed market.
The government believes that competition in markets is the best way to ensure lower prices for consumers. Whether it be football gear or carbon pricing, we do believe in markets. The general rule is to err on the side of competition and, under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, businesses are prohibited from engaging in anti-competitive conduct. This act also prohibits organisations from requiring a purchaser to acquire goods or services from a particular third party except in cases such as this where the ACCC has issued a specific exemption.
The idea of licensing is that sporting organisations are able to raise revenue through licensing schemes to cover costs of administration and club development. On the face of it, this is good for sport because it does keep the money flowing for sporting administrators. However, as with any restricted market, the limited number of suppliers inflates the cost of football apparel, making it very expensive for those who just want to run around on the footy field. It was never the intention of the ACCC to make sport less accessible, especially in some of the poorer parts of my electorate, and in Australia. If these licensing arrangements are kept in place, it will mean that more Australians miss out on sport because they simply cannot afford the expensive sports apparel and equipment. We all know, if you have got young children, how important it is you wear what everyone else is wearing in sports gear.
The exorbitant licence fees also price smaller suppliers out of the market. Sports administrators are also free to increase licence fees at any time. But Football Queensland is yet to detail the benefits to my community. That is why I welcome the draft notice issued by the ACCC last week proposing to revoke the competition law exemption for Football Queensland. The ACCC are now seeking comments on this draft notice. I encourage Queenslanders to have their say.
Football Queensland also need to open up their books and show how their revenues are being used to benefit the code, particularly at the grassroots level. Is it to line the pockets of administrators? I am sure it is not. I am sure it would be about delivering tangible benefits to the football clubs in my electorate and the electorate of the member for Oxley. I commend the member for Oxley for having the courage to bring this matter to the attention of the parliament and I commend his motion to the House.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (20:44): Along with my two colleagues on the other side of the chamber, I have for many years enjoyed playing the world game. The member for Moreton and I enjoy a social game down on the Senate oval most weeks. It is a little concerning. Like the member for Herbert, I find it very difficult to support this motion because I have not heard any complaints in the over 20 years I have played this game with a number of clubs, including a number of premier league clubs. Certainly not since commencing my current role have I had any complaints from local football clubs or parents. My son too plays in a local football club. It has certainly not been a topic of discussion. Costs have certainly been a topic of discussion, but by far the biggest part of registration costs are for insurance.
The Queensland football licensing scheme has been in force for about the past 30 years. It has allowed clubs to invest more in the junior level of the sport. As my colleagues have noted, it has also been a successful arrangement for clubs nationally. Other sports have also taken advantage of these schemes. The board of Football Queensland continue to view this as a valuable arrangement that allows the organisation to obtain funds from goods or necessities purchased by their members and affiliates that can then be invested into the sport. It also provides funding for a professional administrative organisation.
I readily admit that Football Queensland is not perfect, but what sporting organisation is? It does a fantastic job, with currently 330 clubs across Queensland and also a few in Northern New South Wales. It has a turnover of some $4 million per annum. It also employs 20 people on a full-time or part-time basis in its head office at Mount Gravatt. It is a non-profit organisation, so all of the funds it raises through sponsorship, fees or other things are reinvested into the growth of the world game in Queensland and Northern New South Wales. This scheme has been tried and tested and has provided great investment in local football clubs and has provided lower fees and costs. It not only benefits up-and-coming players and their families but, through the tight control and regulation of the supply of quality apparel, provides a worthwhile additional revenue source for Football Queensland.
This motion intimates that Football Queensland has not been proactive in expanding the range of products available to the clubs. That is actually not the case. Over the past four years the number of suppliers has more than doubled, from six to 13. This indicates to me that Football Queensland is looking to provide an increasing range of options for clubs. The list of suppliers ranges from internationally recognised brands, such as Nike and Adidas, to local suppliers, such as Living Edge Designs and Apparel in Brisbane.
It is important to note that, despite the context of this motion from the member for Oxley, this arrangement was approved by the ACCC in July 2008 and it was based on information provided by Football Queensland at that time. It also followed consultation with a number of clubs randomly selected by the ACCC. The member for Oxley is correct that the current arrangement is again being reviewed by the ACCC, but it is important to note that Football Queensland have sought to cooperate with the ACCC in this review. They believe they have provided all the information that is required and they are more than happy to provide more information if the ACCC wishes them to do so. I spoke this afternoon with the CEO of Football Queensland in that respect. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 20:50 to 21:0 2
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Debate resumed.
Economy
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (21:02): When we talk about the importance of economic policy, we do not do so because it is an innately interesting thing to do; we talk about it because getting the fundamentals right with the economy is about people. It is about providing the right framework for businesses to grow to employ people, for start-ups to occur and for industry to develop. It is about raising the standard of living and the prospects for the people for whom we govern and, in our nation of Australia, providing the best possible framework so that people can pursue their dreams, achieve a better standard of living and an easier way of life and have greater freedoms than their forebears had. So, when we read newspaper reports today that the government is planning to attack a very important part of the former Howard government's economic policy—planning for the future, making provision for the future—when we read that it is planning to raid the Future Fund to artificially prop up a return to surplus in the 2012-13 budget after years in the deficit wilderness, that is great cause for concern.
An Australian citizen usually has to establish a watertight case for economic hardship before authorities will even entertain allowing them to make a withdrawal from their super fund, but this government plans to use the Future Fund as its personal ATM to avoid unwanted scrutiny for failing to achieve yet another promise, the promise of future budget targets. Senator Wong, of course, denies all of this, yet the department for which she is responsible confirmed it with their answer to a question taken on notice. The fact is that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister cannot risk being exposed, yet again, for making yet another lie. Their personal egos and—
Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that you ask the member for Indi to withdraw the word 'lie'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Indi would assist the Main Committee if she withdrew that word 'lie'.
Mrs MIRABELLA: I withdraw the word 'lie', but the fact is that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister cannot be believed about absolutely any commitment, any promise, that they make. For the sake of their own reputation—whatever is left of it—they are trying to damage future Australians, the future economy, future budgets, by raiding the Future Fund. It is political expediency at its very worst and such a poor substitute, such a sneaky substitute, for good, difficult economic policies. We will not see those from this government.
Australians are not going to be hoodwinked into swallowing a budget that is artificially propped up by a government that is so fiscally irresponsible that it would rather borrow from itself than properly manage revenues and expenditures to achieve forecast outcomes. Setting the budget woes to one side, the impact on the Future Fund of making this reckless forecast of withdrawals could be devastating. It follows on from the dangerous precedent set in 2007 when the government cited use of the Future Fund to fund its ill-conceived National Broadband Network to the tune of $2.7 billion.
