MOTIONS
Address by the President of the United States of America
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:01): I move:
That:
(1) the House invite the Honourable Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, to attend and address the House on Thursday, 17 November 2011, at a time to be fixed by the Speaker;
(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on Thursday, 17 November 2011:
(a) the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the President of the United States of America, after which the sitting of the House shall be adjourned automatically until Monday, 21 November 2011 at 10 am; and
(b) the provisions of standing order 257(c) shall apply to the area of Members’ seats as well as the galleries;
(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the President of the United States of America; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker.
It is an honour to move this motion here this morning before the parliament. Indeed, the Australian government is honoured to host the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on 16 and 17 November.
On 13 October the Prime Minister announced to the House that President Obama will address a joint sitting of the House and the Senate on 17 November. The Prime Minister is on her way to see the President and other world leaders at the G20 leaders summit in France as we speak. Earlier this year, in March, the Prime Minister addressed the United States congress. In Australian parlance, it is now 'our time to shout'. And, as Leader of the House, there are few things that give me greater pleasure than facilitating President Obama's address.
The United States is Australia's closest ally and partner. As the Prime Minister said, the alliance is fundamental to our security and a cornerstone of stability in the Asia-Pacific region. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the alliance. It also marks the 10th anniversary of the outrageous attack that occurred on September 11, one of America's darkest days in decades. Indeed, as we full know, because many Australians were also impacted directly by that terrorist attack, this was an attack on all who believe in democracy.
The United States is also the world's largest economy. It is a major economic partner. So the President's visit will be a timely opportunity to strengthen the ties that have bound us for generations and to take forward our shared objectives of prosperity and security for our people. That means working towards global economic stability, promoting economic growth and jobs in our nations, planning for transition in Afghanistan, and working together and through international forums to address our region's political, security and economic challenges. We do that at a head of state level, we do that at government level and we do that as individuals—as people who regularly travel and have that interaction between Australians and Americans.
As Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, I have worked very closely with my counterparts in the United States, particularly in the area of ensuring security when it comes to our aviation system. That relationship has been very significant indeed.
On a personal note, I am particularly pleased about President Obama's visit. I had the privilege of meeting him at the G20 leaders meeting in London in March 2009. This was where the international community took historic steps to save the world economy from the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama is engaging. He is someone who will, I think, capture the imagination not just of this parliament whose members and senators are being invited and will have the privilege of seeing personally his address to them. I have no doubt that he will also capture the imagination of the Australian public.
In addition, President Obama will be visiting Darwin with the Prime Minister later that day. It will be a great opportunity for President Obama and the United States people to gain access to a very different part of Australia from here in Canberra—the important regional and global city which Darwin has become. This will be a case where Australia is on display to the world. It is appropriate that here in this parliament—the centre of democracy in our nation—we invite and are able to hear one of the democratic leaders of the world, the President of the United States, address us. I very much look forward to his address to the parliament, as I am sure each and every member and senator does. I commend the resolution to the House.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:07): I am pleased to be able to talk on this motion about arrangements for the arrival of President Obama in mid November. I do so remembering the strange parallels that exist in the current political climate with the climate in other times that American presidents have visited this country. Specifically, I remind members of the visit of George Bush Sr in Christmas 1991. He left the United States when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister and arrived when Paul Keating was the Prime Minister. I wonder whether there will be similar parallels at this time—I wonder if President Obama will leave the United States to visit Julia Gillard as Prime Minister and arrive to find that Stephen Smith or Kevin Rudd is actually occupying that chair. It is an amusing and interesting analogy and a parallel that I think bears some witness to the divided and directionless government that we have in Australia today.
Ms Macklin: Is there anything you can take seriously?
Mr PYNE: There have been other important visits to Australia by United States presidents. Famously, Lyndon Johnson visited when he was President of the United States. George Bush visited and spoke to the parliament. Lyndon Johnson did not in fact address the parliament. Bill Clinton visited the parliament when I was a member of parliament, George Bush Jr also visited Australia and spoke to the parliament when I was in this place. Now it will be President Obama. It will be a historic, important and very interesting visit to this country by the president of essentially the free world, the leader of the free world, the president of Australia's most important ally historically for 60 years.
It is just remarkable the sanctimony and the piety coming from the Labor Party when we are discussing this motion. They should be embarrassed about what a shambolic rabble their government has become. Rather than taking it in their stride, they are pretending that somehow they have some moral superiority on that side of the House to this side of the House. You should be embarrassed—the government should be embarrassed. Only this week, when the minister for immigration and the shadow minister for immigration had agreed not to play politics about the tragic drowning of people seeking asylum off Indonesia, the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, was attacking the opposition, that night at the same time. You come into this place right now and try and take some moral superiority—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I invite the Manager of Opposition Business to return to the motion before the House.
Mr PYNE: I am more than happy to, Mr Speaker. I am not going to make the point about the immigration issue again, but I would not have needed to make those points if the Leader of the House and the minister for family services were not allowed to constantly interject on me during my contribution.
The SPEAKER: If the Manager of Opposition Business has a problem with the way in which proceedings are being chaired, he has other avenues rather than to reflect upon the chair. Some of your colleagues seem to think that I will take action against you; I will not. But I will remind you that you will come back to the motion and not, to use one of the famous expressions of this House, be a precious petal about interjections. The Manager of Opposition Business will confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.
Mr PYNE: The coalition certainly looks forward to the visit of President Obama to this parliament. The coalition has been historically the great friend of the United States in this country. The coalition was the government that was responsible for drafting and signing the ANZUS treaty in the early 1950s. Australia has no better friend than the United States, and the United States has no better friend than Australia. Every time Australia is called on to support the United States in world affairs, whether they have been unfortunate conflagrations across the world, whether they have been support in the United Nations or other world fora, Australia has been there to support the United States.
The United States is the greatest bulwark for freedom and against terror in the world today. While the United States is going through difficult economic times, I am absolutely confident that the United States will come through these difficult economic times stronger and better than ever.
A visit of a United States President is an historic visit for Australia. We have other great allies, like Japan and Great Britain, but none that have done more for Australia than the United States. I am pleased that in most cases it is a bipartisan issue in this parliament. Not everybody in the parliament supports the United States as confidently and passionately as the coalition does, but, by and large over the history of this country since the Second World War, there has been a bipartisan approach from the leadership at least—from the prime ministers of both Labor and Liberal parties—to support the United States alliance and to strengthen that relationship.
In speaking briefly to this motion, I welcome the arrangements that have been put in place by the Leader of the House and by the government. It will be a tremendous day for Australia, and I look forward to supporting this motion when it comes on for a vote.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (09:14): The coalition supports the Leader of the House in moving this motion and joins with the government in welcoming President Obama to Australia. Australia will always welcome a visit from a President of the United States. The person who occupies that position is indeed the leader of the free world.
The United States is our strongest ally and our warmest friend, and we share the enduring values of freedom, democracy and commitment to the rule of law. We join with the United States in supporting the aspirations of people around the world who are prepared to fight for freedom. It was 70 years ago, in January of 1941, that US President Franklin D Roosevelt in his state of the union address articulated the four freedoms: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; freedom from fear. Later that year, in December of 1941, the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, and that changed the course of the Second World War and certainly changed the course of history.
The coalition government at that time had foreseen the need to engage with the United States as we faced the dark hours of World War II, for, in 1939, Prime Minister Menzies dispatched the first ambassador to Washington in RG Casey, and the United States sent the first ambassador from the US to Australia later in 1940. That deep engagement with the United States proved to be absolutely vital considering what lay ahead.
Sixty years ago the ANZUS treaty was signed, and this is the keystone of our strategic relationship with the United States where we agree to support each other in the face of mutual danger. Our relationship has also been broadened and strengthened and deepened with the passing of the free trade agreement between the United States and Australia in 2005.
With President Obama's visit we will recognise the deep, close ties between our two countries. We notice that President Obama has a particular personal interest in this part of the world from the time that he spent in Indonesia, and we welcome the United States' deeper commitment to this region, particularly with Indonesia.
The Australian people feel very affectionate towards the United States and visit there often. Apparently about three-quarters of a million Australians visit the United States each year and about half a million Americans visit Australia. There are close government-to-government ties and people-to-people links. President Obama's visit will continue to cement that deep, enduring and lasting friendship and alliance between the United States and Australia.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:17): In summing up, I very much thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her dignified and appropriate comments in this debate. The alliance between the United States and Australia is indeed bipartisan, and it should be above political point-scoring issues. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition recognised that in her contribution.
President Obama's visit to the house will be welcomed by all members and senators and will, I believe, be welcomed by all Australians. This will be an important time when our great nation is showcased not just to the United States but also to the world.
As someone who has been involved in some of the organisational details, Mr Speaker, you would be aware that the visit of a President of the United States is, indeed, quite an extraordinary exercise. It is a logistical coordination which involves many hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Australia will be up to the task. I am sure that it will be an extremely successful visit and that we will look back on these two days in November and be proud to have been a part of it, and we will also look back at being privileged to be members of this House of Representatives or of the Senate. I commend the resolution to the House.
Question agreed to.
Address by the President of the United States of America
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:01): I move:
That:
(1) the House invite the Honourable Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, to attend and address the House on Thursday, 17 November 2011, at a time to be fixed by the Speaker;
(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on Thursday, 17 November 2011:
(a) the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the President of the United States of America, after which the sitting of the House shall be adjourned automatically until Monday, 21 November 2011 at 10 am; and
(b) the provisions of standing order 257(c) shall apply to the area of Members’ seats as well as the galleries;
(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the President of the United States of America; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker.
It is an honour to move this motion here this morning before the parliament. Indeed, the Australian government is honoured to host the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on 16 and 17 November.
On 13 October the Prime Minister announced to the House that President Obama will address a joint sitting of the House and the Senate on 17 November. The Prime Minister is on her way to see the President and other world leaders at the G20 leaders summit in France as we speak. Earlier this year, in March, the Prime Minister addressed the United States congress. In Australian parlance, it is now 'our time to shout'. And, as Leader of the House, there are few things that give me greater pleasure than facilitating President Obama's address.
The United States is Australia's closest ally and partner. As the Prime Minister said, the alliance is fundamental to our security and a cornerstone of stability in the Asia-Pacific region. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the alliance. It also marks the 10th anniversary of the outrageous attack that occurred on September 11, one of America's darkest days in decades. Indeed, as we full know, because many Australians were also impacted directly by that terrorist attack, this was an attack on all who believe in democracy.
The United States is also the world's largest economy. It is a major economic partner. So the President's visit will be a timely opportunity to strengthen the ties that have bound us for generations and to take forward our shared objectives of prosperity and security for our people. That means working towards global economic stability, promoting economic growth and jobs in our nations, planning for transition in Afghanistan, and working together and through international forums to address our region's political, security and economic challenges. We do that at a head of state level, we do that at government level and we do that as individuals—as people who regularly travel and have that interaction between Australians and Americans.
As Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, I have worked very closely with my counterparts in the United States, particularly in the area of ensuring security when it comes to our aviation system. That relationship has been very significant indeed.
On a personal note, I am particularly pleased about President Obama's visit. I had the privilege of meeting him at the G20 leaders meeting in London in March 2009. This was where the international community took historic steps to save the world economy from the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama is engaging. He is someone who will, I think, capture the imagination not just of this parliament whose members and senators are being invited and will have the privilege of seeing personally his address to them. I have no doubt that he will also capture the imagination of the Australian public.
In addition, President Obama will be visiting Darwin with the Prime Minister later that day. It will be a great opportunity for President Obama and the United States people to gain access to a very different part of Australia from here in Canberra—the important regional and global city which Darwin has become. This will be a case where Australia is on display to the world. It is appropriate that here in this parliament—the centre of democracy in our nation—we invite and are able to hear one of the democratic leaders of the world, the President of the United States, address us. I very much look forward to his address to the parliament, as I am sure each and every member and senator does. I commend the resolution to the House.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:07): I am pleased to be able to talk on this motion about arrangements for the arrival of President Obama in mid November. I do so remembering the strange parallels that exist in the current political climate with the climate in other times that American presidents have visited this country. Specifically, I remind members of the visit of George Bush Sr in Christmas 1991. He left the United States when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister and arrived when Paul Keating was the Prime Minister. I wonder whether there will be similar parallels at this time—I wonder if President Obama will leave the United States to visit Julia Gillard as Prime Minister and arrive to find that Stephen Smith or Kevin Rudd is actually occupying that chair. It is an amusing and interesting analogy and a parallel that I think bears some witness to the divided and directionless government that we have in Australia today.
Ms Macklin: Is there anything you can take seriously?
Mr PYNE: There have been other important visits to Australia by United States presidents. Famously, Lyndon Johnson visited when he was President of the United States. George Bush visited and spoke to the parliament. Lyndon Johnson did not in fact address the parliament. Bill Clinton visited the parliament when I was a member of parliament, George Bush Jr also visited Australia and spoke to the parliament when I was in this place. Now it will be President Obama. It will be a historic, important and very interesting visit to this country by the president of essentially the free world, the leader of the free world, the president of Australia's most important ally historically for 60 years.
It is just remarkable the sanctimony and the piety coming from the Labor Party when we are discussing this motion. They should be embarrassed about what a shambolic rabble their government has become. Rather than taking it in their stride, they are pretending that somehow they have some moral superiority on that side of the House to this side of the House. You should be embarrassed—the government should be embarrassed. Only this week, when the minister for immigration and the shadow minister for immigration had agreed not to play politics about the tragic drowning of people seeking asylum off Indonesia, the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, was attacking the opposition, that night at the same time. You come into this place right now and try and take some moral superiority—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I invite the Manager of Opposition Business to return to the motion before the House.
Mr PYNE: I am more than happy to, Mr Speaker. I am not going to make the point about the immigration issue again, but I would not have needed to make those points if the Leader of the House and the minister for family services were not allowed to constantly interject on me during my contribution.
The SPEAKER: If the Manager of Opposition Business has a problem with the way in which proceedings are being chaired, he has other avenues rather than to reflect upon the chair. Some of your colleagues seem to think that I will take action against you; I will not. But I will remind you that you will come back to the motion and not, to use one of the famous expressions of this House, be a precious petal about interjections. The Manager of Opposition Business will confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.
Mr PYNE: The coalition certainly looks forward to the visit of President Obama to this parliament. The coalition has been historically the great friend of the United States in this country. The coalition was the government that was responsible for drafting and signing the ANZUS treaty in the early 1950s. Australia has no better friend than the United States, and the United States has no better friend than Australia. Every time Australia is called on to support the United States in world affairs, whether they have been unfortunate conflagrations across the world, whether they have been support in the United Nations or other world fora, Australia has been there to support the United States.
The United States is the greatest bulwark for freedom and against terror in the world today. While the United States is going through difficult economic times, I am absolutely confident that the United States will come through these difficult economic times stronger and better than ever.
A visit of a United States President is an historic visit for Australia. We have other great allies, like Japan and Great Britain, but none that have done more for Australia than the United States. I am pleased that in most cases it is a bipartisan issue in this parliament. Not everybody in the parliament supports the United States as confidently and passionately as the coalition does, but, by and large over the history of this country since the Second World War, there has been a bipartisan approach from the leadership at least—from the prime ministers of both Labor and Liberal parties—to support the United States alliance and to strengthen that relationship.
In speaking briefly to this motion, I welcome the arrangements that have been put in place by the Leader of the House and by the government. It will be a tremendous day for Australia, and I look forward to supporting this motion when it comes on for a vote.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (09:14): The coalition supports the Leader of the House in moving this motion and joins with the government in welcoming President Obama to Australia. Australia will always welcome a visit from a President of the United States. The person who occupies that position is indeed the leader of the free world.
The United States is our strongest ally and our warmest friend, and we share the enduring values of freedom, democracy and commitment to the rule of law. We join with the United States in supporting the aspirations of people around the world who are prepared to fight for freedom. It was 70 years ago, in January of 1941, that US President Franklin D Roosevelt in his state of the union address articulated the four freedoms: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; freedom from fear. Later that year, in December of 1941, the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, and that changed the course of the Second World War and certainly changed the course of history.
The coalition government at that time had foreseen the need to engage with the United States as we faced the dark hours of World War II, for, in 1939, Prime Minister Menzies dispatched the first ambassador to Washington in RG Casey, and the United States sent the first ambassador from the US to Australia later in 1940. That deep engagement with the United States proved to be absolutely vital considering what lay ahead.
Sixty years ago the ANZUS treaty was signed, and this is the keystone of our strategic relationship with the United States where we agree to support each other in the face of mutual danger. Our relationship has also been broadened and strengthened and deepened with the passing of the free trade agreement between the United States and Australia in 2005.
With President Obama's visit we will recognise the deep, close ties between our two countries. We notice that President Obama has a particular personal interest in this part of the world from the time that he spent in Indonesia, and we welcome the United States' deeper commitment to this region, particularly with Indonesia.
The Australian people feel very affectionate towards the United States and visit there often. Apparently about three-quarters of a million Australians visit the United States each year and about half a million Americans visit Australia. There are close government-to-government ties and people-to-people links. President Obama's visit will continue to cement that deep, enduring and lasting friendship and alliance between the United States and Australia.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:17): In summing up, I very much thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her dignified and appropriate comments in this debate. The alliance between the United States and Australia is indeed bipartisan, and it should be above political point-scoring issues. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition recognised that in her contribution.
President Obama's visit to the house will be welcomed by all members and senators and will, I believe, be welcomed by all Australians. This will be an important time when our great nation is showcased not just to the United States but also to the world.
As someone who has been involved in some of the organisational details, Mr Speaker, you would be aware that the visit of a President of the United States is, indeed, quite an extraordinary exercise. It is a logistical coordination which involves many hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Australia will be up to the task. I am sure that it will be an extremely successful visit and that we will look back on these two days in November and be proud to have been a part of it, and we will also look back at being privileged to be members of this House of Representatives or of the Senate. I commend the resolution to the House.
Question agreed to.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:01): I move:
That:
(1) the House invite the Honourable Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, to attend and address the House on Thursday, 17 November 2011, at a time to be fixed by the Speaker;
(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on Thursday, 17 November 2011:
(a) the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the President of the United States of America, after which the sitting of the House shall be adjourned automatically until Monday, 21 November 2011 at 10 am; and
(b) the provisions of standing order 257(c) shall apply to the area of Members’ seats as well as the galleries;
(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the President of the United States of America; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker.
It is an honour to move this motion here this morning before the parliament. Indeed, the Australian government is honoured to host the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on 16 and 17 November.
On 13 October the Prime Minister announced to the House that President Obama will address a joint sitting of the House and the Senate on 17 November. The Prime Minister is on her way to see the President and other world leaders at the G20 leaders summit in France as we speak. Earlier this year, in March, the Prime Minister addressed the United States congress. In Australian parlance, it is now 'our time to shout'. And, as Leader of the House, there are few things that give me greater pleasure than facilitating President Obama's address.
The United States is Australia's closest ally and partner. As the Prime Minister said, the alliance is fundamental to our security and a cornerstone of stability in the Asia-Pacific region. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the alliance. It also marks the 10th anniversary of the outrageous attack that occurred on September 11, one of America's darkest days in decades. Indeed, as we full know, because many Australians were also impacted directly by that terrorist attack, this was an attack on all who believe in democracy.
The United States is also the world's largest economy. It is a major economic partner. So the President's visit will be a timely opportunity to strengthen the ties that have bound us for generations and to take forward our shared objectives of prosperity and security for our people. That means working towards global economic stability, promoting economic growth and jobs in our nations, planning for transition in Afghanistan, and working together and through international forums to address our region's political, security and economic challenges. We do that at a head of state level, we do that at government level and we do that as individuals—as people who regularly travel and have that interaction between Australians and Americans.
As Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, I have worked very closely with my counterparts in the United States, particularly in the area of ensuring security when it comes to our aviation system. That relationship has been very significant indeed.
On a personal note, I am particularly pleased about President Obama's visit. I had the privilege of meeting him at the G20 leaders meeting in London in March 2009. This was where the international community took historic steps to save the world economy from the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama is engaging. He is someone who will, I think, capture the imagination not just of this parliament whose members and senators are being invited and will have the privilege of seeing personally his address to them. I have no doubt that he will also capture the imagination of the Australian public.
In addition, President Obama will be visiting Darwin with the Prime Minister later that day. It will be a great opportunity for President Obama and the United States people to gain access to a very different part of Australia from here in Canberra—the important regional and global city which Darwin has become. This will be a case where Australia is on display to the world. It is appropriate that here in this parliament—the centre of democracy in our nation—we invite and are able to hear one of the democratic leaders of the world, the President of the United States, address us. I very much look forward to his address to the parliament, as I am sure each and every member and senator does. I commend the resolution to the House.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:07): I am pleased to be able to talk on this motion about arrangements for the arrival of President Obama in mid November. I do so remembering the strange parallels that exist in the current political climate with the climate in other times that American presidents have visited this country. Specifically, I remind members of the visit of George Bush Sr in Christmas 1991. He left the United States when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister and arrived when Paul Keating was the Prime Minister. I wonder whether there will be similar parallels at this time—I wonder if President Obama will leave the United States to visit Julia Gillard as Prime Minister and arrive to find that Stephen Smith or Kevin Rudd is actually occupying that chair. It is an amusing and interesting analogy and a parallel that I think bears some witness to the divided and directionless government that we have in Australia today.
Ms Macklin: Is there anything you can take seriously?