But it is no surprise that this government has resorted to these desperate measures when you consider its diabolical record of economic management. Let us look at net government debt. The Howard government was $29.2 billion in the black. The Rudd-Gillard government is $107 billion in the red. Net government worth was $46.7 billion in the black under the Howard government compared to $87.5 billion in the red under the Rudd-Gillard government. Long-term unemployment is up 73 per cent under this government, not to mention the unemployment rate, government expenses, annual GDP growth, inflation and any other important measure of economic progress and prosperity.
These figures can get overwhelming. Every day, if it is not another scandal, it is another statistic, another fact, that highlights the gross incompetence of the current regime. If there is only one figure people remember, let it be that this government is borrowing $135 million every day, or just under $1 billion a week. By 2014, taxpayers will be forking out almost $7½ billion a year to service the interest alone on the debt.
Whatever budgetary projections are made, whatever prospects the government say will be achieved, none of them are actually achieved. In November last year, we were told that the deficit for 2010-11 would be $41.5 billion. On budget night, it was revealed that this had blown out to $50 billion. The list goes on. Labor have been promising to return to surplus next year, something we know they will never do in an open and competent way. They will try to be sneaky with figures, try to raid the Future Fund and, I am sure, engage in whatever creative accounting they can.
When the last budget was handed down, the coalition warned that Labor's forecast surplus was based on unrealistic assumptions about the economy. It is clear now that Mr Swan has accepted that his surplus will never be achieved, changing it from a promise to the very sneaky phrase of 'an objective'. We see that this government is not just getting the fundamentals wrong; it cannot exercise basic sober, adult restraint when it comes to conning the Australian people with whatever its latest hobbyhorse is, whatever the spin masters have told it to put out there to the public.
We saw the government waste $12 million on advertising the carbon tax, before the legislation had even come to parliament, and almost $13 million advertising Kevin Rudd's now obsolete health reforms. It used taxpayers' money to make claims that it now says were not correct. It spent $38 million on Kevin Rudd's dumped mining tax. And, of course, we have had the disastrous failure of a nonpolicy with the dismantling of the Howard government's border protection policy and we now see not only failed border protection policies but other policies that have led to a $3 billion blow-out in Australia's detention centre network. The list goes on with $1½ billion wasted on the BER and $1.7 billion wasted on combustible pink batts, and, unfortunately, people are starting to get immune to the word 'billion'. If you blow out by a billion or two or three, that has become the accepted thing, the norm, under the current government. It is extraordinarily unacceptable and extraordinarily sad.
One of my favourite examples of a waste of money is this. At a time when the government wants to introduce a carbon tax—the only one of its type in the world—to impose yet another cost on Australian manufacturers, they find the time and inclination to allocate $24.25 million to the establishment of the ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions. When it comes to priorities and when so many Australians are doing it so hard to make ends meet and to make sure that they have a household budget that pays for life's essentials and makes sure they can get through to the next payday, it is a serious neglect of responsibility to see this government not only waste and mismanage basic programs and flagship programs but also deliberately waste money on such things as the ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions. This is at the same time as they cannot find the energy or the inclination to have an inquiry into the state of manufacturing in this country and when the trade union movement is telling them that this is the worst crisis in manufacturing since the Depression. These are dark days for the Australian people and for the Australian economy. Now is not the time to introduce a carbon tax. (Time expired)
Australian Public Service
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (21:12): I rise to speak in praise of public sector workers in the ACT and throughout Australia. It was my pleasure recently to attend a roundtable discussion hosted by Slater and Gordon Canberra and the Centre for Policy Development, the topic of which to be discussed was a new report by the CPD authored by James Whelan. The report which is titled The state of the Australian Public Service: an alternative reportis an insightful analysis of the role that the Australian Public Service plays today. The report notes that the Australian Public Service's employment, currently 163,778 people as at the end of 30 December 2010, lies somewhere between the number of people employed in Coles and the number of people employed in Woolworths.
The report discusses, in a real broad sweep of history way, how the Australian Public Service has developed and some of the major challenges currently facing it. Its findings would make interesting reading, I imagine, for the member for North Sydney, who has repeatedly claimed that the increase in public servant numbers since Labor came to office has been 20,000. The member for North Sydney continues to sprout this figure despite having been repeatedly corrected by the minister. As the minister has pointed out, the change in Australian Public Service numbers since this government came to office has been 8,355, rather than 20,000. But it is not these inaccuracies in knowing the current number of public servants that so worry my constituents; it is the repeated promise from the member for North Sydney to slash 12,000 public service jobs out of Canberra. This lies in contrast to the views of those from the Centre for Policy Development. In addition to Dr Whelan, I would like to single out Miriam Lyons for her wisdom in commissioning this work as the executive director. The Centre for Policy Development Research has delved deeply into a range of important issues for the Public Service. For example, it tabulates the APS retrenchments since 1995. When one looks at that graph, a clear spike stands out. That is in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. APS retrenchments in no other year exceed 4,000 but in those three years the annual retrenchments were 10,070, 10,238 and 9,061 respectively. It is very clear what happens to numbers in the APS when a coalition government comes to office. They are slashed.
The report also focuses on the role that the Big Society reforms are having in the United Kingdom. The report notes:
The Coalition's desire to reduce the size and cost of the Australian Public Service taps into 'small government' movements that have been prevalent here and in other western countries since at least the 1970s. The values, vision and policies of these movements are currently expressed by the Tea Party in the United States and 'Big Society' in the United Kingdom.
You can see a clear contrast of values in the quotes on the Public Service that are included in the report. For example, the member for Fadden has told parliament:
I want the government to be small, I want the public service reduced.
The member for Wannon has said:
… the government needs to put a freeze on Public Service recruitment.
But it is not the case that all of those opposite take this simplistic view to the Public Service. The member for Wentworth says:
Squeezing public servants probably appeals to some people. I think the critical thing is to ensure that Government delivers its services efficiently at every level but you've just have to be smart about it.
The member for Kennedy says:
They have done a good job and their Public Service has done a good job.
Those are words that I commend to this House.
It is important that we continue to recognise the great work occurring in the Public Service. Nicholas Gruen's Government 2.0 report suggests some ways in which innovation could be rewarded, including the novel notion of a policy idol competition. When I was in the United States I was privileged to be a judge for the Innovations in American Government awards that are run annually which recognise innovation within the United States government.
We need to recognise that public servants are critical to the quality of service delivery. One of the reasons that Australia avoided the global financial crisis was the rapid fiscal stimulus which occurred so successfully, in large part thanks to the work of the Treasury, the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink. On this 10th anniversary of September 11, it is worth remembering that on that fateful day it was the government workers who were running up the stairs. And when the Queensland floods hit earlier this year, the Minister for Human Services noted the tragic death of Centrelink worker Gillian Harman who spent a month volunteering in flood hit Queensland in Dalby. As the minister said, Ms Harman returned home on Sunday night. She went straight back to work in her Centrelink office in Guyra in northern New South Wales on Monday and tragically was killed on Monday going home from the office. It is this sort of dedication to work of the Public Service that we on this side of the House recognise.
Public sector workers more broadly benefit from the representation of their unions. I pay tribute to the CPSU, the AEU, the ASU, the ANEF, United Voice, the UFU and the Police Federation among others for the work they do every day in representing public sector workers. There are major challenges in this sector. One of the challenges noted by James Whelan's report is the challenge of increasing the share of Indigenous workers and the share of workers with a disability in an Australian Public Service where recruitment now typically starts at the APS 3 level or above.
Finally, I would like to turn to another type of public sector workers and pay tribute to the many teachers in the electorate of Fraser who day in, day out do work that is enormously valuable which inspires the next generation of Canberrans to learn and to understand the world around them. I also want to pay tribute to the Teach for Australia program. I had the pleasure recently of having dinner in Canberra with, and speaking in Melbourne to, Teach for Australia associates, as they are known—the new teachers who teach in the classroom. I would like to thank Melodie Potts-Rosevear for giving me that opportunity. Teach for Australia is an extraordinarily selective program. In 2009, over 750 applications were received for only 50 places. Of those selected for the program, the average UAI/ENTER score was 97. This selective program means that Teach for Australia associates are placed into classrooms after an intensive pre-placement education and then teach for two years in disadvantaged schools while they continue to complete their education through a two-year postgraduate diploma of teaching at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne. This program has built on the success of similar programs in the United States and the United Kingdom and works to get as many talented people as we can into the classroom. Not all teachers will be TFA alumni, but it is another flexible pathway into teaching.
I pay tribute in particular to the Teach for Australia teachers who have been working hard in the electorate of Fraser this year: Lia van den Bosch at Hawker College, Imogen Byrne at Belconnen High, Corey McCann and Igraine Ridley-Smith at Calwell High, and Felicity Oliver at Erindale College. In the ACT, we are grateful to them for joining the teaching workforce and for working alongside the many great teachers in the ACT who enrich the lives of young Canberrans every day. I know that this is not always an easy job. I know that walking into the classroom when you are tired, when the kids are not always behaving at their best, can be a challenge, but it is essential work for the future of our nation and I pay tribute to the many teachers who do it every day.
Western Australia: Infrastructure Funding
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (21:22): At the 2007 election, Kevin Rudd promised to maintain the coalition's Regional Partnerships and Sustainable Regions Program and to launch a new Better Regions regional development program. Instead, the Labor government axed these programs and used its Better Regions program to only fund projects committed to by Labor candidates at the 2007 election.
Early in 2011, the government announced the $1.4 billion Regional Development Australia Fund, which of course is linked to and relies on the passage of the government's new mining tax, the majority of which will be stripped out of Western Australia. But already the Labor government has cut this fund to around $1 billion. In spite of WA's contribution to the national economy and the government using the state as a cash cow, the south-west has been totally ignored in the first round of federal funding through the Regional Development Australia Fund.
Last week, this Labor government announced funding of $150 million from the $1 billion five-year fund and left the south-west of Western Australia completely off the list. In a region of rapid growth that is desperate for infrastructure, regionally strategic and tourism project funding to meet community and industry needs, this outcome is a disgrace. The south-west of Western Australia is an engine room for the state and national economies. It has a $12 billion GDP, but we need investment in infrastructure like roads, rail, airports and the Bunbury port so the region can make an even greater contribution. The mining, construction and manufacturing industries are the main contributors to economic production in the region, at 24.9 per cent, 15.8 per cent and 10.1 per cent of total production respectively.
Mining output in the south-west ranks internationally, with the region producing more than half the world's tantalum and lithium and about one-quarter of the alumina, zircon, rutile and ilmenite supply. Bunbury port had throughput of 13.866 million tonnes in 2009-10, mostly alumina. This ranked the port fourth in Western Australia and 11th nationally for the tonnage of trade handled. There is, however, a plan to export a further 12 million tonnes per annum of coal, which should commence in 2014.
The south-west has been planning for its future developments, and its Roads to Export plan is endorsed by both the Commonwealth Regional Development Australia body and the state's South West Development Commission. It is supported also by the Bunbury Wellington Economic Alliance, which is representation from every local government in the area and a large number of businesses and industries. The Roads to Export plan identifies that transport infrastructure in the Bunbury-Wellington area is operating at or near capacity. Natural population growth in major project developments will place significant demands on transport and port infrastructure. Without a significant upgrade, project investments will be lost and existing operations constrained by transport bottlenecks. The south-west document identifies that the south-west of Western Australia requires an investment of $623 million to complete Bunbury port linked transport infrastructure and underpin the continuation of the decade-long trend of increasing productivity.
This investment is essential for the development of the south-west region and the state of Western Australia. So when funding is made available through Regional Development Australia funds, the south-west should have immediately been on the government's radar. It meets every single one of the government's purported objectives in its regional development program but it actually seems that this government's infrastructure radar is not working. There were a number of very sound projects put forward by the local south-west committee which have been ignored by the Labor government. Given that funding of the Regional Development Australia fund in the future is dependent on the Labor Party's new mining tax, this is one more example of the west being fleeced by Labor's eastern states priorities. In addition Labor appears to be using this fund to buy political largesse. It has delivered almost two-thirds of the regional development funds to its own electorates and those of their supporters, even though Labor holds just one-third of the seats in regional Australia. According to the Parliamentary Library, Labor holds 23 of the 62 non-metropolitan seats but is happily swallowing the lion's share of this funding. Given that the bulk of the funding raised from the government's new mining tax will come from Western Australia, this is even more reprehensible from the south-west point of view.
There is not one dollar for the infrastructure, the nine regionally strategic or tourism projects identified in the south-west action statement. I have identified a number of key infrastructure needs in the south-west that are vital to our future prosperity, including highway, rail, bridge and port developments. A competent government would invest in the region as a normal part of doing business, as the previous coalition government did. The government should be able to do this without imposing another tax on Western Australia to subsidise marginal seats and prop up their own electorates in the eastern states.