Mr PYNE: There have been other important visits to Australia by United States presidents. Famously, Lyndon Johnson visited when he was President of the United States. George Bush visited and spoke to the parliament. Lyndon Johnson did not in fact address the parliament. Bill Clinton visited the parliament when I was a member of parliament, George Bush Jr also visited Australia and spoke to the parliament when I was in this place. Now it will be President Obama. It will be a historic, important and very interesting visit to this country by the president of essentially the free world, the leader of the free world, the president of Australia's most important ally historically for 60 years.
It is just remarkable the sanctimony and the piety coming from the Labor Party when we are discussing this motion. They should be embarrassed about what a shambolic rabble their government has become. Rather than taking it in their stride, they are pretending that somehow they have some moral superiority on that side of the House to this side of the House. You should be embarrassed—the government should be embarrassed. Only this week, when the minister for immigration and the shadow minister for immigration had agreed not to play politics about the tragic drowning of people seeking asylum off Indonesia, the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, was attacking the opposition, that night at the same time. You come into this place right now and try and take some moral superiority—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I invite the Manager of Opposition Business to return to the motion before the House.
Mr PYNE: I am more than happy to, Mr Speaker. I am not going to make the point about the immigration issue again, but I would not have needed to make those points if the Leader of the House and the minister for family services were not allowed to constantly interject on me during my contribution.
The SPEAKER: If the Manager of Opposition Business has a problem with the way in which proceedings are being chaired, he has other avenues rather than to reflect upon the chair. Some of your colleagues seem to think that I will take action against you; I will not. But I will remind you that you will come back to the motion and not, to use one of the famous expressions of this House, be a precious petal about interjections. The Manager of Opposition Business will confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.
Mr PYNE: The coalition certainly looks forward to the visit of President Obama to this parliament. The coalition has been historically the great friend of the United States in this country. The coalition was the government that was responsible for drafting and signing the ANZUS treaty in the early 1950s. Australia has no better friend than the United States, and the United States has no better friend than Australia. Every time Australia is called on to support the United States in world affairs, whether they have been unfortunate conflagrations across the world, whether they have been support in the United Nations or other world fora, Australia has been there to support the United States.
The United States is the greatest bulwark for freedom and against terror in the world today. While the United States is going through difficult economic times, I am absolutely confident that the United States will come through these difficult economic times stronger and better than ever.
A visit of a United States President is an historic visit for Australia. We have other great allies, like Japan and Great Britain, but none that have done more for Australia than the United States. I am pleased that in most cases it is a bipartisan issue in this parliament. Not everybody in the parliament supports the United States as confidently and passionately as the coalition does, but, by and large over the history of this country since the Second World War, there has been a bipartisan approach from the leadership at least—from the prime ministers of both Labor and Liberal parties—to support the United States alliance and to strengthen that relationship.
In speaking briefly to this motion, I welcome the arrangements that have been put in place by the Leader of the House and by the government. It will be a tremendous day for Australia, and I look forward to supporting this motion when it comes on for a vote.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (09:14): The coalition supports the Leader of the House in moving this motion and joins with the government in welcoming President Obama to Australia. Australia will always welcome a visit from a President of the United States. The person who occupies that position is indeed the leader of the free world.
The United States is our strongest ally and our warmest friend, and we share the enduring values of freedom, democracy and commitment to the rule of law. We join with the United States in supporting the aspirations of people around the world who are prepared to fight for freedom. It was 70 years ago, in January of 1941, that US President Franklin D Roosevelt in his state of the union address articulated the four freedoms: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; freedom from fear. Later that year, in December of 1941, the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, and that changed the course of the Second World War and certainly changed the course of history.
The coalition government at that time had foreseen the need to engage with the United States as we faced the dark hours of World War II, for, in 1939, Prime Minister Menzies dispatched the first ambassador to Washington in RG Casey, and the United States sent the first ambassador from the US to Australia later in 1940. That deep engagement with the United States proved to be absolutely vital considering what lay ahead.
Sixty years ago the ANZUS treaty was signed, and this is the keystone of our strategic relationship with the United States where we agree to support each other in the face of mutual danger. Our relationship has also been broadened and strengthened and deepened with the passing of the free trade agreement between the United States and Australia in 2005.
With President Obama's visit we will recognise the deep, close ties between our two countries. We notice that President Obama has a particular personal interest in this part of the world from the time that he spent in Indonesia, and we welcome the United States' deeper commitment to this region, particularly with Indonesia.
The Australian people feel very affectionate towards the United States and visit there often. Apparently about three-quarters of a million Australians visit the United States each year and about half a million Americans visit Australia. There are close government-to-government ties and people-to-people links. President Obama's visit will continue to cement that deep, enduring and lasting friendship and alliance between the United States and Australia.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:17): In summing up, I very much thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her dignified and appropriate comments in this debate. The alliance between the United States and Australia is indeed bipartisan, and it should be above political point-scoring issues. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition recognised that in her contribution.
President Obama's visit to the house will be welcomed by all members and senators and will, I believe, be welcomed by all Australians. This will be an important time when our great nation is showcased not just to the United States but also to the world.
As someone who has been involved in some of the organisational details, Mr Speaker, you would be aware that the visit of a President of the United States is, indeed, quite an extraordinary exercise. It is a logistical coordination which involves many hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Australia will be up to the task. I am sure that it will be an extremely successful visit and that we will look back on these two days in November and be proud to have been a part of it, and we will also look back at being privileged to be members of this House of Representatives or of the Senate. I commend the resolution to the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Consolidation) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (09:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government believes that every child deserves the best start in life.
On 1 January 2011, this government delivered Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme.
This historic reform provides eligible working parents with parental leave pay for up to 18 weeks at the national minimum wage.
This means that new parents can take time off to spend those precious few months with their new baby—without putting more pressure on the family budget.
This is real support going to Australian families right now—which lets them take time off to spend with their new babies, and helps them to give their children the best start in life.
This bill makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme, by making amendments to improve clarity and consistency and making consequential amendments to the fair work legislation.
The amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 will clarify notice provisions and processes for the recovery of debts, as well as refining provisions concerning delegations and nominees.
Good employees are important to a business, so it makes sense that, when an employee takes time off to care for a new baby, an employer would want to stay in touch with that employee—usually a new mum.
The Australian government's Paid Parental Leave scheme allows employees to 'keep in touch' with their workplace through training and professional development if they want to while on a period of paid parental leave. This provision helps make sure that women on parental leave have the same access to opportunities as other employees. This bill will amend the Paid Parental Leave Act so that a keeping-in-touch day that is taken at the request of the employer cannot occur within six weeks after the child's birth (or the placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This amendment will allow sufficient time after the birth of a child for the mother to recover physically and will give her an uninterrupted period of six weeks for bonding with the child.
There will be a limited exception where an employee suggests or requests that they perform work on the keeping-in-touch day, in which case the day cannot be taken within two weeks after the child's birth (or placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This exception will retain flexibility for employees.
A further amendment to the legislation will also allow employees who have completed 12 months continuous service with the Commonwealth to be paid by the Commonwealth agency they work for, regardless of how long they have been with that agency.
The bill will also make minor amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Act will be amended to make sure that employees on unpaid parental leave under the National Employment Standards will be able to perform paid work for up to 10 days for the purposes of keeping in touch with their employer. This will align with the keeping-in-touch arrangements under the Paid Parental Leave Act.
Under the Fair Work Act, eligible employees have the right to request an additional period of unpaid parental leave of up to 12 months. Employees who take additional unpaid leave will also get up to 10 additional keeping-in-touch days.
Under the Paid Parental Leave Act, employers have to provide written notice of parental leave pay to their employees. This bill will insert a note in the payslip provision of the Fair Work Act referring employers to this obligation.
The bill will also insert a number of notes into the Paid Parental Leave Act to refer readers to important provisions in the Fair Work Act which deal with, amongst other things, the new keeping-in-touch provisions, and protections against coercion and undue influence.
To provide greater flexibility for pregnant employees prior to the birth of a child, the Fair Work Act will be amended to allow an employee and employer to agree to unpaid parental leave commencing earlier than six weeks prior to the expected date of birth.
The Fair Work Act will also be amended to give parents the right to return to their employment, subject to four weeks' notice, in the event of a stillbirth or infant death.
The government's Paid Parental Leave scheme delivers real support to Australian families with a new baby. It is supporting Australian families to give their children the best start in life.
It is another historic reform, delivered by this Labor government. I commend the bill to the House
Debate adjourned.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (09:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011 delivers on the government's 2010 election commitment to introduce a new simple, low-cost default superannuation product called MySuper.
We are living longer than ever before in this nation, and Australians are reorganising their lives to adapt to the rhythm of longer life. So in this place and this parliament I believe we need to change and update our laws to reflect these new patterns of life.
Yesterday the government introduced historic legislation that will lift the superannuation savings of 8½ million Australians.
It is, I submit, in the national interest to encourage Australians to save more for their retirement. But the trade-off is that the superannuation industry should contribute to higher retirement savings through the compulsory contributions by achieving greater efficiency and lower fees.
Access to safe, low-cost and simple superannuation is essential to help Australians' retirement savings go further. By 2050, almost one in four Australians will have reached retirement age, compared to one in seven today. It is important that superannuation—the metaphorical rain in the mountains which flows through the rivers to the sea of retirement—as it flows through, that those who are managing and tending this superannuation do not unduly and unnecessarily impose fees and charges which deduct from what will end up in people's retirement accounts.
Therefore, MySuper is a new default superannuation product that has no unnecessary fees or charges and has simple features that will make it easier to compare fund performance.
MySuper is a key part of the government's broader Stronger Super reform package.
Stronger Super also includes reforms to:
make the process of everyday transactions in the super system easier, cheaper and faster through the SuperStream package of measures;
improve the governance and integrity of the superannuation system, including for the rules that apply to superannuation trustees;
improve integrity and increase community confidence in the self-managed superannuation fund sector.
Therefore, in combination, the government's superannuation reforms are estimated to increase retirement superannuation balances by almost $150,000 for a 30 year old worker earning average full-time wages.
Together, these reforms will provide all Australians with the confidence that the superannuation system is working in the best interests of the members to provide the members an adequate income in retirement. Currently, the superannuation industry in Australia manages in excess of $1.3 trillion in Australian retirement savings.
You do not get a bill in the post, but Australians currently pay around $85 on average a month in superannuation fees, which is in fact more than the average person's monthly mobile phone bill.
However, around 60 per cent of Australians do not make active choices in relation to their superannuation.
And this government believes that Australians should not be charged for valet parking when they are catching the train.
For many Australians, their busy lives mean that they simply do not have the time to be deeply involved in their superannuation and perhaps achieve that extra better deal.
For many Australians, perhaps their account balances are so far not sufficiently high as to warrant the priority of daily attention. For some Australians, perhaps they are still of a relatively young age and, whilst are pleased to have their superannuation accounts gradually accumulating money, are more interested in paying the school fees or, indeed, paying the mortgage. For others, they may not feel that they have the financial skills to make active choices so prefer to rely on the default products offered by the superannuation funds.
Our independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation are too high—I repeat: the independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation at this point in time are simply too high—and that members may currently be paying fees for services that they neither want nor have requested.
Every dollar diverted in fees or other unnecessary overheads is a dollar less, plus the lost benefit of compound interest and dividend imputation, going towards a larger and more secure retirement.
Over a person's working life, higher than necessary fees can total tens of thousands of dollars of lost retirement income.
This is why introducing MySuper is so fundamentally important. It is important that members who work hard for the compulsory savings going to their funds are not unfairly or unjustly taxed by the people tasked with managing their funds.
Having created an industry which flourishes on the back of compulsory savings mandated by legislation, it is fair that this industry, which benefits so much from the compulsory saving system in Australia, contributes to higher retirement savings through greater efficiency and lower fees.
MySuper will provide a simple, cost-effective default product that all Australians can rely upon.
MySuper will be limited to a common set of features to make it easier for members, employers and other stakeholders to compare performance across MySuper products. That in itself will place downward pressure on fees.
So today I am proud to introduce the first tranche of legislation to implement MySuper.
This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to establish the core framework for MySuper products.
MySuper products will replace existing default investment options in default funds from 1 July 2013.
MySuper products will have a simple set of product features, irrespective of who provides them.
Therefore, the bill requires APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, to be satisfied that a MySuper product has some core characteristics.
These characteristics are that:
there is a single, diversified investment strategy, which can be a life-cycle investment approach;
there is equal access to services for all members;
the same process is used in allocating investment returns to members;
no limits are placed on the contributions that a trustee of a MySuper product will accept except for certain contributions to be prescribed by regulations; and
a member cannot be transferred out of a MySuper product unless to another MySuper product, to an eligible rollover fund or if the member actively consents.
A trustee will also have to demonstrate that they are able to meet new obligations to act in the best financial interests of members of the MySuper product. These obligations will be contained in subsequent tranches of legislation.
The bill also establishes the authorisation regime for MySuper.
Trustees will be required to be authorised by APRA for each MySuper product they wish to offer. APRA will be able to accept applications for MySuper products from 1 January 2013.
Any trustee will be able to offer a MySuper product except trustees of eligible rollover funds, self-managed superannuation funds and APRA regulated funds with fewer than five members.
APRA will generally only authorise a trustee to offer a single MySuper product in a superannuation fund. However, there will be two exceptions to the rule.
Firstly, trustees will be able offer employers that contribute to the fund for more than 500 employees a separate MySuper product tailored to the needs of that particular workplace.
These products will be able to differ from the fund's main MySuper product in terms of investment strategy, member services and fees. These MySuper products must be separately authorised by APRA.
Secondly, funds will be able to offer additional MySuper products in certain limited circumstances in order to preserve a corporate brand.
From 1 October 2013, it will be mandatory for employers to make contributions to a fund that offers a MySuper product for any employee that has not chosen a fund. This will provide employers three months to ensure that they are able to select a default fund that offers a MySuper product to comply with the superannuation guarantee obligations.
MySuper products will be restricted to charging fees that are described in the same way so that they can be directly compared. APRA will collect and publish data on MySuper products to ensure that this information is freely available.
Members of a MySuper product will also be generally charged a single fee structure. This will enable members, employers and market analysts to make comparisons based on the actual fees paid by members in each MySuper product—the ability, in fact, to form a league table comparing all funds' fee costs. In addition, by requiring the same fees to be charged to all members, this will place a competitive pressure on trustees to offer the best possible fees to all of their members.
However, a trustee will be able to charge a lower administration fee to employees of certain employers reflecting administration efficiencies for the fund in dealing with that employer. Provisions contained in the bill will generally allow for the transfer of a member interest from a MySuper product to another product under certain circumstances. Of particular concern is where members are transferred between funds when they change jobs. Additional safeguards, including enhanced member disclosure or approval, will be included in subsequent legislation.
Finally, the bill makes it an offence of strict liability for any person to represent that they offer a MySuper product where they do not have authorisation from APRA.
Additional funding of $29.9 million over four years will be provided to APRA and ASIC that will be recovered through increases to the annual levy on APRA-regulated superannuation funds.
Subsequent tranches of legislation will introduce the remaining measures relating to MySuper.
I would like to acknowledge the work of both my ministerial predecessors, Senator Sherry and the member for McMahon, Minister Bowen. They were early and persuasive advocates of the principle for the need for a better deal for super fund members. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Jeremy Cooper and Paul Costello. Both have since moved into significant roles in private industry where they continue to make valuable contributions to the development of the financial services industry.
In summary, this legislation will exert downward pressure on the fees and charges paid by ordinary members in the superannuation accounts. This will have the effect of ensuring that, when people reach retirement, there will be more money in their accounts than there otherwise would have been if this bill had not been presented to the House.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Crean.
Bill read a first time.
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. This bill was introduced in 2009, but lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010.
The government made a commitment to the Australian people that it would replace the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry.
This new body will be the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (the building inspectorate).
The government also committed to consult extensively with industry stakeholders to ensure the transition to the new arrangements would be orderly and effective.
On this basis, the former minister appointed retired Federal Court Judge, the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC to consult and report on matters related to the creation of the building inspectorate. Mr Wilcox consulted widely with industry and delivered his report to the government on 31 March 2009.
This bill honours the government's commitment and gives effect to the principal recommendations in Mr Wilcox's report.
The building and construction industry remains a critical sector of our economy, with immediate and direct impact on jobs, growth and productivity. This was particularly so during the global economic recession, during which the government's Nation Building and Jobs Plan ensured that the Australian economy remained one of the strongest in the developed world.
The government understands that the industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees, and as a result we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties.
The government believes that the ABCC needs to be replaced with a new body that is part of the mainstream Fair Work Australia system. This new regulator will operate in accordance with community expectations of a fair and just workplace relations system.
Description of the Bill
The principal object of the bill recognises the government's intention to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations for the building and construction industry. A key objective of this bill is compliance with workplace relations law by all building industry participants, including employers, employees and their respective associations.
This bill aims to provide fairness in the industry by ensuring information, advice and assistance is available to all building industry participants in connection with their rights and responsibilities under relevant laws.
The bill provides effective means for investigating and enforcing relevant workplace laws while balancing the rights of building industry participants through the provision of appropriate safeguards in relation to the use of the building inspectorate's enforcement powers.
ABCC to be replaced
As I said earlier, this bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to abolish the ABCC and transfer its responsibilities to a specialist Fair Work building inspectorate. The bill provides that the new building inspectorate will ensure compliance with general workplace relations laws, as prescribed in the Fair Work Act 2009, by all building industry participants. The building inspectorate
The new building inspectorate will be headed by an independent director appointed by the minister. The director will manage the operations of the building inspectorate and will not be subject to oversight or control by other statutory office holders.
This model gives best effect to Mr Wilcox's recommendation that the director have 'operational autonomy' and reflects various stakeholder consultations on this point.
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the bill also creates an advisory board consisting of industry stakeholders to make recommendations to the director on the policies and priorities of the building inspectorate. While the advisory board will not determine the inspectorate's policies and priorities, the director will consider the advisory board's recommendations.
Scope and penalties
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the definition of 'building work' is amended to remove its coverage of off-site work; thereby focusing the scope of the inspectorate's operations to work on sites.
The building inspectorate will be charged with enforcing the building industry's compliance with the general law as prescribed in the Fair Work Act. In particular, and as recommended by Mr Wilcox, the bill removes:
higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law; and
the broader circumstances under which industrial action attracts penalties in relation to the building industry.
The retention of coercive examination powers
While building participants will be subject to the same penalties as other workers, Mr Wilcox found that the need to retain the existing coercive examination powers was proven.
Mr Wilcox describes the ongoing need for coercive powers in his report as follows:
… I have reached the opinion that it would be unwise not to endow the [Specialist Division] (at least for now) with a coercive interrogation power. Although conduct in the industry has improved in recent years, I believe the job is not yet done.
The government accepts the need to retain these powers for the time being but is also heartened by the continuing improvements in behaviour in the industry. Changes in practices by the ABCC have seen a dramatic reduction in the need to use these powers. For example, the ABCC only resorted to using its compulsory examination powers six times in 2010-11, compared to 37 times in the previous year.
The ABCC attributes this reduction to a number of factors, including better communication about the obligation to provide information voluntarily, a focus on the timeliness of investigations, and changes to the way investigations are carried out. Of course, much of the credit for these changes and the decreased use of the compulsory examination powers should be attributed to the ABC Commissioner, Mr Leigh Johns. Since his appointment in October 2010 Mr Johns has administratively implemented a number of Mr Wilcox's recommendations and personally driven a number of positive custom and practice changes within the ABCC.
It is also important to note that this reduction in use of these strong powers has, according to the ABCC, not hampered their ability to investigate matters. As the ABCC's 2010-11 annual report states:
A key feature of the ABCC’s activities this year was a marked decrease in the use of s. 52 as a compliance technique with no reduction in the number of investigations undertaken. In short, the reduced reliance on s. 52 has not adversely affected regulatory activity or success.
In retaining the coercive examination powers this bill also includes the following safeguards recommended by Mr Wilcox in relation to the use of the powers:
use of the powers is dependent on a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being satisfied a case has been made for their use;
persons required to attend an interview may be represented by a lawyer of their choice and their right to claim legal privilege and public interest immunity will be recognised;
persons required to attend an interview will be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses;
all interviews are to be videotaped and undertaken by the director or an SES employee;
the Commonwealth Ombudsman will monitor and review all interviews and provide reports to the parliament on the exercise of this power; and
the powers will be subject to a three year sunset clause.
Sunset clause for the compulsory examination powers
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendation the legislation includes a sunset clause on the availability of the coercive powers, which the government considers appropriate in relation to these strong industry specific powers. The provisions will sunset in three years (rather than the five years specified in the 2009 bill) reflecting the fact that Mr Wilcox recommended that they be reviewed after a five-year period back in 2009. The compulsory interrogation powers have continued to operate in the industry since that time. Given the significant reduction in the need to use the powers in recent years, the government is satisfied that a further three-year period, rather than five, is appropriate.
The priority for the building industry is to achieve cultural change so that compulsory examination powers will become unnecessary—the sunset clause reflects this priority. The government will conduct a review of these powers to determine whether there is an ongoing need for them before the sunset period expires.
Relevantly, in his report Mr Wilcox says:
… I am confident the safeguards I have recommended, if implemented, will minimise the unnecessary use, and potential for misuse, of the power; without impeding, or significantly delaying, investigations …
The government agrees with this assessment.
Coercive examination powers and the independent assessor
The government was heartened by the fact that Mr Wilcox was not of the view that there are widespread and broad problems for the industry across the country. We agree and we note that the vast majority of participants in the industry are hardworking and law-abiding men and women.
However, there are also problems and a clear need to continue to drive cultural change in some key areas of the industry is required.
On this basis the bill creates the office of the Independent Assessor—Special Building Industry Powers, who may, on application from stakeholders, make a determination that the coercive interrogation powers will not apply to a particular project or projects.
In determining whether to 'switch off' the coercive powers for particular projects, the independent assessor must be satisfied that it would:
be appropriate to make the determination, having regard to the objects of the act, and
not be contrary to the public interest to make such a determination.
In the event that a project where the coercive powers have been switched off experiences industrial unlawfulness the independent assessor may revoke his or her original decision; thereby switching the powers back on. Additionally, the director of the building inspectorate can request that the independent assessor reconsider their decision at any time based on changes in circumstances on a specific project.
These 'switch off' provisions ensure that the powers are focused where they are needed most. The government is determined to encourage lawful behaviour and a change in the industry's culture. These arrangements provide the industry with the opportunity to demonstrate that the requisite lawful culture is in place and that the coercive examination powers are not required.
The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner
Finally, the government understands the importance of safety at work in the building and construction industry. Mr Wilcox was not asked to review the operation of the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, OFSC, or the associated Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme—the scheme. This bill therefore makes no changes to the provisions of the BCII Act that relate to the OFSC and the scheme.
The government is of course conscious of the need for continuous improvement in the regulatory arrangements and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is currently considering the details of a review of the OFSC and scheme.
Conclusion
The government is committed to implementing a strong but fair set of compliance arrangements for the building industry. The government has consistently stated that anyone who breaks a law should feel the full force of the law. The government understands that not all building industry stakeholders agree on all matters. The government's intention is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations, an environment in which there is no place for people choosing which laws to obey and which ones to ignore. This goes for all industry participants—employers, employees and their respective associations.
The government believes that the safeguards in the bill for the coercive examination powers achieve the balance required to ensure compliance with the law and the fair treatment of individuals. Law-abiding industry participants who have nothing to fear from the existence of these strong laws will be so accorded. Ultimately, whether or not the powers are used remains in the hands of all building industry participants.
The government understands that only considered, fair and balanced laws will create the sort of long-term change that Australia's building and construction industry needs if it is to flourish, to continue to create jobs and to make a positive contribution to national productivity and prosperity. The government believes that this bill provides considered, fair and balanced laws. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Consolidation) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (09:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government believes that every child deserves the best start in life.
On 1 January 2011, this government delivered Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme.
This historic reform provides eligible working parents with parental leave pay for up to 18 weeks at the national minimum wage.
This means that new parents can take time off to spend those precious few months with their new baby—without putting more pressure on the family budget.
This is real support going to Australian families right now—which lets them take time off to spend with their new babies, and helps them to give their children the best start in life.
This bill makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme, by making amendments to improve clarity and consistency and making consequential amendments to the fair work legislation.
The amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 will clarify notice provisions and processes for the recovery of debts, as well as refining provisions concerning delegations and nominees.
Good employees are important to a business, so it makes sense that, when an employee takes time off to care for a new baby, an employer would want to stay in touch with that employee—usually a new mum.
The Australian government's Paid Parental Leave scheme allows employees to 'keep in touch' with their workplace through training and professional development if they want to while on a period of paid parental leave. This provision helps make sure that women on parental leave have the same access to opportunities as other employees. This bill will amend the Paid Parental Leave Act so that a keeping-in-touch day that is taken at the request of the employer cannot occur within six weeks after the child's birth (or the placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This amendment will allow sufficient time after the birth of a child for the mother to recover physically and will give her an uninterrupted period of six weeks for bonding with the child.
There will be a limited exception where an employee suggests or requests that they perform work on the keeping-in-touch day, in which case the day cannot be taken within two weeks after the child's birth (or placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This exception will retain flexibility for employees.
A further amendment to the legislation will also allow employees who have completed 12 months continuous service with the Commonwealth to be paid by the Commonwealth agency they work for, regardless of how long they have been with that agency.
The bill will also make minor amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Act will be amended to make sure that employees on unpaid parental leave under the National Employment Standards will be able to perform paid work for up to 10 days for the purposes of keeping in touch with their employer. This will align with the keeping-in-touch arrangements under the Paid Parental Leave Act.
Under the Fair Work Act, eligible employees have the right to request an additional period of unpaid parental leave of up to 12 months. Employees who take additional unpaid leave will also get up to 10 additional keeping-in-touch days.
Under the Paid Parental Leave Act, employers have to provide written notice of parental leave pay to their employees. This bill will insert a note in the payslip provision of the Fair Work Act referring employers to this obligation.
The bill will also insert a number of notes into the Paid Parental Leave Act to refer readers to important provisions in the Fair Work Act which deal with, amongst other things, the new keeping-in-touch provisions, and protections against coercion and undue influence.
To provide greater flexibility for pregnant employees prior to the birth of a child, the Fair Work Act will be amended to allow an employee and employer to agree to unpaid parental leave commencing earlier than six weeks prior to the expected date of birth.
The Fair Work Act will also be amended to give parents the right to return to their employment, subject to four weeks' notice, in the event of a stillbirth or infant death.
The government's Paid Parental Leave scheme delivers real support to Australian families with a new baby. It is supporting Australian families to give their children the best start in life.
It is another historic reform, delivered by this Labor government. I commend the bill to the House
Debate adjourned.
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (09:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government believes that every child deserves the best start in life.
On 1 January 2011, this government delivered Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme.
This historic reform provides eligible working parents with parental leave pay for up to 18 weeks at the national minimum wage.
This means that new parents can take time off to spend those precious few months with their new baby—without putting more pressure on the family budget.
This is real support going to Australian families right now—which lets them take time off to spend with their new babies, and helps them to give their children the best start in life.
This bill makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme, by making amendments to improve clarity and consistency and making consequential amendments to the fair work legislation.
The amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 will clarify notice provisions and processes for the recovery of debts, as well as refining provisions concerning delegations and nominees.
Good employees are important to a business, so it makes sense that, when an employee takes time off to care for a new baby, an employer would want to stay in touch with that employee—usually a new mum.
The Australian government's Paid Parental Leave scheme allows employees to 'keep in touch' with their workplace through training and professional development if they want to while on a period of paid parental leave. This provision helps make sure that women on parental leave have the same access to opportunities as other employees. This bill will amend the Paid Parental Leave Act so that a keeping-in-touch day that is taken at the request of the employer cannot occur within six weeks after the child's birth (or the placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This amendment will allow sufficient time after the birth of a child for the mother to recover physically and will give her an uninterrupted period of six weeks for bonding with the child.
There will be a limited exception where an employee suggests or requests that they perform work on the keeping-in-touch day, in which case the day cannot be taken within two weeks after the child's birth (or placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This exception will retain flexibility for employees.
A further amendment to the legislation will also allow employees who have completed 12 months continuous service with the Commonwealth to be paid by the Commonwealth agency they work for, regardless of how long they have been with that agency.
The bill will also make minor amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Act will be amended to make sure that employees on unpaid parental leave under the National Employment Standards will be able to perform paid work for up to 10 days for the purposes of keeping in touch with their employer. This will align with the keeping-in-touch arrangements under the Paid Parental Leave Act.
Under the Fair Work Act, eligible employees have the right to request an additional period of unpaid parental leave of up to 12 months. Employees who take additional unpaid leave will also get up to 10 additional keeping-in-touch days.
Under the Paid Parental Leave Act, employers have to provide written notice of parental leave pay to their employees. This bill will insert a note in the payslip provision of the Fair Work Act referring employers to this obligation.
The bill will also insert a number of notes into the Paid Parental Leave Act to refer readers to important provisions in the Fair Work Act which deal with, amongst other things, the new keeping-in-touch provisions, and protections against coercion and undue influence.
To provide greater flexibility for pregnant employees prior to the birth of a child, the Fair Work Act will be amended to allow an employee and employer to agree to unpaid parental leave commencing earlier than six weeks prior to the expected date of birth.
The Fair Work Act will also be amended to give parents the right to return to their employment, subject to four weeks' notice, in the event of a stillbirth or infant death.
The government's Paid Parental Leave scheme delivers real support to Australian families with a new baby. It is supporting Australian families to give their children the best start in life.
It is another historic reform, delivered by this Labor government. I commend the bill to the House
Debate adjourned.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (09:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government believes that every child deserves the best start in life.
On 1 January 2011, this government delivered Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme.
This historic reform provides eligible working parents with parental leave pay for up to 18 weeks at the national minimum wage.
This means that new parents can take time off to spend those precious few months with their new baby—without putting more pressure on the family budget.
This is real support going to Australian families right now—which lets them take time off to spend with their new babies, and helps them to give their children the best start in life.
This bill makes minor refinements to the legislation for the Paid Parental Leave scheme, by making amendments to improve clarity and consistency and making consequential amendments to the fair work legislation.
The amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 will clarify notice provisions and processes for the recovery of debts, as well as refining provisions concerning delegations and nominees.
Good employees are important to a business, so it makes sense that, when an employee takes time off to care for a new baby, an employer would want to stay in touch with that employee—usually a new mum.
The Australian government's Paid Parental Leave scheme allows employees to 'keep in touch' with their workplace through training and professional development if they want to while on a period of paid parental leave. This provision helps make sure that women on parental leave have the same access to opportunities as other employees. This bill will amend the Paid Parental Leave Act so that a keeping-in-touch day that is taken at the request of the employer cannot occur within six weeks after the child's birth (or the placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This amendment will allow sufficient time after the birth of a child for the mother to recover physically and will give her an uninterrupted period of six weeks for bonding with the child.
There will be a limited exception where an employee suggests or requests that they perform work on the keeping-in-touch day, in which case the day cannot be taken within two weeks after the child's birth (or placement of the child, in the case of an adoption). This exception will retain flexibility for employees.
A further amendment to the legislation will also allow employees who have completed 12 months continuous service with the Commonwealth to be paid by the Commonwealth agency they work for, regardless of how long they have been with that agency.
The bill will also make minor amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Act will be amended to make sure that employees on unpaid parental leave under the National Employment Standards will be able to perform paid work for up to 10 days for the purposes of keeping in touch with their employer. This will align with the keeping-in-touch arrangements under the Paid Parental Leave Act.
Under the Fair Work Act, eligible employees have the right to request an additional period of unpaid parental leave of up to 12 months. Employees who take additional unpaid leave will also get up to 10 additional keeping-in-touch days.
Under the Paid Parental Leave Act, employers have to provide written notice of parental leave pay to their employees. This bill will insert a note in the payslip provision of the Fair Work Act referring employers to this obligation.
The bill will also insert a number of notes into the Paid Parental Leave Act to refer readers to important provisions in the Fair Work Act which deal with, amongst other things, the new keeping-in-touch provisions, and protections against coercion and undue influence.
To provide greater flexibility for pregnant employees prior to the birth of a child, the Fair Work Act will be amended to allow an employee and employer to agree to unpaid parental leave commencing earlier than six weeks prior to the expected date of birth.
The Fair Work Act will also be amended to give parents the right to return to their employment, subject to four weeks' notice, in the event of a stillbirth or infant death.
The government's Paid Parental Leave scheme delivers real support to Australian families with a new baby. It is supporting Australian families to give their children the best start in life.
It is another historic reform, delivered by this Labor government. I commend the bill to the House
Debate adjourned.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (09:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011 delivers on the government's 2010 election commitment to introduce a new simple, low-cost default superannuation product called MySuper.
We are living longer than ever before in this nation, and Australians are reorganising their lives to adapt to the rhythm of longer life. So in this place and this parliament I believe we need to change and update our laws to reflect these new patterns of life.
Yesterday the government introduced historic legislation that will lift the superannuation savings of 8½ million Australians.
It is, I submit, in the national interest to encourage Australians to save more for their retirement. But the trade-off is that the superannuation industry should contribute to higher retirement savings through the compulsory contributions by achieving greater efficiency and lower fees.
Access to safe, low-cost and simple superannuation is essential to help Australians' retirement savings go further. By 2050, almost one in four Australians will have reached retirement age, compared to one in seven today. It is important that superannuation—the metaphorical rain in the mountains which flows through the rivers to the sea of retirement—as it flows through, that those who are managing and tending this superannuation do not unduly and unnecessarily impose fees and charges which deduct from what will end up in people's retirement accounts.
Therefore, MySuper is a new default superannuation product that has no unnecessary fees or charges and has simple features that will make it easier to compare fund performance.
MySuper is a key part of the government's broader Stronger Super reform package.
Stronger Super also includes reforms to:
make the process of everyday transactions in the super system easier, cheaper and faster through the SuperStream package of measures;
improve the governance and integrity of the superannuation system, including for the rules that apply to superannuation trustees;
improve integrity and increase community confidence in the self-managed superannuation fund sector.
Therefore, in combination, the government's superannuation reforms are estimated to increase retirement superannuation balances by almost $150,000 for a 30 year old worker earning average full-time wages.
Together, these reforms will provide all Australians with the confidence that the superannuation system is working in the best interests of the members to provide the members an adequate income in retirement. Currently, the superannuation industry in Australia manages in excess of $1.3 trillion in Australian retirement savings.
You do not get a bill in the post, but Australians currently pay around $85 on average a month in superannuation fees, which is in fact more than the average person's monthly mobile phone bill.
However, around 60 per cent of Australians do not make active choices in relation to their superannuation.
And this government believes that Australians should not be charged for valet parking when they are catching the train.
For many Australians, their busy lives mean that they simply do not have the time to be deeply involved in their superannuation and perhaps achieve that extra better deal.
For many Australians, perhaps their account balances are so far not sufficiently high as to warrant the priority of daily attention. For some Australians, perhaps they are still of a relatively young age and, whilst are pleased to have their superannuation accounts gradually accumulating money, are more interested in paying the school fees or, indeed, paying the mortgage. For others, they may not feel that they have the financial skills to make active choices so prefer to rely on the default products offered by the superannuation funds.
Our independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation are too high—I repeat: the independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation at this point in time are simply too high—and that members may currently be paying fees for services that they neither want nor have requested.
Every dollar diverted in fees or other unnecessary overheads is a dollar less, plus the lost benefit of compound interest and dividend imputation, going towards a larger and more secure retirement.
Over a person's working life, higher than necessary fees can total tens of thousands of dollars of lost retirement income.
This is why introducing MySuper is so fundamentally important. It is important that members who work hard for the compulsory savings going to their funds are not unfairly or unjustly taxed by the people tasked with managing their funds.
Having created an industry which flourishes on the back of compulsory savings mandated by legislation, it is fair that this industry, which benefits so much from the compulsory saving system in Australia, contributes to higher retirement savings through greater efficiency and lower fees.
MySuper will provide a simple, cost-effective default product that all Australians can rely upon.
MySuper will be limited to a common set of features to make it easier for members, employers and other stakeholders to compare performance across MySuper products. That in itself will place downward pressure on fees.
So today I am proud to introduce the first tranche of legislation to implement MySuper.
This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to establish the core framework for MySuper products.
MySuper products will replace existing default investment options in default funds from 1 July 2013.
MySuper products will have a simple set of product features, irrespective of who provides them.
Therefore, the bill requires APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, to be satisfied that a MySuper product has some core characteristics.
These characteristics are that:
there is a single, diversified investment strategy, which can be a life-cycle investment approach;
there is equal access to services for all members;
the same process is used in allocating investment returns to members;
no limits are placed on the contributions that a trustee of a MySuper product will accept except for certain contributions to be prescribed by regulations; and
a member cannot be transferred out of a MySuper product unless to another MySuper product, to an eligible rollover fund or if the member actively consents.
A trustee will also have to demonstrate that they are able to meet new obligations to act in the best financial interests of members of the MySuper product. These obligations will be contained in subsequent tranches of legislation.
The bill also establishes the authorisation regime for MySuper.
Trustees will be required to be authorised by APRA for each MySuper product they wish to offer. APRA will be able to accept applications for MySuper products from 1 January 2013.
Any trustee will be able to offer a MySuper product except trustees of eligible rollover funds, self-managed superannuation funds and APRA regulated funds with fewer than five members.
APRA will generally only authorise a trustee to offer a single MySuper product in a superannuation fund. However, there will be two exceptions to the rule.
Firstly, trustees will be able offer employers that contribute to the fund for more than 500 employees a separate MySuper product tailored to the needs of that particular workplace.
These products will be able to differ from the fund's main MySuper product in terms of investment strategy, member services and fees. These MySuper products must be separately authorised by APRA.
Secondly, funds will be able to offer additional MySuper products in certain limited circumstances in order to preserve a corporate brand.
From 1 October 2013, it will be mandatory for employers to make contributions to a fund that offers a MySuper product for any employee that has not chosen a fund. This will provide employers three months to ensure that they are able to select a default fund that offers a MySuper product to comply with the superannuation guarantee obligations.
MySuper products will be restricted to charging fees that are described in the same way so that they can be directly compared. APRA will collect and publish data on MySuper products to ensure that this information is freely available.
Members of a MySuper product will also be generally charged a single fee structure. This will enable members, employers and market analysts to make comparisons based on the actual fees paid by members in each MySuper product—the ability, in fact, to form a league table comparing all funds' fee costs. In addition, by requiring the same fees to be charged to all members, this will place a competitive pressure on trustees to offer the best possible fees to all of their members.
However, a trustee will be able to charge a lower administration fee to employees of certain employers reflecting administration efficiencies for the fund in dealing with that employer. Provisions contained in the bill will generally allow for the transfer of a member interest from a MySuper product to another product under certain circumstances. Of particular concern is where members are transferred between funds when they change jobs. Additional safeguards, including enhanced member disclosure or approval, will be included in subsequent legislation.
Finally, the bill makes it an offence of strict liability for any person to represent that they offer a MySuper product where they do not have authorisation from APRA.
Additional funding of $29.9 million over four years will be provided to APRA and ASIC that will be recovered through increases to the annual levy on APRA-regulated superannuation funds.
Subsequent tranches of legislation will introduce the remaining measures relating to MySuper.
I would like to acknowledge the work of both my ministerial predecessors, Senator Sherry and the member for McMahon, Minister Bowen. They were early and persuasive advocates of the principle for the need for a better deal for super fund members. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Jeremy Cooper and Paul Costello. Both have since moved into significant roles in private industry where they continue to make valuable contributions to the development of the financial services industry.
In summary, this legislation will exert downward pressure on the fees and charges paid by ordinary members in the superannuation accounts. This will have the effect of ensuring that, when people reach retirement, there will be more money in their accounts than there otherwise would have been if this bill had not been presented to the House.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (09:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011 delivers on the government's 2010 election commitment to introduce a new simple, low-cost default superannuation product called MySuper.
We are living longer than ever before in this nation, and Australians are reorganising their lives to adapt to the rhythm of longer life. So in this place and this parliament I believe we need to change and update our laws to reflect these new patterns of life.
Yesterday the government introduced historic legislation that will lift the superannuation savings of 8½ million Australians.
It is, I submit, in the national interest to encourage Australians to save more for their retirement. But the trade-off is that the superannuation industry should contribute to higher retirement savings through the compulsory contributions by achieving greater efficiency and lower fees.
Access to safe, low-cost and simple superannuation is essential to help Australians' retirement savings go further. By 2050, almost one in four Australians will have reached retirement age, compared to one in seven today. It is important that superannuation—the metaphorical rain in the mountains which flows through the rivers to the sea of retirement—as it flows through, that those who are managing and tending this superannuation do not unduly and unnecessarily impose fees and charges which deduct from what will end up in people's retirement accounts.
Therefore, MySuper is a new default superannuation product that has no unnecessary fees or charges and has simple features that will make it easier to compare fund performance.
MySuper is a key part of the government's broader Stronger Super reform package.
Stronger Super also includes reforms to:
make the process of everyday transactions in the super system easier, cheaper and faster through the SuperStream package of measures;
improve the governance and integrity of the superannuation system, including for the rules that apply to superannuation trustees;
improve integrity and increase community confidence in the self-managed superannuation fund sector.
Therefore, in combination, the government's superannuation reforms are estimated to increase retirement superannuation balances by almost $150,000 for a 30 year old worker earning average full-time wages.
Together, these reforms will provide all Australians with the confidence that the superannuation system is working in the best interests of the members to provide the members an adequate income in retirement. Currently, the superannuation industry in Australia manages in excess of $1.3 trillion in Australian retirement savings.
You do not get a bill in the post, but Australians currently pay around $85 on average a month in superannuation fees, which is in fact more than the average person's monthly mobile phone bill.
However, around 60 per cent of Australians do not make active choices in relation to their superannuation.
And this government believes that Australians should not be charged for valet parking when they are catching the train.
For many Australians, their busy lives mean that they simply do not have the time to be deeply involved in their superannuation and perhaps achieve that extra better deal.
For many Australians, perhaps their account balances are so far not sufficiently high as to warrant the priority of daily attention. For some Australians, perhaps they are still of a relatively young age and, whilst are pleased to have their superannuation accounts gradually accumulating money, are more interested in paying the school fees or, indeed, paying the mortgage. For others, they may not feel that they have the financial skills to make active choices so prefer to rely on the default products offered by the superannuation funds.
Our independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation are too high—I repeat: the independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation at this point in time are simply too high—and that members may currently be paying fees for services that they neither want nor have requested.