The rail system in the south-west has been under significant pressure, particularly with freight transport. The Collie-Brunswick Junction-Bunbury Port triangle is the key hub of freight in the region and has long been recognised as having capacity constraints. This is highlighted in the submission by the WA state government to Infrastructure Australia for funding to duplicate the line in that area to increase capacity. Additional expansion will be required on the Collie to Brunswick Junction line, especially with expansion of the Worsley alumina facility and the proposed export of coal and possible urea from the port of Bunbury. The Brunswick Junction to Picton part of the rail line has been identified as the principal bottleneck and recent estimates put the cost of the required rail expansion at around $63 million. This project has been identified by the state government in its key priorities. However, billions of dollars of resource development will be dependent on increased capacity on that rail line. To ignore these needs is the height of irresponsibility. I will keep working to attract the necessary funding to get this expansion on track.
This infrastructure is needed not only to allow development but to increase the safety of road users around the south-west. Additional road usage equates to additional pressure on safety and the government's record in this area is poor. The carbon tax alone will impact significantly on road rebuilding and improvements, especially in regional areas. The cost of road construction will rise immediately, so if the government wants to maintain its existing road program it will have to find an extra $400 million. Of course, road funding is already under threat with the Labor government cutting the Roads to Recovery program from 2014. At the last election the coalition committed to maintain and expand the Roads to Recovery program and we readily acknowledge that the obligation to maintain local roads is costly. In fact, in 2006 it was estimated to cost local governments $3.8 billion per annum. The Roads to Recovery program gives local government a much needed helping hand in meeting this infrastructure burden, particularly in those areas where there are small populations to meet the needs of those particular shires and local governments. The coalition is also committed to restoring the Strategic Regional Roads Program, which supports major regional connections and creates jobs. Additionally at the last election we announced the bridges renewal program to provide $300 million over four years to repair and rebuild thousands of ageing and decaying bridges around Australia. We will seek to ensure that Roads to Recovery is extended and adequately funded so that local councils can continue to provide essential transport infrastructure for these local communities.
This particular program, the Regional Development Australia Fund, should be directly linked to those regional areas that need this funding for their expansion and their growth. The south-west of Western Australia fits that particular category. It ticks all of the boxes that the government has set in this regional development program and yet the south-west has totally missed out on any of this funding. It has the capacity to not only contribute to the state economy but the national economy. As I said, it is a $12 billion GDP region and can produce even more. These needs should not continue to be overlooked by this government.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Second Deputy Speaker) (21:31): I thank the member for Forrest and the government benches for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight in this grievance debate. I rise this evening to highlight the failure of the Labor government to deliver for the people of the Maranoa electorate and also the people of regional, rural and remote Queensland and, as we have just heard from the member for Forrest, people across Australia.
Queensland, as you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, is home to one-third of the country's regional population. It is also the powerhouse of development for Australia's economy. I know I will be challenged by the member for Forrest—I should acknowledge the great contribution regional Western Australia also makes to the national economy.
Ms Marino: Both states.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT: Both states—they are powerhouses, and yet this Labor government continues to neglect the communities who are absolutely the backbone of our country. When I talk about communities, I talk about the workers, the families, the businesses in those small regional, rural and sometimes very remote communities, and particularly the workers who work out there. They contribute so much to our national economy, and these businesses are based in rural, regional and many parts of remote Australia.
My electorate of Maranoa is the home to the Surat Basin, a great energy resource, but what we are seeing is a classic two-speed economy. It is developing as the coal seam gas industry continues to grow. On one hand, we have got traditional industries—I am sure the member for Forrest knows it well—agriculture and the businesses that service that sector. On the other hand, the coal seam methane gas industry is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, but the growing pains are being felt across our traditional industries and in families who have been longtime residents in these communities.
The CSG companies' ability to offer high salaries means they are able to attract workers who would normally be employed in the region's traditional industries. As a consequence, soaring rents and property prices are pushing locals out of the market. Road infrastructure is crumbling under the pressure. Local schools and even healthcare providers have reached maximum capacity.
I was called recently by the local healthcare provider at the aged care facility, a residential home, in my home town of Roma. They said, 'We can't afford $120,000 for someone to care for older citizens in the community. We can't even afford $70,000 that they are paying to apprentices,' and yet the resource sector can do that. People who come to town like teachers, part-time workers and those who have never owned their own home, might be renting a home for $250 a week. They get a call from the local real estate agent who says, 'We want to negotiate a new rent for your rental property. Your rental term has expired.' They say, 'We'd love to rerent it and pay $250 a week.' They say, 'It's going up to $600 a week.' In fact, a four-bedroom home in my home town of Roma the other day rented for $1,000 a week with quarterly reviews. There was a five-bedroom home in Dalby the other day for $2,200 a week. Admittedly, it is serviced and they get cleaners in, but it is $2,200 a week. Our traditional industries, our traditional economy and our traditional people—I won't call them traditional but—
Ms Marino: Historic.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT: Our people have been associated with those historic industries in those communities for decades and they just cannot meet those sorts of costs. We are still only in the early stages of this industry, but the pressure on Maranoa's communities will continue to grow. The state and federal Labor governments have failed to undertake the planning required to ensure that these growing pains are not felt across the community. Whether it is in housing, infrastructure or roads, they are prepared to sit back, take the mining royalty, shift it into the capital cities and larger outer metropolitan areas in some cases. But they are ignoring rural and regional areas of my electorate and many other parts of these resource states across Australia.
That was never more evident than when the Regional Development Australia Fund was announced last week. In Queensland there was not one grant west of the Great Dividing Range. They gave grants for the Gold Coast, the sixth-largest city in Australia. There were grants all along the coast. If we look in New South Wales, grants are going to the Northern Rivers area, the Wollongong area and the Newcastle area. The grants in New South Wales have one thing in common, bar one: they are going to Labor electorates.
If you go to Victoria, can you imagine Geelong as rural or regional? Hardly. Some of that money would have been so welcome in my electorate in the town of Barcaldine. They need a day care centre. If we are to attract young families into some of these towns in rural and remote areas of my electorate, surely, a prerequisite is a day care centre. They need something like $2 million for a day care centre.
The local pharmacist, who recently bought the business in Barcaldine, said they would love to have a family but they really cannot afford to stay there now. So what do we lose? A young couple, potentially a young family, that would provide obviously a great service through the pharmacy and children, in time, to the schools. Without a day care centre, that couple will more than likely leave Barcaldine. Once again, it is about how these families look at their prospects and the liveability of these communities. Two million dollars out of this fund would have made a lot of difference to that community.