Every dollar diverted in fees or other unnecessary overheads is a dollar less, plus the lost benefit of compound interest and dividend imputation, going towards a larger and more secure retirement.
Over a person's working life, higher than necessary fees can total tens of thousands of dollars of lost retirement income.
This is why introducing MySuper is so fundamentally important. It is important that members who work hard for the compulsory savings going to their funds are not unfairly or unjustly taxed by the people tasked with managing their funds.
Having created an industry which flourishes on the back of compulsory savings mandated by legislation, it is fair that this industry, which benefits so much from the compulsory saving system in Australia, contributes to higher retirement savings through greater efficiency and lower fees.
MySuper will provide a simple, cost-effective default product that all Australians can rely upon.
MySuper will be limited to a common set of features to make it easier for members, employers and other stakeholders to compare performance across MySuper products. That in itself will place downward pressure on fees.
So today I am proud to introduce the first tranche of legislation to implement MySuper.
This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to establish the core framework for MySuper products.
MySuper products will replace existing default investment options in default funds from 1 July 2013.
MySuper products will have a simple set of product features, irrespective of who provides them.
Therefore, the bill requires APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, to be satisfied that a MySuper product has some core characteristics.
These characteristics are that:
there is a single, diversified investment strategy, which can be a life-cycle investment approach;
there is equal access to services for all members;
the same process is used in allocating investment returns to members;
no limits are placed on the contributions that a trustee of a MySuper product will accept except for certain contributions to be prescribed by regulations; and
a member cannot be transferred out of a MySuper product unless to another MySuper product, to an eligible rollover fund or if the member actively consents.
A trustee will also have to demonstrate that they are able to meet new obligations to act in the best financial interests of members of the MySuper product. These obligations will be contained in subsequent tranches of legislation.
The bill also establishes the authorisation regime for MySuper.
Trustees will be required to be authorised by APRA for each MySuper product they wish to offer. APRA will be able to accept applications for MySuper products from 1 January 2013.
Any trustee will be able to offer a MySuper product except trustees of eligible rollover funds, self-managed superannuation funds and APRA regulated funds with fewer than five members.
APRA will generally only authorise a trustee to offer a single MySuper product in a superannuation fund. However, there will be two exceptions to the rule.
Firstly, trustees will be able offer employers that contribute to the fund for more than 500 employees a separate MySuper product tailored to the needs of that particular workplace.
These products will be able to differ from the fund's main MySuper product in terms of investment strategy, member services and fees. These MySuper products must be separately authorised by APRA.
Secondly, funds will be able to offer additional MySuper products in certain limited circumstances in order to preserve a corporate brand.
From 1 October 2013, it will be mandatory for employers to make contributions to a fund that offers a MySuper product for any employee that has not chosen a fund. This will provide employers three months to ensure that they are able to select a default fund that offers a MySuper product to comply with the superannuation guarantee obligations.
MySuper products will be restricted to charging fees that are described in the same way so that they can be directly compared. APRA will collect and publish data on MySuper products to ensure that this information is freely available.
Members of a MySuper product will also be generally charged a single fee structure. This will enable members, employers and market analysts to make comparisons based on the actual fees paid by members in each MySuper product—the ability, in fact, to form a league table comparing all funds' fee costs. In addition, by requiring the same fees to be charged to all members, this will place a competitive pressure on trustees to offer the best possible fees to all of their members.
However, a trustee will be able to charge a lower administration fee to employees of certain employers reflecting administration efficiencies for the fund in dealing with that employer. Provisions contained in the bill will generally allow for the transfer of a member interest from a MySuper product to another product under certain circumstances. Of particular concern is where members are transferred between funds when they change jobs. Additional safeguards, including enhanced member disclosure or approval, will be included in subsequent legislation.
Finally, the bill makes it an offence of strict liability for any person to represent that they offer a MySuper product where they do not have authorisation from APRA.
Additional funding of $29.9 million over four years will be provided to APRA and ASIC that will be recovered through increases to the annual levy on APRA-regulated superannuation funds.
Subsequent tranches of legislation will introduce the remaining measures relating to MySuper.
I would like to acknowledge the work of both my ministerial predecessors, Senator Sherry and the member for McMahon, Minister Bowen. They were early and persuasive advocates of the principle for the need for a better deal for super fund members. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Jeremy Cooper and Paul Costello. Both have since moved into significant roles in private industry where they continue to make valuable contributions to the development of the financial services industry.
In summary, this legislation will exert downward pressure on the fees and charges paid by ordinary members in the superannuation accounts. This will have the effect of ensuring that, when people reach retirement, there will be more money in their accounts than there otherwise would have been if this bill had not been presented to the House.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (09:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011 delivers on the government's 2010 election commitment to introduce a new simple, low-cost default superannuation product called MySuper.
We are living longer than ever before in this nation, and Australians are reorganising their lives to adapt to the rhythm of longer life. So in this place and this parliament I believe we need to change and update our laws to reflect these new patterns of life.
Yesterday the government introduced historic legislation that will lift the superannuation savings of 8½ million Australians.
It is, I submit, in the national interest to encourage Australians to save more for their retirement. But the trade-off is that the superannuation industry should contribute to higher retirement savings through the compulsory contributions by achieving greater efficiency and lower fees.
Access to safe, low-cost and simple superannuation is essential to help Australians' retirement savings go further. By 2050, almost one in four Australians will have reached retirement age, compared to one in seven today. It is important that superannuation—the metaphorical rain in the mountains which flows through the rivers to the sea of retirement—as it flows through, that those who are managing and tending this superannuation do not unduly and unnecessarily impose fees and charges which deduct from what will end up in people's retirement accounts.
Therefore, MySuper is a new default superannuation product that has no unnecessary fees or charges and has simple features that will make it easier to compare fund performance.
MySuper is a key part of the government's broader Stronger Super reform package.
Stronger Super also includes reforms to:
make the process of everyday transactions in the super system easier, cheaper and faster through the SuperStream package of measures;
improve the governance and integrity of the superannuation system, including for the rules that apply to superannuation trustees;
improve integrity and increase community confidence in the self-managed superannuation fund sector.
Therefore, in combination, the government's superannuation reforms are estimated to increase retirement superannuation balances by almost $150,000 for a 30 year old worker earning average full-time wages.
Together, these reforms will provide all Australians with the confidence that the superannuation system is working in the best interests of the members to provide the members an adequate income in retirement. Currently, the superannuation industry in Australia manages in excess of $1.3 trillion in Australian retirement savings.
You do not get a bill in the post, but Australians currently pay around $85 on average a month in superannuation fees, which is in fact more than the average person's monthly mobile phone bill.
However, around 60 per cent of Australians do not make active choices in relation to their superannuation.
And this government believes that Australians should not be charged for valet parking when they are catching the train.
For many Australians, their busy lives mean that they simply do not have the time to be deeply involved in their superannuation and perhaps achieve that extra better deal.
For many Australians, perhaps their account balances are so far not sufficiently high as to warrant the priority of daily attention. For some Australians, perhaps they are still of a relatively young age and, whilst are pleased to have their superannuation accounts gradually accumulating money, are more interested in paying the school fees or, indeed, paying the mortgage. For others, they may not feel that they have the financial skills to make active choices so prefer to rely on the default products offered by the superannuation funds.
Our independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation are too high—I repeat: the independent Cooper review found that fees in superannuation at this point in time are simply too high—and that members may currently be paying fees for services that they neither want nor have requested.
Every dollar diverted in fees or other unnecessary overheads is a dollar less, plus the lost benefit of compound interest and dividend imputation, going towards a larger and more secure retirement.
Over a person's working life, higher than necessary fees can total tens of thousands of dollars of lost retirement income.
This is why introducing MySuper is so fundamentally important. It is important that members who work hard for the compulsory savings going to their funds are not unfairly or unjustly taxed by the people tasked with managing their funds.
Having created an industry which flourishes on the back of compulsory savings mandated by legislation, it is fair that this industry, which benefits so much from the compulsory saving system in Australia, contributes to higher retirement savings through greater efficiency and lower fees.
MySuper will provide a simple, cost-effective default product that all Australians can rely upon.
MySuper will be limited to a common set of features to make it easier for members, employers and other stakeholders to compare performance across MySuper products. That in itself will place downward pressure on fees.
So today I am proud to introduce the first tranche of legislation to implement MySuper.
This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to establish the core framework for MySuper products.
MySuper products will replace existing default investment options in default funds from 1 July 2013.
MySuper products will have a simple set of product features, irrespective of who provides them.
Therefore, the bill requires APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, to be satisfied that a MySuper product has some core characteristics.
These characteristics are that:
there is a single, diversified investment strategy, which can be a life-cycle investment approach;
there is equal access to services for all members;
the same process is used in allocating investment returns to members;
no limits are placed on the contributions that a trustee of a MySuper product will accept except for certain contributions to be prescribed by regulations; and
a member cannot be transferred out of a MySuper product unless to another MySuper product, to an eligible rollover fund or if the member actively consents.
A trustee will also have to demonstrate that they are able to meet new obligations to act in the best financial interests of members of the MySuper product. These obligations will be contained in subsequent tranches of legislation.
The bill also establishes the authorisation regime for MySuper.
Trustees will be required to be authorised by APRA for each MySuper product they wish to offer. APRA will be able to accept applications for MySuper products from 1 January 2013.
Any trustee will be able to offer a MySuper product except trustees of eligible rollover funds, self-managed superannuation funds and APRA regulated funds with fewer than five members.
APRA will generally only authorise a trustee to offer a single MySuper product in a superannuation fund. However, there will be two exceptions to the rule.
Firstly, trustees will be able offer employers that contribute to the fund for more than 500 employees a separate MySuper product tailored to the needs of that particular workplace.
These products will be able to differ from the fund's main MySuper product in terms of investment strategy, member services and fees. These MySuper products must be separately authorised by APRA.
Secondly, funds will be able to offer additional MySuper products in certain limited circumstances in order to preserve a corporate brand.
From 1 October 2013, it will be mandatory for employers to make contributions to a fund that offers a MySuper product for any employee that has not chosen a fund. This will provide employers three months to ensure that they are able to select a default fund that offers a MySuper product to comply with the superannuation guarantee obligations.
MySuper products will be restricted to charging fees that are described in the same way so that they can be directly compared. APRA will collect and publish data on MySuper products to ensure that this information is freely available.
Members of a MySuper product will also be generally charged a single fee structure. This will enable members, employers and market analysts to make comparisons based on the actual fees paid by members in each MySuper product—the ability, in fact, to form a league table comparing all funds' fee costs. In addition, by requiring the same fees to be charged to all members, this will place a competitive pressure on trustees to offer the best possible fees to all of their members.
However, a trustee will be able to charge a lower administration fee to employees of certain employers reflecting administration efficiencies for the fund in dealing with that employer. Provisions contained in the bill will generally allow for the transfer of a member interest from a MySuper product to another product under certain circumstances. Of particular concern is where members are transferred between funds when they change jobs. Additional safeguards, including enhanced member disclosure or approval, will be included in subsequent legislation.
Finally, the bill makes it an offence of strict liability for any person to represent that they offer a MySuper product where they do not have authorisation from APRA.
Additional funding of $29.9 million over four years will be provided to APRA and ASIC that will be recovered through increases to the annual levy on APRA-regulated superannuation funds.
Subsequent tranches of legislation will introduce the remaining measures relating to MySuper.
I would like to acknowledge the work of both my ministerial predecessors, Senator Sherry and the member for McMahon, Minister Bowen. They were early and persuasive advocates of the principle for the need for a better deal for super fund members. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Jeremy Cooper and Paul Costello. Both have since moved into significant roles in private industry where they continue to make valuable contributions to the development of the financial services industry.
In summary, this legislation will exert downward pressure on the fees and charges paid by ordinary members in the superannuation accounts. This will have the effect of ensuring that, when people reach retirement, there will be more money in their accounts than there otherwise would have been if this bill had not been presented to the House.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Crean.
Bill read a first time.
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. This bill was introduced in 2009, but lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010.
The government made a commitment to the Australian people that it would replace the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry.
This new body will be the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (the building inspectorate).
The government also committed to consult extensively with industry stakeholders to ensure the transition to the new arrangements would be orderly and effective.
On this basis, the former minister appointed retired Federal Court Judge, the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC to consult and report on matters related to the creation of the building inspectorate. Mr Wilcox consulted widely with industry and delivered his report to the government on 31 March 2009.
This bill honours the government's commitment and gives effect to the principal recommendations in Mr Wilcox's report.
The building and construction industry remains a critical sector of our economy, with immediate and direct impact on jobs, growth and productivity. This was particularly so during the global economic recession, during which the government's Nation Building and Jobs Plan ensured that the Australian economy remained one of the strongest in the developed world.
The government understands that the industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees, and as a result we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties.
The government believes that the ABCC needs to be replaced with a new body that is part of the mainstream Fair Work Australia system. This new regulator will operate in accordance with community expectations of a fair and just workplace relations system.
Description of the Bill
The principal object of the bill recognises the government's intention to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations for the building and construction industry. A key objective of this bill is compliance with workplace relations law by all building industry participants, including employers, employees and their respective associations.
This bill aims to provide fairness in the industry by ensuring information, advice and assistance is available to all building industry participants in connection with their rights and responsibilities under relevant laws.
The bill provides effective means for investigating and enforcing relevant workplace laws while balancing the rights of building industry participants through the provision of appropriate safeguards in relation to the use of the building inspectorate's enforcement powers.
ABCC to be replaced
As I said earlier, this bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to abolish the ABCC and transfer its responsibilities to a specialist Fair Work building inspectorate. The bill provides that the new building inspectorate will ensure compliance with general workplace relations laws, as prescribed in the Fair Work Act 2009, by all building industry participants. The building inspectorate
The new building inspectorate will be headed by an independent director appointed by the minister. The director will manage the operations of the building inspectorate and will not be subject to oversight or control by other statutory office holders.
This model gives best effect to Mr Wilcox's recommendation that the director have 'operational autonomy' and reflects various stakeholder consultations on this point.
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the bill also creates an advisory board consisting of industry stakeholders to make recommendations to the director on the policies and priorities of the building inspectorate. While the advisory board will not determine the inspectorate's policies and priorities, the director will consider the advisory board's recommendations.
Scope and penalties
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the definition of 'building work' is amended to remove its coverage of off-site work; thereby focusing the scope of the inspectorate's operations to work on sites.
The building inspectorate will be charged with enforcing the building industry's compliance with the general law as prescribed in the Fair Work Act. In particular, and as recommended by Mr Wilcox, the bill removes:
higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law; and
the broader circumstances under which industrial action attracts penalties in relation to the building industry.
The retention of coercive examination powers
While building participants will be subject to the same penalties as other workers, Mr Wilcox found that the need to retain the existing coercive examination powers was proven.
Mr Wilcox describes the ongoing need for coercive powers in his report as follows:
… I have reached the opinion that it would be unwise not to endow the [Specialist Division] (at least for now) with a coercive interrogation power. Although conduct in the industry has improved in recent years, I believe the job is not yet done.
The government accepts the need to retain these powers for the time being but is also heartened by the continuing improvements in behaviour in the industry. Changes in practices by the ABCC have seen a dramatic reduction in the need to use these powers. For example, the ABCC only resorted to using its compulsory examination powers six times in 2010-11, compared to 37 times in the previous year.
The ABCC attributes this reduction to a number of factors, including better communication about the obligation to provide information voluntarily, a focus on the timeliness of investigations, and changes to the way investigations are carried out. Of course, much of the credit for these changes and the decreased use of the compulsory examination powers should be attributed to the ABC Commissioner, Mr Leigh Johns. Since his appointment in October 2010 Mr Johns has administratively implemented a number of Mr Wilcox's recommendations and personally driven a number of positive custom and practice changes within the ABCC.
It is also important to note that this reduction in use of these strong powers has, according to the ABCC, not hampered their ability to investigate matters. As the ABCC's 2010-11 annual report states:
A key feature of the ABCC’s activities this year was a marked decrease in the use of s. 52 as a compliance technique with no reduction in the number of investigations undertaken. In short, the reduced reliance on s. 52 has not adversely affected regulatory activity or success.
In retaining the coercive examination powers this bill also includes the following safeguards recommended by Mr Wilcox in relation to the use of the powers:
use of the powers is dependent on a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being satisfied a case has been made for their use;
persons required to attend an interview may be represented by a lawyer of their choice and their right to claim legal privilege and public interest immunity will be recognised;
persons required to attend an interview will be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses;
all interviews are to be videotaped and undertaken by the director or an SES employee;
the Commonwealth Ombudsman will monitor and review all interviews and provide reports to the parliament on the exercise of this power; and
the powers will be subject to a three year sunset clause.
Sunset clause for the compulsory examination powers
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendation the legislation includes a sunset clause on the availability of the coercive powers, which the government considers appropriate in relation to these strong industry specific powers. The provisions will sunset in three years (rather than the five years specified in the 2009 bill) reflecting the fact that Mr Wilcox recommended that they be reviewed after a five-year period back in 2009. The compulsory interrogation powers have continued to operate in the industry since that time. Given the significant reduction in the need to use the powers in recent years, the government is satisfied that a further three-year period, rather than five, is appropriate.
The priority for the building industry is to achieve cultural change so that compulsory examination powers will become unnecessary—the sunset clause reflects this priority. The government will conduct a review of these powers to determine whether there is an ongoing need for them before the sunset period expires.
Relevantly, in his report Mr Wilcox says:
… I am confident the safeguards I have recommended, if implemented, will minimise the unnecessary use, and potential for misuse, of the power; without impeding, or significantly delaying, investigations …
The government agrees with this assessment.
Coercive examination powers and the independent assessor
The government was heartened by the fact that Mr Wilcox was not of the view that there are widespread and broad problems for the industry across the country. We agree and we note that the vast majority of participants in the industry are hardworking and law-abiding men and women.
However, there are also problems and a clear need to continue to drive cultural change in some key areas of the industry is required.
On this basis the bill creates the office of the Independent Assessor—Special Building Industry Powers, who may, on application from stakeholders, make a determination that the coercive interrogation powers will not apply to a particular project or projects.
In determining whether to 'switch off' the coercive powers for particular projects, the independent assessor must be satisfied that it would:
be appropriate to make the determination, having regard to the objects of the act, and
not be contrary to the public interest to make such a determination.
In the event that a project where the coercive powers have been switched off experiences industrial unlawfulness the independent assessor may revoke his or her original decision; thereby switching the powers back on. Additionally, the director of the building inspectorate can request that the independent assessor reconsider their decision at any time based on changes in circumstances on a specific project.
These 'switch off' provisions ensure that the powers are focused where they are needed most. The government is determined to encourage lawful behaviour and a change in the industry's culture. These arrangements provide the industry with the opportunity to demonstrate that the requisite lawful culture is in place and that the coercive examination powers are not required.
The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner
Finally, the government understands the importance of safety at work in the building and construction industry. Mr Wilcox was not asked to review the operation of the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, OFSC, or the associated Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme—the scheme. This bill therefore makes no changes to the provisions of the BCII Act that relate to the OFSC and the scheme.
The government is of course conscious of the need for continuous improvement in the regulatory arrangements and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is currently considering the details of a review of the OFSC and scheme.
Conclusion
The government is committed to implementing a strong but fair set of compliance arrangements for the building industry. The government has consistently stated that anyone who breaks a law should feel the full force of the law. The government understands that not all building industry stakeholders agree on all matters. The government's intention is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations, an environment in which there is no place for people choosing which laws to obey and which ones to ignore. This goes for all industry participants—employers, employees and their respective associations.
The government believes that the safeguards in the bill for the coercive examination powers achieve the balance required to ensure compliance with the law and the fair treatment of individuals. Law-abiding industry participants who have nothing to fear from the existence of these strong laws will be so accorded. Ultimately, whether or not the powers are used remains in the hands of all building industry participants.
The government understands that only considered, fair and balanced laws will create the sort of long-term change that Australia's building and construction industry needs if it is to flourish, to continue to create jobs and to make a positive contribution to national productivity and prosperity. The government believes that this bill provides considered, fair and balanced laws. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Crean.
Bill read a first time.
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. This bill was introduced in 2009, but lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010.
The government made a commitment to the Australian people that it would replace the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry.
This new body will be the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (the building inspectorate).
The government also committed to consult extensively with industry stakeholders to ensure the transition to the new arrangements would be orderly and effective.
On this basis, the former minister appointed retired Federal Court Judge, the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC to consult and report on matters related to the creation of the building inspectorate. Mr Wilcox consulted widely with industry and delivered his report to the government on 31 March 2009.
This bill honours the government's commitment and gives effect to the principal recommendations in Mr Wilcox's report.
The building and construction industry remains a critical sector of our economy, with immediate and direct impact on jobs, growth and productivity. This was particularly so during the global economic recession, during which the government's Nation Building and Jobs Plan ensured that the Australian economy remained one of the strongest in the developed world.
The government understands that the industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees, and as a result we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties.
The government believes that the ABCC needs to be replaced with a new body that is part of the mainstream Fair Work Australia system. This new regulator will operate in accordance with community expectations of a fair and just workplace relations system.
Description of the Bill
The principal object of the bill recognises the government's intention to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations for the building and construction industry. A key objective of this bill is compliance with workplace relations law by all building industry participants, including employers, employees and their respective associations.
This bill aims to provide fairness in the industry by ensuring information, advice and assistance is available to all building industry participants in connection with their rights and responsibilities under relevant laws.
The bill provides effective means for investigating and enforcing relevant workplace laws while balancing the rights of building industry participants through the provision of appropriate safeguards in relation to the use of the building inspectorate's enforcement powers.
ABCC to be replaced
As I said earlier, this bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to abolish the ABCC and transfer its responsibilities to a specialist Fair Work building inspectorate. The bill provides that the new building inspectorate will ensure compliance with general workplace relations laws, as prescribed in the Fair Work Act 2009, by all building industry participants. The building inspectorate
The new building inspectorate will be headed by an independent director appointed by the minister. The director will manage the operations of the building inspectorate and will not be subject to oversight or control by other statutory office holders.
This model gives best effect to Mr Wilcox's recommendation that the director have 'operational autonomy' and reflects various stakeholder consultations on this point.
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the bill also creates an advisory board consisting of industry stakeholders to make recommendations to the director on the policies and priorities of the building inspectorate. While the advisory board will not determine the inspectorate's policies and priorities, the director will consider the advisory board's recommendations.
Scope and penalties
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the definition of 'building work' is amended to remove its coverage of off-site work; thereby focusing the scope of the inspectorate's operations to work on sites.
The building inspectorate will be charged with enforcing the building industry's compliance with the general law as prescribed in the Fair Work Act. In particular, and as recommended by Mr Wilcox, the bill removes:
higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law; and
the broader circumstances under which industrial action attracts penalties in relation to the building industry.
The retention of coercive examination powers
While building participants will be subject to the same penalties as other workers, Mr Wilcox found that the need to retain the existing coercive examination powers was proven.
Mr Wilcox describes the ongoing need for coercive powers in his report as follows:
… I have reached the opinion that it would be unwise not to endow the [Specialist Division] (at least for now) with a coercive interrogation power. Although conduct in the industry has improved in recent years, I believe the job is not yet done.
The government accepts the need to retain these powers for the time being but is also heartened by the continuing improvements in behaviour in the industry. Changes in practices by the ABCC have seen a dramatic reduction in the need to use these powers. For example, the ABCC only resorted to using its compulsory examination powers six times in 2010-11, compared to 37 times in the previous year.
The ABCC attributes this reduction to a number of factors, including better communication about the obligation to provide information voluntarily, a focus on the timeliness of investigations, and changes to the way investigations are carried out. Of course, much of the credit for these changes and the decreased use of the compulsory examination powers should be attributed to the ABC Commissioner, Mr Leigh Johns. Since his appointment in October 2010 Mr Johns has administratively implemented a number of Mr Wilcox's recommendations and personally driven a number of positive custom and practice changes within the ABCC.
It is also important to note that this reduction in use of these strong powers has, according to the ABCC, not hampered their ability to investigate matters. As the ABCC's 2010-11 annual report states:
A key feature of the ABCC’s activities this year was a marked decrease in the use of s. 52 as a compliance technique with no reduction in the number of investigations undertaken. In short, the reduced reliance on s. 52 has not adversely affected regulatory activity or success.
In retaining the coercive examination powers this bill also includes the following safeguards recommended by Mr Wilcox in relation to the use of the powers:
use of the powers is dependent on a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being satisfied a case has been made for their use;
persons required to attend an interview may be represented by a lawyer of their choice and their right to claim legal privilege and public interest immunity will be recognised;
persons required to attend an interview will be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses;
all interviews are to be videotaped and undertaken by the director or an SES employee;
the Commonwealth Ombudsman will monitor and review all interviews and provide reports to the parliament on the exercise of this power; and
the powers will be subject to a three year sunset clause.
Sunset clause for the compulsory examination powers
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendation the legislation includes a sunset clause on the availability of the coercive powers, which the government considers appropriate in relation to these strong industry specific powers. The provisions will sunset in three years (rather than the five years specified in the 2009 bill) reflecting the fact that Mr Wilcox recommended that they be reviewed after a five-year period back in 2009. The compulsory interrogation powers have continued to operate in the industry since that time. Given the significant reduction in the need to use the powers in recent years, the government is satisfied that a further three-year period, rather than five, is appropriate.
The priority for the building industry is to achieve cultural change so that compulsory examination powers will become unnecessary—the sunset clause reflects this priority. The government will conduct a review of these powers to determine whether there is an ongoing need for them before the sunset period expires.
Relevantly, in his report Mr Wilcox says:
… I am confident the safeguards I have recommended, if implemented, will minimise the unnecessary use, and potential for misuse, of the power; without impeding, or significantly delaying, investigations …
The government agrees with this assessment.
Coercive examination powers and the independent assessor
The government was heartened by the fact that Mr Wilcox was not of the view that there are widespread and broad problems for the industry across the country. We agree and we note that the vast majority of participants in the industry are hardworking and law-abiding men and women.
However, there are also problems and a clear need to continue to drive cultural change in some key areas of the industry is required.
On this basis the bill creates the office of the Independent Assessor—Special Building Industry Powers, who may, on application from stakeholders, make a determination that the coercive interrogation powers will not apply to a particular project or projects.
In determining whether to 'switch off' the coercive powers for particular projects, the independent assessor must be satisfied that it would:
be appropriate to make the determination, having regard to the objects of the act, and
not be contrary to the public interest to make such a determination.
In the event that a project where the coercive powers have been switched off experiences industrial unlawfulness the independent assessor may revoke his or her original decision; thereby switching the powers back on. Additionally, the director of the building inspectorate can request that the independent assessor reconsider their decision at any time based on changes in circumstances on a specific project.
These 'switch off' provisions ensure that the powers are focused where they are needed most. The government is determined to encourage lawful behaviour and a change in the industry's culture. These arrangements provide the industry with the opportunity to demonstrate that the requisite lawful culture is in place and that the coercive examination powers are not required.
The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner
Finally, the government understands the importance of safety at work in the building and construction industry. Mr Wilcox was not asked to review the operation of the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, OFSC, or the associated Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme—the scheme. This bill therefore makes no changes to the provisions of the BCII Act that relate to the OFSC and the scheme.
The government is of course conscious of the need for continuous improvement in the regulatory arrangements and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is currently considering the details of a review of the OFSC and scheme.
Conclusion
The government is committed to implementing a strong but fair set of compliance arrangements for the building industry. The government has consistently stated that anyone who breaks a law should feel the full force of the law. The government understands that not all building industry stakeholders agree on all matters. The government's intention is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations, an environment in which there is no place for people choosing which laws to obey and which ones to ignore. This goes for all industry participants—employers, employees and their respective associations.
The government believes that the safeguards in the bill for the coercive examination powers achieve the balance required to ensure compliance with the law and the fair treatment of individuals. Law-abiding industry participants who have nothing to fear from the existence of these strong laws will be so accorded. Ultimately, whether or not the powers are used remains in the hands of all building industry participants.
The government understands that only considered, fair and balanced laws will create the sort of long-term change that Australia's building and construction industry needs if it is to flourish, to continue to create jobs and to make a positive contribution to national productivity and prosperity. The government believes that this bill provides considered, fair and balanced laws. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. This bill was introduced in 2009, but lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010.
The government made a commitment to the Australian people that it would replace the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry.
This new body will be the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (the building inspectorate).
The government also committed to consult extensively with industry stakeholders to ensure the transition to the new arrangements would be orderly and effective.
On this basis, the former minister appointed retired Federal Court Judge, the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC to consult and report on matters related to the creation of the building inspectorate. Mr Wilcox consulted widely with industry and delivered his report to the government on 31 March 2009.
This bill honours the government's commitment and gives effect to the principal recommendations in Mr Wilcox's report.
The building and construction industry remains a critical sector of our economy, with immediate and direct impact on jobs, growth and productivity. This was particularly so during the global economic recession, during which the government's Nation Building and Jobs Plan ensured that the Australian economy remained one of the strongest in the developed world.
The government understands that the industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees, and as a result we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties.
The government believes that the ABCC needs to be replaced with a new body that is part of the mainstream Fair Work Australia system. This new regulator will operate in accordance with community expectations of a fair and just workplace relations system.
Description of the Bill
The principal object of the bill recognises the government's intention to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations for the building and construction industry. A key objective of this bill is compliance with workplace relations law by all building industry participants, including employers, employees and their respective associations.
This bill aims to provide fairness in the industry by ensuring information, advice and assistance is available to all building industry participants in connection with their rights and responsibilities under relevant laws.
The bill provides effective means for investigating and enforcing relevant workplace laws while balancing the rights of building industry participants through the provision of appropriate safeguards in relation to the use of the building inspectorate's enforcement powers.
ABCC to be replaced
As I said earlier, this bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to abolish the ABCC and transfer its responsibilities to a specialist Fair Work building inspectorate. The bill provides that the new building inspectorate will ensure compliance with general workplace relations laws, as prescribed in the Fair Work Act 2009, by all building industry participants. The building inspectorate
The new building inspectorate will be headed by an independent director appointed by the minister. The director will manage the operations of the building inspectorate and will not be subject to oversight or control by other statutory office holders.
This model gives best effect to Mr Wilcox's recommendation that the director have 'operational autonomy' and reflects various stakeholder consultations on this point.
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the bill also creates an advisory board consisting of industry stakeholders to make recommendations to the director on the policies and priorities of the building inspectorate. While the advisory board will not determine the inspectorate's policies and priorities, the director will consider the advisory board's recommendations.
Scope and penalties
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendations, the definition of 'building work' is amended to remove its coverage of off-site work; thereby focusing the scope of the inspectorate's operations to work on sites.
The building inspectorate will be charged with enforcing the building industry's compliance with the general law as prescribed in the Fair Work Act. In particular, and as recommended by Mr Wilcox, the bill removes:
higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law; and
the broader circumstances under which industrial action attracts penalties in relation to the building industry.
The retention of coercive examination powers
While building participants will be subject to the same penalties as other workers, Mr Wilcox found that the need to retain the existing coercive examination powers was proven.
Mr Wilcox describes the ongoing need for coercive powers in his report as follows:
… I have reached the opinion that it would be unwise not to endow the [Specialist Division] (at least for now) with a coercive interrogation power. Although conduct in the industry has improved in recent years, I believe the job is not yet done.
The government accepts the need to retain these powers for the time being but is also heartened by the continuing improvements in behaviour in the industry. Changes in practices by the ABCC have seen a dramatic reduction in the need to use these powers. For example, the ABCC only resorted to using its compulsory examination powers six times in 2010-11, compared to 37 times in the previous year.
The ABCC attributes this reduction to a number of factors, including better communication about the obligation to provide information voluntarily, a focus on the timeliness of investigations, and changes to the way investigations are carried out. Of course, much of the credit for these changes and the decreased use of the compulsory examination powers should be attributed to the ABC Commissioner, Mr Leigh Johns. Since his appointment in October 2010 Mr Johns has administratively implemented a number of Mr Wilcox's recommendations and personally driven a number of positive custom and practice changes within the ABCC.
It is also important to note that this reduction in use of these strong powers has, according to the ABCC, not hampered their ability to investigate matters. As the ABCC's 2010-11 annual report states:
A key feature of the ABCC’s activities this year was a marked decrease in the use of s. 52 as a compliance technique with no reduction in the number of investigations undertaken. In short, the reduced reliance on s. 52 has not adversely affected regulatory activity or success.
In retaining the coercive examination powers this bill also includes the following safeguards recommended by Mr Wilcox in relation to the use of the powers:
use of the powers is dependent on a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being satisfied a case has been made for their use;
persons required to attend an interview may be represented by a lawyer of their choice and their right to claim legal privilege and public interest immunity will be recognised;
persons required to attend an interview will be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses;
all interviews are to be videotaped and undertaken by the director or an SES employee;
the Commonwealth Ombudsman will monitor and review all interviews and provide reports to the parliament on the exercise of this power; and
the powers will be subject to a three year sunset clause.
Sunset clause for the compulsory examination powers
Consistent with Mr Wilcox's recommendation the legislation includes a sunset clause on the availability of the coercive powers, which the government considers appropriate in relation to these strong industry specific powers. The provisions will sunset in three years (rather than the five years specified in the 2009 bill) reflecting the fact that Mr Wilcox recommended that they be reviewed after a five-year period back in 2009. The compulsory interrogation powers have continued to operate in the industry since that time. Given the significant reduction in the need to use the powers in recent years, the government is satisfied that a further three-year period, rather than five, is appropriate.
The priority for the building industry is to achieve cultural change so that compulsory examination powers will become unnecessary—the sunset clause reflects this priority. The government will conduct a review of these powers to determine whether there is an ongoing need for them before the sunset period expires.
Relevantly, in his report Mr Wilcox says:
… I am confident the safeguards I have recommended, if implemented, will minimise the unnecessary use, and potential for misuse, of the power; without impeding, or significantly delaying, investigations …
The government agrees with this assessment.
Coercive examination powers and the independent assessor
The government was heartened by the fact that Mr Wilcox was not of the view that there are widespread and broad problems for the industry across the country. We agree and we note that the vast majority of participants in the industry are hardworking and law-abiding men and women.
However, there are also problems and a clear need to continue to drive cultural change in some key areas of the industry is required.
On this basis the bill creates the office of the Independent Assessor—Special Building Industry Powers, who may, on application from stakeholders, make a determination that the coercive interrogation powers will not apply to a particular project or projects.
In determining whether to 'switch off' the coercive powers for particular projects, the independent assessor must be satisfied that it would:
be appropriate to make the determination, having regard to the objects of the act, and
not be contrary to the public interest to make such a determination.
In the event that a project where the coercive powers have been switched off experiences industrial unlawfulness the independent assessor may revoke his or her original decision; thereby switching the powers back on. Additionally, the director of the building inspectorate can request that the independent assessor reconsider their decision at any time based on changes in circumstances on a specific project.
These 'switch off' provisions ensure that the powers are focused where they are needed most. The government is determined to encourage lawful behaviour and a change in the industry's culture. These arrangements provide the industry with the opportunity to demonstrate that the requisite lawful culture is in place and that the coercive examination powers are not required.
The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner
Finally, the government understands the importance of safety at work in the building and construction industry. Mr Wilcox was not asked to review the operation of the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, OFSC, or the associated Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme—the scheme. This bill therefore makes no changes to the provisions of the BCII Act that relate to the OFSC and the scheme.
The government is of course conscious of the need for continuous improvement in the regulatory arrangements and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is currently considering the details of a review of the OFSC and scheme.
Conclusion
The government is committed to implementing a strong but fair set of compliance arrangements for the building industry. The government has consistently stated that anyone who breaks a law should feel the full force of the law. The government understands that not all building industry stakeholders agree on all matters. The government's intention is to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations, an environment in which there is no place for people choosing which laws to obey and which ones to ignore. This goes for all industry participants—employers, employees and their respective associations.
The government believes that the safeguards in the bill for the coercive examination powers achieve the balance required to ensure compliance with the law and the fair treatment of individuals. Law-abiding industry participants who have nothing to fear from the existence of these strong laws will be so accorded. Ultimately, whether or not the powers are used remains in the hands of all building industry participants.
The government understands that only considered, fair and balanced laws will create the sort of long-term change that Australia's building and construction industry needs if it is to flourish, to continue to create jobs and to make a positive contribution to national productivity and prosperity. The government believes that this bill provides considered, fair and balanced laws. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (09:57): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Projects Two and Three of the Christmas Island New Housing Program.
The Christmas Island New Housing Program was approved by the government in May 2010 to address a critical housing shortage on Christmas Island. It has a budget of $26.6 million. The housing program was approved as part of a $97.3 million package of measures to address pressures being placed on the critical infrastructure on Christmas Island due to increased migration activities on the island. The package was approved in two parts: $50 million in December 2009 and a further $43.7 million in May 2010.
The cost of rental accommodation on Christmas Island has increased considerably. The rental cost increase is estimated over recent times at being more than 50 per cent. These rental increases are directly impacting on ordinary workers on minimum wages, with rental costs becoming beyond the reach of locals on low to medium incomes. The Christmas Island New Housing Program aims to reduce the number of houses leased on the private rental market to accommodate Commonwealth employees. The impact of this program on the private rental market is expected to be an increase in supply of rental housing and lower rental costs, making accommodation more affordable to the local community.
Project One of this program was notified to the Public Works Committee and the construction of 16 dwellings and associated infrastructure commenced in September this year with a contract value of $11.4 million. Project Two, estimated at $10.9 million, is to design and construct 14 dwellings at Drumsite Village on the remaining portion of the site adjacent to the Project One site. Project Three, at an estimated $2.6 million, comprises the design and construction of a number of larger family homes containing four to five bedrooms in an established part of the Silver City residential area. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in May 2012 and is programmed for completion by June 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (09:57): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Projects Two and Three of the Christmas Island New Housing Program.
The Christmas Island New Housing Program was approved by the government in May 2010 to address a critical housing shortage on Christmas Island. It has a budget of $26.6 million. The housing program was approved as part of a $97.3 million package of measures to address pressures being placed on the critical infrastructure on Christmas Island due to increased migration activities on the island. The package was approved in two parts: $50 million in December 2009 and a further $43.7 million in May 2010.
The cost of rental accommodation on Christmas Island has increased considerably. The rental cost increase is estimated over recent times at being more than 50 per cent. These rental increases are directly impacting on ordinary workers on minimum wages, with rental costs becoming beyond the reach of locals on low to medium incomes. The Christmas Island New Housing Program aims to reduce the number of houses leased on the private rental market to accommodate Commonwealth employees. The impact of this program on the private rental market is expected to be an increase in supply of rental housing and lower rental costs, making accommodation more affordable to the local community.
Project One of this program was notified to the Public Works Committee and the construction of 16 dwellings and associated infrastructure commenced in September this year with a contract value of $11.4 million. Project Two, estimated at $10.9 million, is to design and construct 14 dwellings at Drumsite Village on the remaining portion of the site adjacent to the Project One site. Project Three, at an estimated $2.6 million, comprises the design and construction of a number of larger family homes containing four to five bedrooms in an established part of the Silver City residential area. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in May 2012 and is programmed for completion by June 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (09:57): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Projects Two and Three of the Christmas Island New Housing Program.
The Christmas Island New Housing Program was approved by the government in May 2010 to address a critical housing shortage on Christmas Island. It has a budget of $26.6 million. The housing program was approved as part of a $97.3 million package of measures to address pressures being placed on the critical infrastructure on Christmas Island due to increased migration activities on the island. The package was approved in two parts: $50 million in December 2009 and a further $43.7 million in May 2010.
The cost of rental accommodation on Christmas Island has increased considerably. The rental cost increase is estimated over recent times at being more than 50 per cent. These rental increases are directly impacting on ordinary workers on minimum wages, with rental costs becoming beyond the reach of locals on low to medium incomes. The Christmas Island New Housing Program aims to reduce the number of houses leased on the private rental market to accommodate Commonwealth employees. The impact of this program on the private rental market is expected to be an increase in supply of rental housing and lower rental costs, making accommodation more affordable to the local community.
Project One of this program was notified to the Public Works Committee and the construction of 16 dwellings and associated infrastructure commenced in September this year with a contract value of $11.4 million. Project Two, estimated at $10.9 million, is to design and construct 14 dwellings at Drumsite Village on the remaining portion of the site adjacent to the Project One site. Project Three, at an estimated $2.6 million, comprises the design and construction of a number of larger family homes containing four to five bedrooms in an established part of the Silver City residential area. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in May 2012 and is programmed for completion by June 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (09:57): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Projects Two and Three of the Christmas Island New Housing Program.
The Christmas Island New Housing Program was approved by the government in May 2010 to address a critical housing shortage on Christmas Island. It has a budget of $26.6 million. The housing program was approved as part of a $97.3 million package of measures to address pressures being placed on the critical infrastructure on Christmas Island due to increased migration activities on the island. The package was approved in two parts: $50 million in December 2009 and a further $43.7 million in May 2010.
The cost of rental accommodation on Christmas Island has increased considerably. The rental cost increase is estimated over recent times at being more than 50 per cent. These rental increases are directly impacting on ordinary workers on minimum wages, with rental costs becoming beyond the reach of locals on low to medium incomes. The Christmas Island New Housing Program aims to reduce the number of houses leased on the private rental market to accommodate Commonwealth employees. The impact of this program on the private rental market is expected to be an increase in supply of rental housing and lower rental costs, making accommodation more affordable to the local community.
Project One of this program was notified to the Public Works Committee and the construction of 16 dwellings and associated infrastructure commenced in September this year with a contract value of $11.4 million. Project Two, estimated at $10.9 million, is to design and construct 14 dwellings at Drumsite Village on the remaining portion of the site adjacent to the Project One site. Project Three, at an estimated $2.6 million, comprises the design and construction of a number of larger family homes containing four to five bedrooms in an established part of the Silver City residential area. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in May 2012 and is programmed for completion by June 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:00): It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on this important bill before the House today. International education is one of Australia's most important industries. It is our third-largest exporter earner, providing Australia with annual revenues of more than $16 billion.
The strength of Australia's international education offering is built on the strength of Australia's domestic education sector. The quality of the services we are able to provide to international students is possible because of the quality of our domestic education—our domestic education institutions go hand in hand with the quality of the education we offer to Australian students.
The international education sector makes a very substantial contribution to the health of our education system and is a major Australian economic and social success story. I know of the importance of the sector because in my own region, the Illawarra, we have a highly successful university, the University of Wollongong. I am a graduate of that university and I have seen over the last 25 years how the international student sector has contributed to the university. Today it attracts students from more than 140 countries, and as of December 2010 the University of Wollongong had over 27,000 international students enrolled at its onshore and offshore campuses.