There was $2 million given to the Gold Coast, the sixth-largest city in Australia. What would it have done for the Stanthorpe support services west of the Great Dividing Range? It would do a great deal to support that community and the work they do supporting families. But, no, there was no money made available west of the Great Dividing Range. In the Murweh Shire Council of western Queensland, they wanted money for flood mitigation yet the Labor government invested $4.79 million in Townsville on the coast. What did they do for the people of Charleville in the Murweh Shire Council, which have been flooded every other year for a number of years now and they need to do more flood mitigation work? They applied for money with a very professional application—as was the one from Barcaldine—but no, no money west of the Great Dividing Range. Rural and remote Queensland missed out, were ignored.
What about the Maranoa Retirement Village in the Maranoa Regional Council area? They need about $1.5 million. Surely they could easily have found that in a grant program of $150-odd million. They lodged a very professional application for a very worthwhile project but what did the Labor Party do? The Labor Party put $2 million in Esk near Ipswich. That has gone to a facility in a Labor electorate--surprise, surprise—in the growing region of the South-East corner of Queensland. I do not deny that all those other communities are worthy communities but what about the Prime Minister, who said only 12 months ago she was going to be a Prime Minister for rural and regional Australia. This was the first opportunity we have seen them act with this grant program and we did not see the money come out in Queensland west of the Great Dividing Range.
The other issue I want to touch on is the switchover to digital television in those communities of fewer than 500 people. I recently had the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, out in Birdsville where he met with the communities out there. There are about 6,000 people in the town of Birdsville. There is a normal population of 150 but through the tourist season many thousands of people flock to that part of my electorate and the outback of Australia. This time next year, if this government denies the Diamantina Shire Council the opportunity to be given a licence for the digital spectrum to rebroadcast that facility, there will be no signal in the air. They will have a satellite receiver only. If you are coming from some other part of Australia and you end up in Birdsville for the races or just for the outback as part of a tourist experience, you do not think of bringing a satellite dish with you if you want to watch the State of Origin during the winter months. A few years ago if you went out there, you just put your little ears up, because the signal was rebroadcast into the community. That is going to be lost under this government's proposal for those communities of fewer than 500 people.
I have something like 34 of those communities in Queensland. They are towns of fewer than 500 people. They deserve better from this government. They should not be treated as second-class citizens. They should not be left behind. They should at least have the opportunity for a rebroadcast signal that is digital, a rebroadcast rather than a satellite. (Time expired)
Deakin Electorate: Libraries
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (21:41): It is a pleasure to speak on tonight's grievance debate. Last Thursday, 8 September, I had the great honour of opening the new library building for Whitehorse City Council in Nunawading, in the middle of my electorate of Deakin. It was a particularly interesting project, being part of an election commitment made last July and now completed and being used by the public. In fact it has been open for the last few months.
It has been a great combination of three levels of government, and I suppose that is one of my enduring speeches out in the electorate: getting different levels of government to work together to deliver services for the people in those areas. Between the federal government, the state government and the local council we have a project that will benefit many thousands. I am told up to 150,000 people a year use that facility.
The old library was in the same place. It was a good building but was actually an old converted council office. What we have now is a modern, light and useful space for local constituents to come in and use—not just to borrow books, as libraries have always been there for, but also for the digital age that we now live in. There is a great deal of ICT equipment and various other items that can be used in the library. It is particularly good for people who do not have that sort of thing at home.
All up, the library cost $2.3 million, of which the federal government contributed $1.6 million. The Victorian government through the Living Libraries grant contributed $347,000. The Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corporation put in $200,000, and the Whitehorse City Council $152,000 along with the management of the project. As a result of those contributions, as I said, we have a fantastic result, something that I do not think was envisaged only a few years ago but now is there. I think this is an example of what can be done in the rest of the communities that make up the electorate of Deakin.
There are several other libraries of varying ages and they could also do with a makeover like that. It will not happen just with council resources, it will not happen just with state resources, nor will it happen just with federal resources. As I said, it needs a combination, and that combination can make these local projects work. There are eight libraries in all in the Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corporation and, although some of those are outside my electorate, I know many people from within my electorate do travel across the border and use those libraries as well. It was only in July last year that this building was promised as a election commitment.
Debate interrupted.
Main Committee adjourned at 21:45 .
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Superclinics
(Question No. 213)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 28 February 2011:
Of the $253.2 million allocated to GP Super Clinics under the 2010-11 GP Super Clinics Program, what sum has already been paid to funding recipients.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The 2010-11 Budget allocated a total of $248 million for new GP Super Clinic projects. Of this funding, $31.7 million was allocated in 2010-11 and $31.7 million was paid to GP Super Clinic funding recipients.
Ministers: Staff, Capital Works and Acquisitions
(Question No. 246)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs , in writing, on 3 March 2011:
(1) How many personal staff are employed by the Minister.
(2) What is the (a) total cost, and (b) breakdown of costs, of all capital works and acquisitions in the Minister's private office since 3 December 2007.
Ms Macklin: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 22 February 2011, the Department tabled with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee a list of Government Personal Staff Positions as at 1 February 2011.
(2) The cost of capital works and acquisitions for Ministers' Offices is shared by the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS), Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) and home departments in line with Appendix 2 of Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values. The Special Minister of State will accordingly respond on behalf of all Ministers in respect of costs incurred by the DPS and DoFD.
I am advised that the costs incurred by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs are as follows:
(a) and (b) At 3 March 2011, the total cost of all capital works was $0 and total cost of acquisitions was $81,096 for items in Minister's private office in the ministerial wing of Parliament House. A breakdown of the costs of acquisitions is provided below.
Acquisition Description |
Total Cost (excl GST) |
IT Equipment |
$43,686.25 |
Safes and shredders |
$13,895.00 |
Photocopiers (leased) |
$15,670.00 |
Other Equipment |
$7,844.90 |
Total |
$81,096.15 |
Defence Properties
(Question No. 301)
Mr Robert asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, in writing, on 23 March 2011:
(1) Is the Department of Immigration and Citizenship billed for the use of 81 Defence owned houses in Inverbrackie, SA; if so, for what sum of money.
(2) If Defence sold the 81 houses it owns in Inverbrackie to Defence Housing Australia, what revenue would Defence expect to receive from the sale.
(3) If these houses in Inverbrackie were leased to the public, what would be the notional sum of rent per house, per financial year.
Mr Snowdon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Defence is not charging the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) rent for the use of the 81 Defence owned houses at Inverbrackie, South Australia. A Handover/Takeover Plan is in the final stages of development between Defence and DIAC from which a Memorandum of Understanding will be developed. DIAC will be responsible for maintenance, refurbishment and utility costs associated with these properties.
(2) As these houses are not at the required standard for housing ADF families, they would not be sold to Defence Housing Australia. The notional value of the sum of these houses is between $29–32 million, based on the median house prices in the Inverbrackie area.