Not only that, the University of Wollongong is a major driver of regional development within the Illawarra. It is now one of the largest non-government employers in the region, with a total contribution to the regional economy exceeding $1 billion in 2010. That compares very favourably with another sector that attracts far more attention, the tourism sector, which contributes around $700 million per annum to the local regional economy.
The University of Wollongong is a world leader in international education services, and like many other universities across the country it provides opportunities for international students to come to a safe and prosperous country, a beautiful region, and to benefit from our high educational standards. Australia has one of the highest proportions of international students in our higher education system of any country in the world. International education has played a critical role, particularly in the region in assisting with 'soft diplomacy', and has enhanced Australia's interrelationships with our Asian neighbours.
However, despite this good news story there is no doubt that Australian international education has faced significant challenges in recent years. There has been unprecedented growth in the sector; between 2007 and 2009 the average annual enrolment growth in international education services was around 18 per cent. This was driven primarily by VET sector enrolments, where the annual rate of growth exceeded 45 per cent in both 2007 and 2008. Had that trend continued we would have seen more than one million international students studying in Australia next year. In and of itself that is not a bad thing, but it does put enormous stress on many of the ancillary services and requires mechanisms in place to ensure that we have quality standards in place.
The rapid expansion of the VET sector, in particular, was driven in large part by migration policy changes introduced under the previous government. During that time—in a matter of just a few years—hundreds of so-called colleges were set up across the nation purporting to offer high-quality education services. The reality, however, was that, while there were many good ones, many were offering purely migration outcomes rather than quality education services, and there was a backlash against this. The consequence of this unsustainable growth was that we saw the financial collapse of too many of these colleges, leaving students stranded and without the qualification that they had worked, studied and paid for. The result of this unfettered and largely unregulated growth was significant damage to 'brand Australia' in the international education market.
The international education sector is now going through a period of readjustment after several years of unprecedented growth. Several factors have impacted on the sector in recent times, including the global financial crisis in some countries, increased competition in the education market, the high Australian dollar and changed student visa arrangements.
The Gillard government is committed to a sustainable, high-quality international education sector, and greatly values its contribution to the Australian economy. Key to the government's program of reform was the work of the Baird review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act. This review identified the need to restore confidence in the sector and to remove those providers who were not performing.
The government acted on the recommendations to protect the sector and to protect students. The first step was to strengthen the registration criteria for international education providers and to demand the re-registration of providers under stronger criteria by the end of 2010. Those who could not demonstrate—or who chose not to try to demonstrate—that education was their principal purpose and that they had the capacity to deliver education services to a satisfactory standard were removed from the register. Some 1,100 providers met the criteria for re-registration and around 200 providers left the sector.
Around 20 per cent of VET providers registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students exited the system. That number was highest in Victoria, where almost a quarter of all providers did not re-register.
The government also introduced a risk management approach to the regulation of providers and extended the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to include students of private registered providers. Importantly, we strengthened the integrity of student visas by decoupling skilled migration from international education—an important cornerstone of our reforms which remains in place today. Following the release of the Baird review on 9 March 2010, the government agreed to begin work on consulting and implementing a number of recommendations. In April this year, the first phase of amendments to the ESOS Act were enacted. This included better complaints handling, further strengthening registration requirements and introducing a risk management approach to the regulation of international education. The bill before the House today is the second phase of the government's response to addressing the remaining recommendations made by the Baird review.
The centrepiece of the response is reforms to strengthen tuition protection to ensure that students are looked after in a timely and effective way should their provider close. These reforms comprise: the introduction of the Tuition Protection Service, or TPS, which will incorporate a TPS director, a TPS advisory board, an overseas student tuition fund and an online information and access service for overseas students; limiting student refunds to the unspent portion of upfront fees that have been paid by the individual student; limiting the amount of pre-paid fees a provider can collect at any one time to one study period and requiring non-exempt providers to keep initial pre-paid fees in a special account, rather like a trust fund, until the student commences their first study period; and, finally, requiring providers to strengthen their record-keeping processes relating to students' contact details and academic progress. The other main reform being introduced is national streamlined registration and regulation, which will reduce duplication and effort as well as better targeting regulatory resources to improve monitoring and enforcement, providing greater support to providers operating across a number of locations.
Central to the legislation before the House today is the single agency, the Tuition Protection Service, to safeguard the interests of students if a provider closes. It will be a single contact point for students, with one set of fees for providers and with greater accountability. All providers who offer international education will be required to contribute in a way that reflects the underlying risk of default.
The Labor government is delivering on the education and skills needs of this country. The government is commitment to skills training. Skills training was the centrepiece of this year's budget, in which we announced a $3 billion investment in skills and training to address the skills shortages being experienced by industry. Labor's budget investment placed industry at the centre of our efforts to target skills and training and respond to the pressures of the patchwork economy.
The bill before the House today is part of a broad matrix which demonstrates our commitment to skills and to the education sector. It demonstrates that we understand the interrelationships between our vocational education and training sector, our school sector and our university sector in the provision of high-quality education and training to Australian students, as well as the international offering that we provide to this most valuable export industry: the overseas education services market.
In conclusion, international education is and will continue to be an important driver of Australia's prosperity. It is an important part of the government's commitment to build a world-class education system. This government's record investment, as well as our attention to ensuring we have the right regulatory framework to drive a quality agenda, will ensure that Australia will be in the forefront of the education system domestically and within the region in the years to come. I commend the legislation to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:11): I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 to page 4 (table), omit "The first 1 July that occurs on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 January 2013".
I described the purpose of the amendment in the second reading debate. I have not heard from the government that they have decided to accept it. I simply make the point to the minister that it is not a politically partisan amendment; it is an amendment that would ensure six months more time for higher education providers to adjust to a new system. The government knows that the opposition is supporting these reforms and has supported most of the government legislation implementing the Bradley review's recommendations over the last 2½ years. This is another one of those stages of reform and we support it.
But we do make the point that it is being introduced in a tight time framework and we think it would be better for the industry if they had six months more to readjust and, in some cases, change their business models. We therefore ask that the government genuinely consider the amendment that I have moved and take it in the good faith in which it is intended. In the absence of the government's support, I hope that a sufficient number of the crossbenchers will support the amendment, which makes no material difference to the substance of the government's reform but simply gives the industry a six-month window in which they can adjust their arrangements in order to better serve the students that they serve.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:14): I rise to respond to the remarks of the Manager of Opposition Business and the amendment that has been circulated. The government will not be accepting the opposition's amendment, although it does recognise that the amendment has, as the member opposite said, been offered in good faith. The government is confident that a commencement date of 1 July 2012 is achievable. A the member for Sturt would know, these reforms have been widely anticipated since the former member for Cook, Mr Baird, handed down his report last year. The sector, the government believes, will be well prepared for the most significant business impact—that is, the TPS levy—which will not be changed for the first time until 2013, or 14 months from now. Additionally, I would just make the point that the amendment has some technical deficiencies associated with it. We certainly understand the intent of the opposition's amendment, but the fact is that a number of other provisions in the bills would need to be changed if this amendment were to have proper effect. I think this illustrates what happens when the opposition attempts to amend legislation on the run.
The government notes that this issue was considered in the submissions to the inquiry. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment looked into these bills. The committee delivered a unanimous report this week, signed off by opposition members. Of course, the committee recommended that the bills be passed and did not propose any postponements of this kind. Whilst I acknowledge what the member for Sturt has said, it is disappointing that the opposition is now proposing an amendment that was not recommended by its own members on the committee that inquired into the bills.
The government is additionally concerned that risks associated with the existing tuition protection arrangements will be exacerbated if commencement is delayed. Some of those risks include effects on students, reputational damage for Australian providers of international education, and further stress on the current inadequate tuition protection system that these bills are seeking to remedy. Further, the government notes that the bills will be considered by a Senate committee and that further recommendations may be made arising from that process. The government is prepared to reconsider this issue in the light of any further recommendations that arise there, but, for the reasons that I outlined above, the government does not support the amendment.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Mr Jenkins)
Ayes 69
Noes 71
Majority 2
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
|
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Somlyay, AM |
Roxon, NL |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived. Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I take this opportunity to thank the members who spoke on these education services bills. The fact is that there has been a particularly constructive response by the government to the Baird review. We recognise that the issues raised by the former member for Cook were worthy of consideration and we have treated them as a consequence. This government fully recognises the contribution that the international education sector makes: it generates significant export income for this country of some $19 billion annually and supports a number of jobs across Australia. We fully acknowledge the importance of the contribution and support it. I make a final point. The government notes that this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers in 2010, strengthening and better targeting the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation in the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the highest quality. On that basis this bill is commended to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:31): As we consider the vote on this bill, I want to add some comments on the very strong commitment that the government has made to a sector that has experienced significant growth and change in recent years. I draw the House's attention to the package's centrepiece, the Tuition Protection Service or TPS. That is a universal system offering a single point of placement or refund as a last resort which involves all possible placement options, placement incentives for providers and greater choice in the process. It will recognise the reputational benefits of a robust and sustainable tuition protection arrangement by ensuring that all providers participate in the service.
The Tuition Protection Service will be supported by a suite of complementary initiatives aimed at encouraging providers to meet their refund obligations in the first instance and facilitating effective placement of students caught up in a closure. Providers operating in more than one state or territory will benefit from the introduction of national registration, which will see a reduction in the duplication of regulatory effort and support risk management. It will also play a large part in ensuring that the sector is positioned for a smooth transfer to the vocational education and training and higher education national regulators.
As recommended by Mr Baird, the former member for Cook, a number of amendments will make ESOS stronger, simpler and smarter—for example, clarifying definitions, and stronger penalties for noncompliance around reporting and the misuse of prepaid fees. The House Standing Committee on Education and Employment has made five recommendations in relation to the ESOS bills currently before the House. The government intends to consider recommendations 1 and 2—which relate to the period of notification for a default—in conjunction with any further recommendations made by the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, which is also inquiring into the bills. The government supports House committee recommendations 3 and 4, and we will ensure broad representation of industry stakeholders on the TPS Advisory Board and comprehensive and ongoing communications with the providers throughout the implementation of the new TPS arrangements. Finally, the government supports recommendation 5, that the bills be passed.
As I said previously, this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers, strengthening and better targeting of the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation of the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the very highest quality. Consequently, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:00): It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on this important bill before the House today. International education is one of Australia's most important industries. It is our third-largest exporter earner, providing Australia with annual revenues of more than $16 billion.
The strength of Australia's international education offering is built on the strength of Australia's domestic education sector. The quality of the services we are able to provide to international students is possible because of the quality of our domestic education—our domestic education institutions go hand in hand with the quality of the education we offer to Australian students.
The international education sector makes a very substantial contribution to the health of our education system and is a major Australian economic and social success story. I know of the importance of the sector because in my own region, the Illawarra, we have a highly successful university, the University of Wollongong. I am a graduate of that university and I have seen over the last 25 years how the international student sector has contributed to the university. Today it attracts students from more than 140 countries, and as of December 2010 the University of Wollongong had over 27,000 international students enrolled at its onshore and offshore campuses.
Not only that, the University of Wollongong is a major driver of regional development within the Illawarra. It is now one of the largest non-government employers in the region, with a total contribution to the regional economy exceeding $1 billion in 2010. That compares very favourably with another sector that attracts far more attention, the tourism sector, which contributes around $700 million per annum to the local regional economy.
The University of Wollongong is a world leader in international education services, and like many other universities across the country it provides opportunities for international students to come to a safe and prosperous country, a beautiful region, and to benefit from our high educational standards. Australia has one of the highest proportions of international students in our higher education system of any country in the world. International education has played a critical role, particularly in the region in assisting with 'soft diplomacy', and has enhanced Australia's interrelationships with our Asian neighbours.
However, despite this good news story there is no doubt that Australian international education has faced significant challenges in recent years. There has been unprecedented growth in the sector; between 2007 and 2009 the average annual enrolment growth in international education services was around 18 per cent. This was driven primarily by VET sector enrolments, where the annual rate of growth exceeded 45 per cent in both 2007 and 2008. Had that trend continued we would have seen more than one million international students studying in Australia next year. In and of itself that is not a bad thing, but it does put enormous stress on many of the ancillary services and requires mechanisms in place to ensure that we have quality standards in place.
The rapid expansion of the VET sector, in particular, was driven in large part by migration policy changes introduced under the previous government. During that time—in a matter of just a few years—hundreds of so-called colleges were set up across the nation purporting to offer high-quality education services. The reality, however, was that, while there were many good ones, many were offering purely migration outcomes rather than quality education services, and there was a backlash against this. The consequence of this unsustainable growth was that we saw the financial collapse of too many of these colleges, leaving students stranded and without the qualification that they had worked, studied and paid for. The result of this unfettered and largely unregulated growth was significant damage to 'brand Australia' in the international education market.
The international education sector is now going through a period of readjustment after several years of unprecedented growth. Several factors have impacted on the sector in recent times, including the global financial crisis in some countries, increased competition in the education market, the high Australian dollar and changed student visa arrangements.
The Gillard government is committed to a sustainable, high-quality international education sector, and greatly values its contribution to the Australian economy. Key to the government's program of reform was the work of the Baird review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act. This review identified the need to restore confidence in the sector and to remove those providers who were not performing.
The government acted on the recommendations to protect the sector and to protect students. The first step was to strengthen the registration criteria for international education providers and to demand the re-registration of providers under stronger criteria by the end of 2010. Those who could not demonstrate—or who chose not to try to demonstrate—that education was their principal purpose and that they had the capacity to deliver education services to a satisfactory standard were removed from the register. Some 1,100 providers met the criteria for re-registration and around 200 providers left the sector.
Around 20 per cent of VET providers registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students exited the system. That number was highest in Victoria, where almost a quarter of all providers did not re-register.
The government also introduced a risk management approach to the regulation of providers and extended the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to include students of private registered providers. Importantly, we strengthened the integrity of student visas by decoupling skilled migration from international education—an important cornerstone of our reforms which remains in place today. Following the release of the Baird review on 9 March 2010, the government agreed to begin work on consulting and implementing a number of recommendations. In April this year, the first phase of amendments to the ESOS Act were enacted. This included better complaints handling, further strengthening registration requirements and introducing a risk management approach to the regulation of international education. The bill before the House today is the second phase of the government's response to addressing the remaining recommendations made by the Baird review.
The centrepiece of the response is reforms to strengthen tuition protection to ensure that students are looked after in a timely and effective way should their provider close. These reforms comprise: the introduction of the Tuition Protection Service, or TPS, which will incorporate a TPS director, a TPS advisory board, an overseas student tuition fund and an online information and access service for overseas students; limiting student refunds to the unspent portion of upfront fees that have been paid by the individual student; limiting the amount of pre-paid fees a provider can collect at any one time to one study period and requiring non-exempt providers to keep initial pre-paid fees in a special account, rather like a trust fund, until the student commences their first study period; and, finally, requiring providers to strengthen their record-keeping processes relating to students' contact details and academic progress. The other main reform being introduced is national streamlined registration and regulation, which will reduce duplication and effort as well as better targeting regulatory resources to improve monitoring and enforcement, providing greater support to providers operating across a number of locations.
Central to the legislation before the House today is the single agency, the Tuition Protection Service, to safeguard the interests of students if a provider closes. It will be a single contact point for students, with one set of fees for providers and with greater accountability. All providers who offer international education will be required to contribute in a way that reflects the underlying risk of default.
The Labor government is delivering on the education and skills needs of this country. The government is commitment to skills training. Skills training was the centrepiece of this year's budget, in which we announced a $3 billion investment in skills and training to address the skills shortages being experienced by industry. Labor's budget investment placed industry at the centre of our efforts to target skills and training and respond to the pressures of the patchwork economy.
The bill before the House today is part of a broad matrix which demonstrates our commitment to skills and to the education sector. It demonstrates that we understand the interrelationships between our vocational education and training sector, our school sector and our university sector in the provision of high-quality education and training to Australian students, as well as the international offering that we provide to this most valuable export industry: the overseas education services market.
In conclusion, international education is and will continue to be an important driver of Australia's prosperity. It is an important part of the government's commitment to build a world-class education system. This government's record investment, as well as our attention to ensuring we have the right regulatory framework to drive a quality agenda, will ensure that Australia will be in the forefront of the education system domestically and within the region in the years to come. I commend the legislation to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:11): I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 to page 4 (table), omit "The first 1 July that occurs on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 January 2013".
I described the purpose of the amendment in the second reading debate. I have not heard from the government that they have decided to accept it. I simply make the point to the minister that it is not a politically partisan amendment; it is an amendment that would ensure six months more time for higher education providers to adjust to a new system. The government knows that the opposition is supporting these reforms and has supported most of the government legislation implementing the Bradley review's recommendations over the last 2½ years. This is another one of those stages of reform and we support it.
But we do make the point that it is being introduced in a tight time framework and we think it would be better for the industry if they had six months more to readjust and, in some cases, change their business models. We therefore ask that the government genuinely consider the amendment that I have moved and take it in the good faith in which it is intended. In the absence of the government's support, I hope that a sufficient number of the crossbenchers will support the amendment, which makes no material difference to the substance of the government's reform but simply gives the industry a six-month window in which they can adjust their arrangements in order to better serve the students that they serve.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:14): I rise to respond to the remarks of the Manager of Opposition Business and the amendment that has been circulated. The government will not be accepting the opposition's amendment, although it does recognise that the amendment has, as the member opposite said, been offered in good faith. The government is confident that a commencement date of 1 July 2012 is achievable. A the member for Sturt would know, these reforms have been widely anticipated since the former member for Cook, Mr Baird, handed down his report last year. The sector, the government believes, will be well prepared for the most significant business impact—that is, the TPS levy—which will not be changed for the first time until 2013, or 14 months from now. Additionally, I would just make the point that the amendment has some technical deficiencies associated with it. We certainly understand the intent of the opposition's amendment, but the fact is that a number of other provisions in the bills would need to be changed if this amendment were to have proper effect. I think this illustrates what happens when the opposition attempts to amend legislation on the run.
The government notes that this issue was considered in the submissions to the inquiry. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment looked into these bills. The committee delivered a unanimous report this week, signed off by opposition members. Of course, the committee recommended that the bills be passed and did not propose any postponements of this kind. Whilst I acknowledge what the member for Sturt has said, it is disappointing that the opposition is now proposing an amendment that was not recommended by its own members on the committee that inquired into the bills.
The government is additionally concerned that risks associated with the existing tuition protection arrangements will be exacerbated if commencement is delayed. Some of those risks include effects on students, reputational damage for Australian providers of international education, and further stress on the current inadequate tuition protection system that these bills are seeking to remedy. Further, the government notes that the bills will be considered by a Senate committee and that further recommendations may be made arising from that process. The government is prepared to reconsider this issue in the light of any further recommendations that arise there, but, for the reasons that I outlined above, the government does not support the amendment.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Mr Jenkins)
Ayes 69
Noes 71
Majority 2
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
|
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Somlyay, AM |
Roxon, NL |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived. Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I take this opportunity to thank the members who spoke on these education services bills. The fact is that there has been a particularly constructive response by the government to the Baird review. We recognise that the issues raised by the former member for Cook were worthy of consideration and we have treated them as a consequence. This government fully recognises the contribution that the international education sector makes: it generates significant export income for this country of some $19 billion annually and supports a number of jobs across Australia. We fully acknowledge the importance of the contribution and support it. I make a final point. The government notes that this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers in 2010, strengthening and better targeting the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation in the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the highest quality. On that basis this bill is commended to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:00): It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on this important bill before the House today. International education is one of Australia's most important industries. It is our third-largest exporter earner, providing Australia with annual revenues of more than $16 billion.
The strength of Australia's international education offering is built on the strength of Australia's domestic education sector. The quality of the services we are able to provide to international students is possible because of the quality of our domestic education—our domestic education institutions go hand in hand with the quality of the education we offer to Australian students.
The international education sector makes a very substantial contribution to the health of our education system and is a major Australian economic and social success story. I know of the importance of the sector because in my own region, the Illawarra, we have a highly successful university, the University of Wollongong. I am a graduate of that university and I have seen over the last 25 years how the international student sector has contributed to the university. Today it attracts students from more than 140 countries, and as of December 2010 the University of Wollongong had over 27,000 international students enrolled at its onshore and offshore campuses.
Not only that, the University of Wollongong is a major driver of regional development within the Illawarra. It is now one of the largest non-government employers in the region, with a total contribution to the regional economy exceeding $1 billion in 2010. That compares very favourably with another sector that attracts far more attention, the tourism sector, which contributes around $700 million per annum to the local regional economy.
The University of Wollongong is a world leader in international education services, and like many other universities across the country it provides opportunities for international students to come to a safe and prosperous country, a beautiful region, and to benefit from our high educational standards. Australia has one of the highest proportions of international students in our higher education system of any country in the world. International education has played a critical role, particularly in the region in assisting with 'soft diplomacy', and has enhanced Australia's interrelationships with our Asian neighbours.
However, despite this good news story there is no doubt that Australian international education has faced significant challenges in recent years. There has been unprecedented growth in the sector; between 2007 and 2009 the average annual enrolment growth in international education services was around 18 per cent. This was driven primarily by VET sector enrolments, where the annual rate of growth exceeded 45 per cent in both 2007 and 2008. Had that trend continued we would have seen more than one million international students studying in Australia next year. In and of itself that is not a bad thing, but it does put enormous stress on many of the ancillary services and requires mechanisms in place to ensure that we have quality standards in place.
The rapid expansion of the VET sector, in particular, was driven in large part by migration policy changes introduced under the previous government. During that time—in a matter of just a few years—hundreds of so-called colleges were set up across the nation purporting to offer high-quality education services. The reality, however, was that, while there were many good ones, many were offering purely migration outcomes rather than quality education services, and there was a backlash against this. The consequence of this unsustainable growth was that we saw the financial collapse of too many of these colleges, leaving students stranded and without the qualification that they had worked, studied and paid for. The result of this unfettered and largely unregulated growth was significant damage to 'brand Australia' in the international education market.
The international education sector is now going through a period of readjustment after several years of unprecedented growth. Several factors have impacted on the sector in recent times, including the global financial crisis in some countries, increased competition in the education market, the high Australian dollar and changed student visa arrangements.
The Gillard government is committed to a sustainable, high-quality international education sector, and greatly values its contribution to the Australian economy. Key to the government's program of reform was the work of the Baird review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act. This review identified the need to restore confidence in the sector and to remove those providers who were not performing.
The government acted on the recommendations to protect the sector and to protect students. The first step was to strengthen the registration criteria for international education providers and to demand the re-registration of providers under stronger criteria by the end of 2010. Those who could not demonstrate—or who chose not to try to demonstrate—that education was their principal purpose and that they had the capacity to deliver education services to a satisfactory standard were removed from the register. Some 1,100 providers met the criteria for re-registration and around 200 providers left the sector.
Around 20 per cent of VET providers registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students exited the system. That number was highest in Victoria, where almost a quarter of all providers did not re-register.
The government also introduced a risk management approach to the regulation of providers and extended the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to include students of private registered providers. Importantly, we strengthened the integrity of student visas by decoupling skilled migration from international education—an important cornerstone of our reforms which remains in place today. Following the release of the Baird review on 9 March 2010, the government agreed to begin work on consulting and implementing a number of recommendations. In April this year, the first phase of amendments to the ESOS Act were enacted. This included better complaints handling, further strengthening registration requirements and introducing a risk management approach to the regulation of international education. The bill before the House today is the second phase of the government's response to addressing the remaining recommendations made by the Baird review.
The centrepiece of the response is reforms to strengthen tuition protection to ensure that students are looked after in a timely and effective way should their provider close. These reforms comprise: the introduction of the Tuition Protection Service, or TPS, which will incorporate a TPS director, a TPS advisory board, an overseas student tuition fund and an online information and access service for overseas students; limiting student refunds to the unspent portion of upfront fees that have been paid by the individual student; limiting the amount of pre-paid fees a provider can collect at any one time to one study period and requiring non-exempt providers to keep initial pre-paid fees in a special account, rather like a trust fund, until the student commences their first study period; and, finally, requiring providers to strengthen their record-keeping processes relating to students' contact details and academic progress. The other main reform being introduced is national streamlined registration and regulation, which will reduce duplication and effort as well as better targeting regulatory resources to improve monitoring and enforcement, providing greater support to providers operating across a number of locations.
Central to the legislation before the House today is the single agency, the Tuition Protection Service, to safeguard the interests of students if a provider closes. It will be a single contact point for students, with one set of fees for providers and with greater accountability. All providers who offer international education will be required to contribute in a way that reflects the underlying risk of default.
The Labor government is delivering on the education and skills needs of this country. The government is commitment to skills training. Skills training was the centrepiece of this year's budget, in which we announced a $3 billion investment in skills and training to address the skills shortages being experienced by industry. Labor's budget investment placed industry at the centre of our efforts to target skills and training and respond to the pressures of the patchwork economy.
The bill before the House today is part of a broad matrix which demonstrates our commitment to skills and to the education sector. It demonstrates that we understand the interrelationships between our vocational education and training sector, our school sector and our university sector in the provision of high-quality education and training to Australian students, as well as the international offering that we provide to this most valuable export industry: the overseas education services market.
In conclusion, international education is and will continue to be an important driver of Australia's prosperity. It is an important part of the government's commitment to build a world-class education system. This government's record investment, as well as our attention to ensuring we have the right regulatory framework to drive a quality agenda, will ensure that Australia will be in the forefront of the education system domestically and within the region in the years to come. I commend the legislation to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:00): It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on this important bill before the House today. International education is one of Australia's most important industries. It is our third-largest exporter earner, providing Australia with annual revenues of more than $16 billion.
The strength of Australia's international education offering is built on the strength of Australia's domestic education sector. The quality of the services we are able to provide to international students is possible because of the quality of our domestic education—our domestic education institutions go hand in hand with the quality of the education we offer to Australian students.
The international education sector makes a very substantial contribution to the health of our education system and is a major Australian economic and social success story. I know of the importance of the sector because in my own region, the Illawarra, we have a highly successful university, the University of Wollongong. I am a graduate of that university and I have seen over the last 25 years how the international student sector has contributed to the university. Today it attracts students from more than 140 countries, and as of December 2010 the University of Wollongong had over 27,000 international students enrolled at its onshore and offshore campuses.
Not only that, the University of Wollongong is a major driver of regional development within the Illawarra. It is now one of the largest non-government employers in the region, with a total contribution to the regional economy exceeding $1 billion in 2010. That compares very favourably with another sector that attracts far more attention, the tourism sector, which contributes around $700 million per annum to the local regional economy.
The University of Wollongong is a world leader in international education services, and like many other universities across the country it provides opportunities for international students to come to a safe and prosperous country, a beautiful region, and to benefit from our high educational standards. Australia has one of the highest proportions of international students in our higher education system of any country in the world. International education has played a critical role, particularly in the region in assisting with 'soft diplomacy', and has enhanced Australia's interrelationships with our Asian neighbours.
However, despite this good news story there is no doubt that Australian international education has faced significant challenges in recent years. There has been unprecedented growth in the sector; between 2007 and 2009 the average annual enrolment growth in international education services was around 18 per cent. This was driven primarily by VET sector enrolments, where the annual rate of growth exceeded 45 per cent in both 2007 and 2008. Had that trend continued we would have seen more than one million international students studying in Australia next year. In and of itself that is not a bad thing, but it does put enormous stress on many of the ancillary services and requires mechanisms in place to ensure that we have quality standards in place.
The rapid expansion of the VET sector, in particular, was driven in large part by migration policy changes introduced under the previous government. During that time—in a matter of just a few years—hundreds of so-called colleges were set up across the nation purporting to offer high-quality education services. The reality, however, was that, while there were many good ones, many were offering purely migration outcomes rather than quality education services, and there was a backlash against this. The consequence of this unsustainable growth was that we saw the financial collapse of too many of these colleges, leaving students stranded and without the qualification that they had worked, studied and paid for. The result of this unfettered and largely unregulated growth was significant damage to 'brand Australia' in the international education market.
The international education sector is now going through a period of readjustment after several years of unprecedented growth. Several factors have impacted on the sector in recent times, including the global financial crisis in some countries, increased competition in the education market, the high Australian dollar and changed student visa arrangements.
The Gillard government is committed to a sustainable, high-quality international education sector, and greatly values its contribution to the Australian economy. Key to the government's program of reform was the work of the Baird review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act. This review identified the need to restore confidence in the sector and to remove those providers who were not performing.
The government acted on the recommendations to protect the sector and to protect students. The first step was to strengthen the registration criteria for international education providers and to demand the re-registration of providers under stronger criteria by the end of 2010. Those who could not demonstrate—or who chose not to try to demonstrate—that education was their principal purpose and that they had the capacity to deliver education services to a satisfactory standard were removed from the register. Some 1,100 providers met the criteria for re-registration and around 200 providers left the sector.
Around 20 per cent of VET providers registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students exited the system. That number was highest in Victoria, where almost a quarter of all providers did not re-register.
The government also introduced a risk management approach to the regulation of providers and extended the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to include students of private registered providers. Importantly, we strengthened the integrity of student visas by decoupling skilled migration from international education—an important cornerstone of our reforms which remains in place today. Following the release of the Baird review on 9 March 2010, the government agreed to begin work on consulting and implementing a number of recommendations. In April this year, the first phase of amendments to the ESOS Act were enacted. This included better complaints handling, further strengthening registration requirements and introducing a risk management approach to the regulation of international education. The bill before the House today is the second phase of the government's response to addressing the remaining recommendations made by the Baird review.
The centrepiece of the response is reforms to strengthen tuition protection to ensure that students are looked after in a timely and effective way should their provider close. These reforms comprise: the introduction of the Tuition Protection Service, or TPS, which will incorporate a TPS director, a TPS advisory board, an overseas student tuition fund and an online information and access service for overseas students; limiting student refunds to the unspent portion of upfront fees that have been paid by the individual student; limiting the amount of pre-paid fees a provider can collect at any one time to one study period and requiring non-exempt providers to keep initial pre-paid fees in a special account, rather like a trust fund, until the student commences their first study period; and, finally, requiring providers to strengthen their record-keeping processes relating to students' contact details and academic progress. The other main reform being introduced is national streamlined registration and regulation, which will reduce duplication and effort as well as better targeting regulatory resources to improve monitoring and enforcement, providing greater support to providers operating across a number of locations.
Central to the legislation before the House today is the single agency, the Tuition Protection Service, to safeguard the interests of students if a provider closes. It will be a single contact point for students, with one set of fees for providers and with greater accountability. All providers who offer international education will be required to contribute in a way that reflects the underlying risk of default.
The Labor government is delivering on the education and skills needs of this country. The government is commitment to skills training. Skills training was the centrepiece of this year's budget, in which we announced a $3 billion investment in skills and training to address the skills shortages being experienced by industry. Labor's budget investment placed industry at the centre of our efforts to target skills and training and respond to the pressures of the patchwork economy.
The bill before the House today is part of a broad matrix which demonstrates our commitment to skills and to the education sector. It demonstrates that we understand the interrelationships between our vocational education and training sector, our school sector and our university sector in the provision of high-quality education and training to Australian students, as well as the international offering that we provide to this most valuable export industry: the overseas education services market.
In conclusion, international education is and will continue to be an important driver of Australia's prosperity. It is an important part of the government's commitment to build a world-class education system. This government's record investment, as well as our attention to ensuring we have the right regulatory framework to drive a quality agenda, will ensure that Australia will be in the forefront of the education system domestically and within the region in the years to come. I commend the legislation to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:11): I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 to page 4 (table), omit "The first 1 July that occurs on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 January 2013".
I described the purpose of the amendment in the second reading debate. I have not heard from the government that they have decided to accept it. I simply make the point to the minister that it is not a politically partisan amendment; it is an amendment that would ensure six months more time for higher education providers to adjust to a new system. The government knows that the opposition is supporting these reforms and has supported most of the government legislation implementing the Bradley review's recommendations over the last 2½ years. This is another one of those stages of reform and we support it.
But we do make the point that it is being introduced in a tight time framework and we think it would be better for the industry if they had six months more to readjust and, in some cases, change their business models. We therefore ask that the government genuinely consider the amendment that I have moved and take it in the good faith in which it is intended. In the absence of the government's support, I hope that a sufficient number of the crossbenchers will support the amendment, which makes no material difference to the substance of the government's reform but simply gives the industry a six-month window in which they can adjust their arrangements in order to better serve the students that they serve.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:14): I rise to respond to the remarks of the Manager of Opposition Business and the amendment that has been circulated. The government will not be accepting the opposition's amendment, although it does recognise that the amendment has, as the member opposite said, been offered in good faith. The government is confident that a commencement date of 1 July 2012 is achievable. A the member for Sturt would know, these reforms have been widely anticipated since the former member for Cook, Mr Baird, handed down his report last year. The sector, the government believes, will be well prepared for the most significant business impact—that is, the TPS levy—which will not be changed for the first time until 2013, or 14 months from now. Additionally, I would just make the point that the amendment has some technical deficiencies associated with it. We certainly understand the intent of the opposition's amendment, but the fact is that a number of other provisions in the bills would need to be changed if this amendment were to have proper effect. I think this illustrates what happens when the opposition attempts to amend legislation on the run.
The government notes that this issue was considered in the submissions to the inquiry. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment looked into these bills. The committee delivered a unanimous report this week, signed off by opposition members. Of course, the committee recommended that the bills be passed and did not propose any postponements of this kind. Whilst I acknowledge what the member for Sturt has said, it is disappointing that the opposition is now proposing an amendment that was not recommended by its own members on the committee that inquired into the bills.
The government is additionally concerned that risks associated with the existing tuition protection arrangements will be exacerbated if commencement is delayed. Some of those risks include effects on students, reputational damage for Australian providers of international education, and further stress on the current inadequate tuition protection system that these bills are seeking to remedy. Further, the government notes that the bills will be considered by a Senate committee and that further recommendations may be made arising from that process. The government is prepared to reconsider this issue in the light of any further recommendations that arise there, but, for the reasons that I outlined above, the government does not support the amendment.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Mr Jenkins)
Ayes 69
Noes 71
Majority 2
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
|
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Somlyay, AM |
Roxon, NL |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived. Bill agreed to.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:11): I move the amendment which has been circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 to page 4 (table), omit "The first 1 July that occurs on or after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 January 2013".
I described the purpose of the amendment in the second reading debate. I have not heard from the government that they have decided to accept it. I simply make the point to the minister that it is not a politically partisan amendment; it is an amendment that would ensure six months more time for higher education providers to adjust to a new system. The government knows that the opposition is supporting these reforms and has supported most of the government legislation implementing the Bradley review's recommendations over the last 2½ years. This is another one of those stages of reform and we support it.
But we do make the point that it is being introduced in a tight time framework and we think it would be better for the industry if they had six months more to readjust and, in some cases, change their business models. We therefore ask that the government genuinely consider the amendment that I have moved and take it in the good faith in which it is intended. In the absence of the government's support, I hope that a sufficient number of the crossbenchers will support the amendment, which makes no material difference to the substance of the government's reform but simply gives the industry a six-month window in which they can adjust their arrangements in order to better serve the students that they serve.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:14): I rise to respond to the remarks of the Manager of Opposition Business and the amendment that has been circulated. The government will not be accepting the opposition's amendment, although it does recognise that the amendment has, as the member opposite said, been offered in good faith. The government is confident that a commencement date of 1 July 2012 is achievable. A the member for Sturt would know, these reforms have been widely anticipated since the former member for Cook, Mr Baird, handed down his report last year. The sector, the government believes, will be well prepared for the most significant business impact—that is, the TPS levy—which will not be changed for the first time until 2013, or 14 months from now. Additionally, I would just make the point that the amendment has some technical deficiencies associated with it. We certainly understand the intent of the opposition's amendment, but the fact is that a number of other provisions in the bills would need to be changed if this amendment were to have proper effect. I think this illustrates what happens when the opposition attempts to amend legislation on the run.
The government notes that this issue was considered in the submissions to the inquiry. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment looked into these bills. The committee delivered a unanimous report this week, signed off by opposition members. Of course, the committee recommended that the bills be passed and did not propose any postponements of this kind. Whilst I acknowledge what the member for Sturt has said, it is disappointing that the opposition is now proposing an amendment that was not recommended by its own members on the committee that inquired into the bills.
The government is additionally concerned that risks associated with the existing tuition protection arrangements will be exacerbated if commencement is delayed. Some of those risks include effects on students, reputational damage for Australian providers of international education, and further stress on the current inadequate tuition protection system that these bills are seeking to remedy. Further, the government notes that the bills will be considered by a Senate committee and that further recommendations may be made arising from that process. The government is prepared to reconsider this issue in the light of any further recommendations that arise there, but, for the reasons that I outlined above, the government does not support the amendment.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Mr Jenkins)
Ayes 69
Noes 71
Majority 2
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
|
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Somlyay, AM |
Roxon, NL |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived. Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I take this opportunity to thank the members who spoke on these education services bills. The fact is that there has been a particularly constructive response by the government to the Baird review. We recognise that the issues raised by the former member for Cook were worthy of consideration and we have treated them as a consequence. This government fully recognises the contribution that the international education sector makes: it generates significant export income for this country of some $19 billion annually and supports a number of jobs across Australia. We fully acknowledge the importance of the contribution and support it. I make a final point. The government notes that this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers in 2010, strengthening and better targeting the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation in the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the highest quality. On that basis this bill is commended to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I take this opportunity to thank the members who spoke on these education services bills. The fact is that there has been a particularly constructive response by the government to the Baird review. We recognise that the issues raised by the former member for Cook were worthy of consideration and we have treated them as a consequence. This government fully recognises the contribution that the international education sector makes: it generates significant export income for this country of some $19 billion annually and supports a number of jobs across Australia. We fully acknowledge the importance of the contribution and support it. I make a final point. The government notes that this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers in 2010, strengthening and better targeting the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation in the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the highest quality. On that basis this bill is commended to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:31): As we consider the vote on this bill, I want to add some comments on the very strong commitment that the government has made to a sector that has experienced significant growth and change in recent years. I draw the House's attention to the package's centrepiece, the Tuition Protection Service or TPS. That is a universal system offering a single point of placement or refund as a last resort which involves all possible placement options, placement incentives for providers and greater choice in the process. It will recognise the reputational benefits of a robust and sustainable tuition protection arrangement by ensuring that all providers participate in the service.
The Tuition Protection Service will be supported by a suite of complementary initiatives aimed at encouraging providers to meet their refund obligations in the first instance and facilitating effective placement of students caught up in a closure. Providers operating in more than one state or territory will benefit from the introduction of national registration, which will see a reduction in the duplication of regulatory effort and support risk management. It will also play a large part in ensuring that the sector is positioned for a smooth transfer to the vocational education and training and higher education national regulators.
As recommended by Mr Baird, the former member for Cook, a number of amendments will make ESOS stronger, simpler and smarter—for example, clarifying definitions, and stronger penalties for noncompliance around reporting and the misuse of prepaid fees. The House Standing Committee on Education and Employment has made five recommendations in relation to the ESOS bills currently before the House. The government intends to consider recommendations 1 and 2—which relate to the period of notification for a default—in conjunction with any further recommendations made by the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, which is also inquiring into the bills. The government supports House committee recommendations 3 and 4, and we will ensure broad representation of industry stakeholders on the TPS Advisory Board and comprehensive and ongoing communications with the providers throughout the implementation of the new TPS arrangements. Finally, the government supports recommendation 5, that the bills be passed.
As I said previously, this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers, strengthening and better targeting of the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation of the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the very highest quality. Consequently, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:31): As we consider the vote on this bill, I want to add some comments on the very strong commitment that the government has made to a sector that has experienced significant growth and change in recent years. I draw the House's attention to the package's centrepiece, the Tuition Protection Service or TPS. That is a universal system offering a single point of placement or refund as a last resort which involves all possible placement options, placement incentives for providers and greater choice in the process. It will recognise the reputational benefits of a robust and sustainable tuition protection arrangement by ensuring that all providers participate in the service.
The Tuition Protection Service will be supported by a suite of complementary initiatives aimed at encouraging providers to meet their refund obligations in the first instance and facilitating effective placement of students caught up in a closure. Providers operating in more than one state or territory will benefit from the introduction of national registration, which will see a reduction in the duplication of regulatory effort and support risk management. It will also play a large part in ensuring that the sector is positioned for a smooth transfer to the vocational education and training and higher education national regulators.
As recommended by Mr Baird, the former member for Cook, a number of amendments will make ESOS stronger, simpler and smarter—for example, clarifying definitions, and stronger penalties for noncompliance around reporting and the misuse of prepaid fees. The House Standing Committee on Education and Employment has made five recommendations in relation to the ESOS bills currently before the House. The government intends to consider recommendations 1 and 2—which relate to the period of notification for a default—in conjunction with any further recommendations made by the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, which is also inquiring into the bills. The government supports House committee recommendations 3 and 4, and we will ensure broad representation of industry stakeholders on the TPS Advisory Board and comprehensive and ongoing communications with the providers throughout the implementation of the new TPS arrangements. Finally, the government supports recommendation 5, that the bills be passed.
As I said previously, this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers, strengthening and better targeting of the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation of the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the very highest quality. Consequently, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10:31): As we consider the vote on this bill, I want to add some comments on the very strong commitment that the government has made to a sector that has experienced significant growth and change in recent years. I draw the House's attention to the package's centrepiece, the Tuition Protection Service or TPS. That is a universal system offering a single point of placement or refund as a last resort which involves all possible placement options, placement incentives for providers and greater choice in the process. It will recognise the reputational benefits of a robust and sustainable tuition protection arrangement by ensuring that all providers participate in the service.
The Tuition Protection Service will be supported by a suite of complementary initiatives aimed at encouraging providers to meet their refund obligations in the first instance and facilitating effective placement of students caught up in a closure. Providers operating in more than one state or territory will benefit from the introduction of national registration, which will see a reduction in the duplication of regulatory effort and support risk management. It will also play a large part in ensuring that the sector is positioned for a smooth transfer to the vocational education and training and higher education national regulators.
As recommended by Mr Baird, the former member for Cook, a number of amendments will make ESOS stronger, simpler and smarter—for example, clarifying definitions, and stronger penalties for noncompliance around reporting and the misuse of prepaid fees. The House Standing Committee on Education and Employment has made five recommendations in relation to the ESOS bills currently before the House. The government intends to consider recommendations 1 and 2—which relate to the period of notification for a default—in conjunction with any further recommendations made by the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, which is also inquiring into the bills. The government supports House committee recommendations 3 and 4, and we will ensure broad representation of industry stakeholders on the TPS Advisory Board and comprehensive and ongoing communications with the providers throughout the implementation of the new TPS arrangements. Finally, the government supports recommendation 5, that the bills be passed.