(3) While these houses remain on Defence land they would not be leased to the public. The estimated rental costs for houses in the Inverbrackie area as provided by Defence's Property Services Consultants, United Group Limited, are:
(a) approximately $310—$320 per week (average rent of $16,300 per annum) for a three bedroom house; and
(b) approximately $330—$350 per week (average rent of $17,700 per annum) for a four bedroom house.
Superclinics
(Question No. 367)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 23 May 2011:
Of the $280.2 million allocated to the 2007-08 GP Super Clinics Program, what sum has been paid by the (a) Medicare Benefits Schedule, (b) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and (c) Department of Veterans Affairs.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Department of Veterans' Affairs Entitlements are demand driven programs funded under Special Appropriations Acts. As such, actual costs incurred are not able to be separately identified.
Superclinics
(Question No. 371)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 23 May 2011:
Of the $280.2 million allocated to the 2007-08 GP Super Clinics Program, what amount was funded by the (a) Medicare Benefits Schedule, (b) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and (c) Department of Veterans Affairs, in (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09, (iii) 2009-10, (iv) 2010-11, and what sum is against (a) to (c) in the forward estimates.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Department of Veterans' Affairs Entitlements are demand driven programs funded under Special Appropriations Acts. As such, actual costs incurred are not able to be separately identified.
Superclinics
(Question No. 373)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 23 May 2011:
Of the $370.2 million allocated to the 2010-11 GP Super Clinics Program, what amount (a) was funded by the (i) Medicare Benefits Schedule, (ii) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and (iii) Department of Veterans Affairs, and (b) is against (a)(i) to (iii) in the forward estimates.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or Department of Veterans' Affairs Entitlements are demand driven programs funded under Special Appropriations Acts. As such, actual costs incurred are not able to be separately identified against estimated flow on measures.
Building the Education Revolution Program
(Question No. 422)
Mr Pyne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills, in writing, on 15 June 2011:
In respect of the Building the Education Revolution projects at Eidsvold State School in Queensland, which according to his department has been allocated $850 000 for the development of a multi-purpose hall under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century element of the program, and $75 000 for a learning resource centre under the National School Pride element of the program, (a) what is the value of the building contract entered into by the Queensland State Department of Education and the selected contractors for each project, (b) have the specified works for these projects been completed, (c) has the scope of works for these projects been varied at any time; if so, what were the variations and reasons given for them, and on what dates were the variations approved by his department, and (d) has his department paid the Queensland State Department of Education all funding allocated to this school; if not, what sum remains to be spent; if so, have the projects been acquitted, and final inspections of the works been undertaken.
Mr Crean: The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) The Queensland Department of Education and Training (QDET) has advised that:
There is no single contract for the National School Pride (NSP) project. Total funding for the NSP project at this school is $75,000 and it is recorded as financially acquitted.
The value of the building contract associated with the Primary Schools for the 21st Century (P21) project is $561,000 (ex GST). This price does not include costs such as design fees, contract management fees, fire and rescue inspections, OH&S auditor and Geotechnical investigations, site services including upgrades, furniture, fittings, network hardware and wireless equipment. The approved P21 amount for this project is $850,000 and the last reported spend is $832,915.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (the Department) does not hold details of the contracts as the Commonwealth was not party to them.
(b) The NSP project was completed on 29 January 2010
The P21 project achieved practical completion on 24 November 2010.
(c) There have been no scope variations from QDET to the Department for these projects.
(d) Payments to state education authorities under the BER are made according to payment schedules within the bilateral funding agreements . Payments are not made to education authorities based on progress at an individual project level. It is the responsibility of each state education authority to manage payments at an individual project level. The amount of funds spent against each project is reported on a monthly basis to the Commonwealth.
Total spend against the NSP project is currently reported as $75,000. The final acquittal is yet to occur.
The P21 project achieved practical completion on 24 November 2010 and has not yet been acquitted. As at 31 May 2011, the total spend against this project is reported as $832,915. To achieve practical completion, the building must have a Certificate of Classification which is a requirement of the Queensland Building Act – this certificate can only be issued by a Building Certifier.
Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme
(Question No. 441)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 22 June 2011:
(1) Is he aware that hospitality related supervisors, hotel managers, sail guides, outdoor activity leaders, retail shift supervisors, aged carers and other occupations in demand in the Mackay/Whitsunday Region are excluded from the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme.
(2) Will he consider accepting exceptional circumstances applications from employers in need of skills excluded under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, and waiving the Subclass 457 visa prerequisite for skill levels 3 and 4 under the PAM3 policy.
Mr Bowen: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) allows employers operating in regional and low population growth areas to sponsor skilled workers to fill full-time vacancies in their business. Applicants gain permanent residence through this scheme.
My department uses the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) framework to identify the skill levels required for the appointments nominated under the RSMS. The ANZSCO is skill-based and classifies all occupations and jobs in the Australian and New Zealand labour markets. Occupations are organised into five skill levels:
Skill level 1 occupations require skills commensurate with a bachelor degree or higher qualification;
Skill level 2 occupations require skills commensurate with an Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) associate degree, advanced diploma or diploma;
Skill level 3 occupations require skills commensurate with an AQF Certificate IV or an AQF Certificate III including at least two years of on-the-job training;
Skill level 4 occupations require skills commensurate with an AQF Certificate II or III;
Skill level 5 occupations are considered 'semi-skilled and require an AQF Certificate I or compulsory secondary education.
According to legislation, the work to be performed under the RSMS must warrant the appointment of a person with a qualification equivalent to an Australian diploma or higher. This means that occupations classified as skill level 1 or 2 under ANZSCO meet the RSMS skill requirement and are considered 'normal appointments'. If an occupation is classified as skill level 3 or 4, the nomination may still be approved but only if the nominating employer can demonstrate that the appointment is exceptional.
Under policy, occupations with a corresponding skill level of 5 are considered insufficiently skilled for RSMS purposes. In these cases, the Labour Agreement program is a better pathway for employers seeking to engage foreign skilled workers to fill these occupations. Where a specific labour market shortage is identified or is emerging, a company or an industry body can negotiate an arrangement with the government to bring in overseas workers to fill this shortage.
The occupations identified by Mr Christensen are classified as skill level 2, 3 or 4 in the ANZSCO framework as follows:
Occupation |
ANZSCO skill level |
Qualification required |
Hospitality, retail and service managers (hospitality related supervisors) |
2 |
Diploma or higher |
Hotel and motel managers |
2 |
Diploma or higher |
Other sports coach (sail guide) |
3 |
AQF IV or AQF III + 2 years work experience |
Outdoor adventure guide (outdoor activity leader) |
4 |
AQF III or AQF II |
Retail supervisor (retail shift supervisor) |
4 |
AQF III or AQF II |
Aged and disabled carer (aged carer) |
4 |
AQF III or AQF II |
According to ANZSCO and the RSMS nomination regulations, hotel and motel managers and hospitality managers can access the program and will be considered normal appointments because they are skill level 2. The occupations of sail guides, outdoor activity leaders, retail shift supervisors and aged carers are classified as skill level 3 or 4 and their nomination may be approved if the employer can demonstrate that the appointment is exceptional.
(2) Where a business seeks to nominate a skill level 3 or 4 occupation, the employer must demonstrate that the appointment is 'exceptional' for it to be approved under RSMS. Departmental officers consider the following elements when assessing the exceptional nature of an appointment:
Whether the nominee has already gained experience working with the business in the occupation over the past two years while holding a Temporary Business Long Stay (subclass 457) visa;
How the nominated position differs from other similar positions. This could include the location of the business and related labour market challenges or the nature of the position and its importance to the continued growth of the business; and
The criteria set out in Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations must be met.
Time spent by a nominee working in the nominated position on a subclass 457 visa serves as proof that there is a genuine need for the occupation and supports the 'exceptional' nature of the appointment under the RSMS. It also supports the view that the subclass 457 visa offers a pathway to permanent residence through the RSMS.
The subclass 457 visa is a very successful program and the one most commonly used for employers to sponsor overseas workers to work in Australia on a temporary basis. It provides streamlined entry arrangements for employers needing to fill skill shortages that cannot be met from the local labour market.
As such, removal of the subclass 457 requirement when assessing exceptional appointment for skill level 3 and 4 occupations is not being considered. Employers who cannot satisfy this requirement are encouraged to explore alternative options, such as through the subclass 457 program, labour agreements or the upcoming Regional Migration Agreements (RMAs). RMAs are a new initiative announced as part of the Budget 2011-12 and will be custom-designed for high growth regional areas where local labour is in short supply. As such, they will set out the occupations and the numbers of overseas workers needed in negotiated areas. They will also allow concessions for semi-skilled overseas workers where there is a demonstrable and critical labour need.
I would also like to advise the honourable member that my department is currently conducting a review of the permanent employer sponsored visa program, which includes the RSMS . As part of the review my department will be running a comprehensive public consultation process, which will include the release of a discussion paper . Members of the public, including the honourable member and his constituents, are encouraged to provide their feedback on the permanent employer sponsored visas programs through this process.
Macarthur Electorate: MRI Services
(Question No. 442)
Mr Matheson asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 4 July 2011:
In respect of a statement she made on the benefits, particularly in reduced travel time for frail and elderly patients, of having an MRI machine at Campbelltown Hospital (ABC News, Thursday 22 July 2010), the only Medicare rebated MRI in the Macarthur region, (a) why are pensioners in this region being forced to use private diagnostic MRI services at Campbelltown hospital, costing in excess of $350 per procedure, despite being referred by public doctors, and (b) what measures is she taking to provide equity between inpatients and patients referred by public doctors concerning the cost of the use of this machine.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Patients in Campbelltown already have access to Medicare-eligible MRI services at the unit located at the Campbelltown Private Hospital.
In addition, it was announced in the Budget that a second MRI unit in Campbelltown will be granted Medicare eligibility for some Medicare items from 1 November 2012.
Further, Campbelltown Hospital's MRI unit has also been identified as a unit that may be granted partial Medicare eligibility for some Medicare items from 1 November 2012. The new MRI unit at Campbelltown Hospital, a 2010 election commitment, is already in place and is being used to provide services to inpatients. The Government provided over $3 million for the new MRI machine and other equipment for Campbelltown hospital.
The Department of Health and Ageing is working with providers, including the Campbelltown Hospital, where more information is required to determine eligibility for their machine. The final list of Medicare-eligible MRI units will be available in the near future.
These additional licences for Medicare eligibility for MRI units are part of the 2011-12 Budget measure to expand patient access to MRI services by increasing the number of units where patients are able to receive a Medicare rebate, and allowing GPs to refer patients for certain conditions without needing to see a specialist first.
Further details about the reforms can be found at:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pathol-di-mri-index
Emergency Services and Alerts Systems
(Question No. 444)
Mr Fletcher asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 4 July 2011:
What: (a) action is the Government taking to facilitate the development of communications infrastructure to support emergency services and alerts;(b) consideration has been given to a Radio Data System versus public mobile and fixed networks as platforms for delivering emergency services and alerts; and(c) investigations has the Government undertaken into the effects of natural disasters on radio communications and fixed mobile communications, what are the outcomes of these investigations, and can he say what impact these outcomes have had on Government decision making.
Mr McClelland: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The States and Territories are responsible for delivering emergency warning messages to their communities and the means by which these messages are delivered. The Commonwealth does not determine which warning mechanisms or systems are adopted or tested by States and Territories, as they are best placed to determine their needs.
At its April 2009 meeting, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to take immediate steps to enhance Australia's natural disaster arrangements through the development of a telephone-based emergency warning system. The Emergency Alert system enables participating States and Territories to deliver warnings to landline and mobile telephones based on the subscriber's address. The COAG decision to prioritise the implementation of a location-based mobile telephone warning capability recognises that most Australians use and have access to mobile telephones. In 2009, the Commonwealth Government committed $26.3 million to assist States and Territories develop this capability.
In relation to the delivery of emergency services over radio data systems, Australian public safety agencies currently use, and will for the foreseeable future, radio networks for their mission critical voice communications. These networks are built to high standards and have been 'hardened' to withstand the rigours of various emergency situations and natural disasters. In December 2009 COAG endorsed the National Coordinating Committee for Government Radiocommunications (NCCGR) National Framework to Improve Government Radiocommunications Interoperability to enhance radiocommunications interoperability for public protection and disaster relief by 2020. The Commonwealth Government is working with the NCCGR in its efforts to implement the Framework.
On 10 May 2011, the Commonwealth Government convened a roundtable discussion with key public safety stakeholders to examine the issue of public safety mobile broadband. As a result, the Commonwealth Government established the Public Safety Mobile Broadband Steering Committee to investigate the mobile broadband communications requirements of public safety agencies, which includes a potential allocation of radio-frequency spectrum from the 800 MHz spectrum band. The Committee anticipates providing a final report on this matter to the Standing Council for Police and Emergency Management by 29 February 2012.
(b) See (a)
(c) You may be aware that a Senate Inquiry into [T]he capacity of communication networks and emergency warning systems to deal with emergencies and natural disasters is expected to report on 2 November 2011 on this matter. My Department provided a written submission to, and appeared before, the Inquiry. Those records are publically available.
Broadband
(Question No. 455)
Mr Fletcher: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 6 July 2011:
(1) Which telecommunications equipment vendors submitted a tender for the contract to supply the wireless network to be operated by NBN Co. Limited.
(2) Were all major global telecommunications equipment vendors given the opportunity to tender; if not, (i) which ones were not, and (ii) on what grounds.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
NBN Co has advised that the contract to supply wireless services for the NBN was entered into following a preliminary request for proposals. A select tender evaluation process was then run with two major wireless network vendors, which resulted in the contract being awarded to Ericsson. The identity of the unsuccessful tenderer is not able to be released as it is subject to confidentiality agreements between that tenderer and NBN Co.
In terms of NBN Co procurement processes providing opportunity for equipment vendors to tender, NBN Co has developed a Buying Guide and a detailed Procurement Manual defining the practices, procedures and decision-making rules appropriate to its circumstances and commercial imperatives. This includes having regard to open tender processes.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: International Trade Remedies Branch
(Question No. 456)
Mrs Mirabella asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on, 6 July 2011:
In respect of the Government's announcement of 22 June 2011 of changes to Australia's anti-dumping system:
(1) From where will the extra 14 staff to be deployed in the Trade Measures Branch/International Trade Remedies Branch be recruited, and will these positions be publicly advertised; if so, when and where.
(2) Following the appointments of the extra 14 staff, how many staff in the Branch will possess (a) forensic accounting, and (b) foreign language, skills.
(3) What is the total budgeted cost (and that in each year of the forward estimates) of the (a) recruitment of these 14 staff; and (b) use of industry experts in accordance with protocols to be determined after consultation with the International Trade Remedies Forum (Australian Government, Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping system: An effective anti-dumping and countervailing system for Australia, June 2011, paragraph 3.1, page 5).
(4) By how many members will the International Trade Remedies Forum be comprised, and for how long does the Government expect it will continue to operate.
(5) What is the estimated total cost (and the cost in each of the two years of the pilot program) to the Government of the employment of the Small and Medium Enterprise Support Officer.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Recruitment advertisements for the positions in the International Trade Remedies Branch appeared in:
(a) national papers on Friday 8 July and Saturday 9 July 2011;
(b) the APS Jobs website on Thursday 7 July 2011; and
(c) the Customs and Border Protection e-Recruitment online system on Thursday 7 July 2011.
The closing date for all applications was 24 July 2011. Applications were received from individuals from a range of backgrounds, including industry, private sector, and government.
(2) (a) It is essential that staff members involved in anti-dumping investigations are qualified across a range of key skill areas, including accountancy. Skilled accountants are required to "forensically" delve into often complicated overseas company accounts to ensure the veracity of data that is produced. The recent job advertisements have focussed on recruiting further staff with qualifications in, and experience as, accountants to supplement the current International Trade Remedies Branch staff who, as at 26 July 2011, have tertiary qualifications in accounting.
(b) As at 26 July 2011 ten International Trade Remedies Branch staff members have foreign language skills. However, it is not practicable to require staff in the International Trade Remedies Branch to have all of the language proficiencies that reflect those spoken in the wide range of countries against which anti-dumping applications may be made. The International Trade Remedies Branch will also continue to use interpreters as required in anti-dumping investigations
(3) (a) Budgeted funding across the forward estimates to employ the 14 additional staff is $7.3 million including salary and on-costs.
(b) Budgeted funding across the forward estimates for independent experts totals $1.045 million. Actual expenditure on independent experts will be dependent on the number and complexity of anti-dumping applications received by the International Trade Remedies Branch.
(4) The Government announced in a media release on 22 June 2011 that the International Trade Remedies Forum (ITRF) would be comprised of representatives of manufacturers, producers and importers as well as industry associations, trade unions and relevant Government agencies. The Government is currently considering the composition of the ITRF and how it will operate.
(5) The Australian Government has provided funding for a pilot program for the employment of the Small and Medium Enterprise Support Officer (SSO) totalling $367,000 over the forward estimates. These costs are based on a 1 January 2012 commencement date for the SSO. Should the successful candidate for the SSO position be able to commence prior to 1 January 2012, the total costs for this position will be adjusted accordingly.
Treasurer: Meetings with Secretary
(Question No. 461)
Mr Hockey asked the Treasurer, in writing, on, 16 August 2011:
On how many occasions has the Treasurer met with the Secretary of the Treasury since the Secretary's appointment.
Mr Swan: The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:
The Treasurer has met with the Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Martin Parkinson, on at least 49 occasions since his appointment, and has spoken with him by phone on many more occasions.
Bruce Highway
(Question No. 467)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 16 August 2011:
Further to his answer to question in writing No. 387 (House Hansard, 6 July 2011, page 175), before committing Federal funding to a national highway construction project, does he require investigation of and costings for all reasonable options for that project.
Mr Albanese: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
See response to question 387.
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
(Question No. 486)
Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 16 August 2011:
Is the Government aware that its new federal registration body—the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA- is currently experiencing a very high volume of applications and that a serious backlog is occurring across many categories of registration, including medical doctors, and existing and new nurses; if so, what measures is the Government taking to ensure the smooth and timely processing of applications for registration
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) is an independent statutory agency which administers the receipt and processing of applications for registration and maintains a public register of registered health practitioners.
AHPRA began operating on 1 July 2010 and a number of individuals and organisations have experienced problems with AHPRA's communication processes, documentation, and processing times for applicants during the transition to the new arrangement. AHPRA continues to make changes to improve and streamline its procedures and my Department is working with AHPRA's management to assist in this process.
On 17 February 2011, Health Ministers agreed to provide additional support and expertise to assist AHPRA and AHPRA will be required to report to future meetings of Health Ministers.
AHPRA has advised that the recent renewal of registration of close to 320,000 health practitioners in May and June went very smoothly, with up to 98% of practitioners renewing on time. The majority of the practitioners due to renew in May and June were nurses and midwives around Australia.
The Medical Board of Australia has advised that there are around 65,000 medical practitioners due to renew their medical registration by 30 September 2011. AHPRA has taken extra steps to remind practitioners of their obligations to renew. After posting the initial renewal reminder notice, AHPRA issues additional reminders including updates on websites, emails (where AHPRA has email contact details), SMS messaging, board newsletters, briefings to professional groups and media promotion. AHPRA also writes to practitioners who do not renew their registration on time, warning them that their registration will lapse after a one month "late period".