As I said previously, this package is part of a larger set of reforms, including re-registration of all providers, strengthening and better targeting of the student visa program and the establishment of national regulation of the tertiary sector. All of these are working towards the same goal: to ensure that international education offered in Australia is of the very highest quality. Consequently, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
Orders of the Day
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That Main Committee, private Members’ business, orders of the day No. 4, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, No. 8 relating to disability services, and No. 21 relating to tobacco marketing, be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day, private Members' business, being called on, and considered immediately in the following order:
Motion relating to tobacco marketing;
Motion relating to disability services; and
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011.
Question agreed to.
Orders of the Day
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That Main Committee, private Members’ business, orders of the day No. 4, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, No. 8 relating to disability services, and No. 21 relating to tobacco marketing, be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day, private Members' business, being called on, and considered immediately in the following order:
Motion relating to tobacco marketing;
Motion relating to disability services; and
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011.
Question agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Tobacco Plain Packaging
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes the devastating impact of tobacco products on the lives of Australians, with smoking causing numerous life threatening diseases including cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, cervical cancer, leukaemia and oral cancers, and that the majority of smokers regret the decision to ever start;
(2) acknowledges that there is significant evidence to suggest that creative design, branding and promotion of tobacco through its packaging:
(a) reduces the impact of graphic health warnings;
(b) increases the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products for adolescents; and
(c) misleads consumers to believe that some tobacco products are less harmful than others;
(3) recognises that this Government is already implementing a suite of reforms aimed at reducing smoking and its harmful effects; and
(4) supports the significant measures proposed by this Government including the measure to mandate plain packaging of tobacco products from 1 July 2012.
Question agreed to.
Disability Services
Debate resumed on the motion:
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.
Question agreed to.
Tobacco Plain Packaging
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes the devastating impact of tobacco products on the lives of Australians, with smoking causing numerous life threatening diseases including cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, cervical cancer, leukaemia and oral cancers, and that the majority of smokers regret the decision to ever start;
(2) acknowledges that there is significant evidence to suggest that creative design, branding and promotion of tobacco through its packaging:
(a) reduces the impact of graphic health warnings;
(b) increases the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products for adolescents; and
(c) misleads consumers to believe that some tobacco products are less harmful than others;
(3) recognises that this Government is already implementing a suite of reforms aimed at reducing smoking and its harmful effects; and
(4) supports the significant measures proposed by this Government including the measure to mandate plain packaging of tobacco products from 1 July 2012.
Question agreed to.
Disability Services
Debate resumed on the motion:
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.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011
Consideration in Detail
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Consideration in detail having been concluded in the Main Committee, the question now is that amendments (1) to (10) moved by the member for Calwell be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BANDT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011
Consideration in Detail
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Consideration in detail having been concluded in the Main Committee, the question now is that amendments (1) to (10) moved by the member for Calwell be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BANDT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Consideration in Detail
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Consideration in detail having been concluded in the Main Committee, the question now is that amendments (1) to (10) moved by the member for Calwell be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BANDT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Report
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:41): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings.
I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Ms OWENS: The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 propose four sets of changes to the tax laws. Two of these changes generated stakeholder interest and were pursued by the committee in the inquiry. The first item of interest was the changes to the petroleum resource rent tax, which has been the subject of dispute between Exxon Mobil and the Australian Taxation Office. The dispute revolves around the definition of a marketable petroleum commodity, which affects where the taxing point occurs. The later the taxing point, the more valuable the commodity being taxed.
Since the petroleum resource rent tax is a tax on profits, a later taxing point involves more tax. The issue about these amendments is that they apply back to 1990-91, which raises the question of whether this retrospectivity is warranted. Parliaments do legislate retrospectively from time to time. The important point is that retrospective legislation should be fair and provide certainty. In this case, the committee is confident that this applies. The bills implement the original policy intent, which applied 20 years ago, and reflect how the PRRT has operated since that time, including how Exxon Mobil has lodged its tax returns and paid tax. Further, Treasury provided the committee with a time line of the dispute, which demonstrates that successive governments have consistently interpreted the legislation in this way.
The second aspect to the bills was the changes to tax penalties for company directors for the superannuation guarantee charge, which had been motivated by the activities of phoenix operators. These companies build up debt, become insolvent, liquidate their debts and then continue the business through a new company that will eventually go through the same process. The problem addressed in these bills is that the companies are insolvent partly because they are carrying debts for their staff entitlements, including superannuation. Millions of dollars of employees' superannuation is lost every year through this practice. The ATO is on the record stating that it has insufficient legal powers to enforce the superannuation guarantee charge. Recovering the amounts is also difficult in practice because of the long delay in the ATO becoming aware of the nonpayment.
Phoenix operators enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over their competitors who do the right thing. The crude nature of this business model is reminiscent of the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes of the early 1980s. Broadly, the bills make company directors liable for their company's superannuation guarantee debt. The bills also remove the requirement for the ATO to issue a 21-day director penalty notice before commencing legal action on a company director. The 21-day period is problematic because phoenix operators promptly cause their company to go into voluntary administration shortly after receiving their notice, which prevents the ATO taking further action against them. In general the committee supports these provisions because they take penalties that already successfully apply to the PAYG system and extend them to superannuation. Employers' obligations in relation to super remain the same; what will change is that these obligations will now be more rigorously enforced.
However, at the hearing, business groups expressed concerns about the provisions because they wanted to ensure that honest company directors would not be caught up in them by accident. The committee accepts that directors who act in good faith should have some comfort that they will not be subject to the provisions. The committee recommended that the government investigate whether the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 should specifically better target phoenix operators and whether the defences in the bill should be expanded. Because of the work involved in this the committee has recommended that schedule 3 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011, which contains the phoenixing provisions, should be deleted so that the remainder of the bill may pass and that the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 should remain pending while the government completes its investigations.
I thank the organisations which assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or participating in the hearing in Canberra. I thank the secretariat, who did some extraordinary work under very short timeframes. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:46): by leave—I rise to speak on the report into the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011. I speak on behalf of the coalition members of this committee. I endorse the comments that were made by the chair in that the secretariat of the committee has worked incredibly hard in a very short space of time to be able to deliver the report and to conduct the inquiry. We do thank them for their work on that.
Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the commissioner's discretion regarding certain income of primary production trusts. The coalition does support schedule 1 of this bill giving the tax commissioner discretion in relation to taxation of income from primary production trusts. I note that this amendment to the tax laws is an amendment which the opposition recommended to the government, and we commend the government for taking up our suggestion and acting in good faith in progressing it. In context, this schedule returns the law to the position prior to the introduction of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It relates to sections 385E, 385F and 385G of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which amongst other things allows primary production trusts to defer taxation liabilities on profits from the sale of livestock in years where they have been affected by drought, flood, fire or disease.
Under the current law, if any beneficiary of a trust dies, then this tax liability cannot continue to be deferred. In effect this means that a primary production trust can be liable for a large and unexpected tax liability in the event of an untimely death. A tax liability is triggered on the death of any beneficiary of the trust regardless of whether the deceased beneficiary is presently entitled to the income from the deferral. This would seem to serve no public policy interest and instead compound personal grief.
Under the previous 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act the Commissioner of Taxation had discretion over whether a death would trigger a tax liability. The change to remove the discretion was made as part of a general limiting of discretion but has led to unforeseen and harsh consequences for family farm enterprises. This change to the taxation law was proposed by the opposition, as I have mentioned before, to correct this. The government has accepted this change as sensible, and, again, we do commend the government for that.
Before moving to schedules 2 and 3, I go to schedule 4 where we are also in agreement with the government. Schedule 4 is a consequential amendment regarding the tax on gaseous fuel. Schedule 4 seeks to clarify the treatment of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), LNG (liquefied natural gas) and CNG (compressed natural gas) following the introduction of the taxation of alternative fuels legislative package, which received royal assent on 29 June 2011. In particular the changes confirm that excise does not apply to CNG for transport use manufactured in a home refuelling unit on a non-commercial scale. It confirms that fuel tax credits are available to distributors of LPG in a wider range of circumstances. It is a clarification which the coalition supports.
I now move onto where the coalition members diverge from the government members on this committee. I turn to schedule 2, the taxing point for the petroleum resource rent tax. The petroleum resource rent tax is a profit-based tax which is levied on petroleum projects, except the North West Shelf project, in Commonwealth waters. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to clarify the taxation point of the existing PRRT regime in two main respects: firstly, in amending the definition of a 'marketable petroleum commodity' and, secondly, in applying that definition retrospectively from 1 July 1990.
The Bass Strait ExxonMobil project is the only project that will be affected by this change. Since the Bass Strait project was brought into the PRRT regime in 1990-91, the taxation point and other matters have been the subject of an ongoing dispute between the Australian Taxation Office and Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd. Earlier this year the Federal Court handed down a judgment in favour of the ATO. The single-judge decision is the subject of an appeal by Esso. A directions hearing of the full Federal Court has been set for the week of 7 November 2011. Before the coalition lost office in 2007, the fiscal position of the government was strong. The coalition left no net debt for the incoming Labor government, having eliminated the $96 billion of net debt it had inherited from the previous Labor government. The coalition instead left a surplus of $20 billion and a $60 billion investment in the Future Fund. In the May budget 2010-2011, the Treasurer announced a deficit of $49.4 billion and net debt of $107 billion. At the time that the Treasurer announced his fourth deficit, he also announced his intention to legislate retrospectively on the disputed taxation point of the PRRT.
The government claims that there will be no fiscal impact if the bill is passed. This is only half correct. Evidence was provided to committee that Esso has been paying the PRRT on a conservative basis while pursuing its dispute with the ATO through the legal process. Esso provided evidence that, if the bill is not passed and they are ultimately successful in their legal appeal, there will be very real fiscal implications for the government—that is, the ATO may be forced to refund up to $323 million of paid tax to Esso. Esso's partner, BHP, would also be entitled to a refund of a similar amount. It concerns the coalition members that the government appears to be interfering in a long-running legal dispute motivated by a need to shore up its fiscal position. The coalition notes that the fiscal position of the government has deteriorated over the last four years due to the government's poor economic management.
It is a longstanding principle in tax law that tax legislation should apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Mr Yasser El-Ansary, Tax Counsel of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the ICAA, stated in evidence that schedule 2 of the bill:
... threatens the longstanding principle of protecting taxpayers from the need to introduce retrospective tax laws when they have attempted to comply in good faith with the spirit of the law that has been in existence.
Evidence was provided that, while there are some examples of retrospective tax laws, they are unusual and generally fall into one of two categories: first, blatant anti-avoidance cases; and, second, being retrospective only insofar as it applies from the date of announcement rather than the date of enactment.
The Chairman of ExxonMobil, Mr Dashwood, stated in evidence to the committee that schedule 2:
...effectively curtails ongoing litigation between the ATO and Esso. The 2011 budget announcement seeks to reach back 21 years and change the law retrospectively.
Neither the Law Council nor the ICAA could point to an occasion in Australia's recent history where the parliament has sought to pass legislation to amend the law as far back as 21 years.
Another issue raised in evidence was that pertaining to sovereign risk. The Law Council, the Business Council of Australia, the Tax Institute, ICAA and the Australian Institute of Company Directors all provided evidence to the committee that the retrospective nature of the tax change, and the fact that the change goes back 21 years, is unprecedented. A number of organisations and individuals, including the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, also gave evidence and provided submissions that significant retrospective tax laws give rise to sovereign risk concerns.
This evidence is best summarised by Mr Dashwood from Esso, who stated that schedule 2 of the bill:
... disregards consistent advice received by governments past and present about retrospectivity in tax legislation and will damage Australia's international reputation and perceptions of sovereign risk in this country. It may well cause some investors to consider whether Australia is an appropriate destination for the mobile capital, especially at a time when international capital markets are extremely tight.
This, of course, is not the first time that concerns have been raised about sovereign risk and tax legislation. At the recent Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth, the Chief Executive of South African goldminer AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, was the latest business figure to voice concern, stating that Australia is:
... one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
The coalition notes that a perception that Australia is subject to sovereign risk concerns will damage our ability to attract capital investment, thus damaging our economy.
The final point about this schedule that was of concern to the coalition committee members is the fact that there is legal action currently afoot. It is highly unusual for a government to intervene in an ongoing legal dispute when that dispute is in the final stages of appeal. The ICAA argued that the government would be clearly:
... usurp [ing] the role of the judiciary by amending tax laws partway through a major litigation that is seeking to test certain key concepts embedded in the PRRT regime.
The ICAA also noted in its submission:
... the separation of powers as between the legislature and the judiciary is a fundamental doctrine embedded within the constitutional arrangements that underpins the integrity of Australia's governance arrangements. For the most part this separation doctrine has been adhered to by parliaments, the judiciary and the executive for many decades.
In order to protect the separation doctrine, it would be more appropriate for the government to allow the current litigation to be concluded and then to determine what course of action may be appropriate at that point in time. Not allowing the judicial process to reach its natural conclusion is seen by the Institute as an inappropriate interference in due process, which we believe would set a problematic and perilous precedent for further action of a similar nature in the future.
The Business Council of Australia cautioned that such an intervention would create a 'grave precedent'. Given that no explanation has been provided to the committee by the government as to why it has intervened in this way, at this time the coalition shares the concerns that have been expressed.
This leads to our first recommendation in the dissenting report:
The Coalition believes that schedule 2 of the bill violates a long standing principal in tax law, namely that tax laws should, with few exceptions, be prospective rather than retrospective.
The Coalition is concerned that capital investment in Australia may be impacted by sovereign risk concerns as a result of the Bill's retrospective application of the tax law going back 21 years.
Finally, the Coalition believe that the long running legal dispute between Esso and the ATO should be allowed to run its course through the court process.
For the reasons outlined above, the coalition recommends, and we will be moving an amendment, that schedule 2 be removed from the bill.
I now turn to schedule 3, where directors are to be made personally liable for unpaid superannuation and PAYG withholding tax. The coalition members do agree with the government members that fraudulent phoenix activity is abhorrent, as is the deliberate nonpayment of employee superannuation entitlements. The coalition members also agree with government members that the bill as currently drafted may result in unintended consequences and requires further work to address concerns raised by the Council of Small Business of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors in particular.
For those reasons, the coalition recommends that, until that work has been completed and the concerns satisfied, schedule 3 be removed from the bill to allow the government to address the issues raised by stakeholders. A further schedule can be brought forward when another tax bill comes before the House.
In conclusion, this is the view of the minority: the coalition members on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. Again I place on the record my thanks to the chair and to my fellow committee members for taking the time and doing the hard work, along with the staff of the secretariat, who supported our committee to ensure that we were able to meet the time line set by the government.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:00): I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The Committee, having considered documents presented to Parliament since 13 October 2011, recommends that the following be made Parliamentary Papers:
Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Airservices Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Attorney-General's Department—Report for 2010-11.
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board—Report for 2010-11.
Australia Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Accounting Standards Board—Report for 2010-11, including a correction.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Australian Energy Regulator.
Australian Crime Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Electoral Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Federal Police—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Government Solicitor—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Hearing—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Human Rights Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 2010‑11.
Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 116—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Public Service Commissioner—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Merit Protection Commissioner.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance—Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Sports Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian War Memorial—Report for 2010-11.
Bankruptcy Act 1966—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 2010-11.
Cancer Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Centrelink—Report for 2010-11.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner for Superannuation—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 2010-11.
Crimes Act 1914—Controlled operations—Report for 2010-11.
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Defence—Report for 2010-11—
Volume 1—Department of Defence.
Volume 2—Defence Materiel Organisation.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2010-11—Corrigendum.
Department of Human Services—Report for 2010-11, incorporating reports of the Child Support Agency and CRS Australia.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Infrastructure and Transport—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of IP Australia.
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of Geoscience Australia.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 2010-11.
Department of the Treasury—Report for 2010-11.
Director of National Parks—Report for 2010-11.
Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978—Supervising Scientist's reports on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Family Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand—Report for 2010-11.
Future Fund—Report for 2010-11.
Gene Technology Regulator—Report for 2010-11.
Inspector-General of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
International Air Services Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Medicare Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees—Report for 2010-11.
National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council—Report for 2010‑11.
National Blood Authority—Report for 2010-11.
National Competition Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Film and Sound Archive—Report for 2010-11.
National Gallery of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme—Report for 2010-11.
National Library of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
National Transport Commission—Report for 2010-11.
National Water Commission—Report for 2010-11.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner—Report for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 June 2011, incorporating financial statements for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for the period 1 July to 31 October 2010.
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 2010-11.
Old Parliament House—Report for 2010-11.
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Productivity Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Professional Services Review—Report for 2010-11.
Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Royal Australian Mint—Report for 2010-11.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Comcare—Report for 2010-11.
Screen Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Tax Practitioners Board—Report for 2010-11.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010‑11, including a corrigendum.
Tourism Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Veterans' Review Board—Report for 2010-11.
War Crimes Act 1945—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report and State of the Wet Tropics Report for 2010‑11.
Wine Australia Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
CHRIS HAYES
Chair
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Economics Committee
Report
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:41): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings.
I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Ms OWENS: The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 propose four sets of changes to the tax laws. Two of these changes generated stakeholder interest and were pursued by the committee in the inquiry. The first item of interest was the changes to the petroleum resource rent tax, which has been the subject of dispute between Exxon Mobil and the Australian Taxation Office. The dispute revolves around the definition of a marketable petroleum commodity, which affects where the taxing point occurs. The later the taxing point, the more valuable the commodity being taxed.
Since the petroleum resource rent tax is a tax on profits, a later taxing point involves more tax. The issue about these amendments is that they apply back to 1990-91, which raises the question of whether this retrospectivity is warranted. Parliaments do legislate retrospectively from time to time. The important point is that retrospective legislation should be fair and provide certainty. In this case, the committee is confident that this applies. The bills implement the original policy intent, which applied 20 years ago, and reflect how the PRRT has operated since that time, including how Exxon Mobil has lodged its tax returns and paid tax. Further, Treasury provided the committee with a time line of the dispute, which demonstrates that successive governments have consistently interpreted the legislation in this way.
The second aspect to the bills was the changes to tax penalties for company directors for the superannuation guarantee charge, which had been motivated by the activities of phoenix operators. These companies build up debt, become insolvent, liquidate their debts and then continue the business through a new company that will eventually go through the same process. The problem addressed in these bills is that the companies are insolvent partly because they are carrying debts for their staff entitlements, including superannuation. Millions of dollars of employees' superannuation is lost every year through this practice. The ATO is on the record stating that it has insufficient legal powers to enforce the superannuation guarantee charge. Recovering the amounts is also difficult in practice because of the long delay in the ATO becoming aware of the nonpayment.
Phoenix operators enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over their competitors who do the right thing. The crude nature of this business model is reminiscent of the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes of the early 1980s. Broadly, the bills make company directors liable for their company's superannuation guarantee debt. The bills also remove the requirement for the ATO to issue a 21-day director penalty notice before commencing legal action on a company director. The 21-day period is problematic because phoenix operators promptly cause their company to go into voluntary administration shortly after receiving their notice, which prevents the ATO taking further action against them. In general the committee supports these provisions because they take penalties that already successfully apply to the PAYG system and extend them to superannuation. Employers' obligations in relation to super remain the same; what will change is that these obligations will now be more rigorously enforced.
However, at the hearing, business groups expressed concerns about the provisions because they wanted to ensure that honest company directors would not be caught up in them by accident. The committee accepts that directors who act in good faith should have some comfort that they will not be subject to the provisions. The committee recommended that the government investigate whether the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 should specifically better target phoenix operators and whether the defences in the bill should be expanded. Because of the work involved in this the committee has recommended that schedule 3 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011, which contains the phoenixing provisions, should be deleted so that the remainder of the bill may pass and that the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 should remain pending while the government completes its investigations.
I thank the organisations which assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or participating in the hearing in Canberra. I thank the secretariat, who did some extraordinary work under very short timeframes. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:46): by leave—I rise to speak on the report into the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011. I speak on behalf of the coalition members of this committee. I endorse the comments that were made by the chair in that the secretariat of the committee has worked incredibly hard in a very short space of time to be able to deliver the report and to conduct the inquiry. We do thank them for their work on that.
Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the commissioner's discretion regarding certain income of primary production trusts. The coalition does support schedule 1 of this bill giving the tax commissioner discretion in relation to taxation of income from primary production trusts. I note that this amendment to the tax laws is an amendment which the opposition recommended to the government, and we commend the government for taking up our suggestion and acting in good faith in progressing it. In context, this schedule returns the law to the position prior to the introduction of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It relates to sections 385E, 385F and 385G of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which amongst other things allows primary production trusts to defer taxation liabilities on profits from the sale of livestock in years where they have been affected by drought, flood, fire or disease.
Under the current law, if any beneficiary of a trust dies, then this tax liability cannot continue to be deferred. In effect this means that a primary production trust can be liable for a large and unexpected tax liability in the event of an untimely death. A tax liability is triggered on the death of any beneficiary of the trust regardless of whether the deceased beneficiary is presently entitled to the income from the deferral. This would seem to serve no public policy interest and instead compound personal grief.
Under the previous 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act the Commissioner of Taxation had discretion over whether a death would trigger a tax liability. The change to remove the discretion was made as part of a general limiting of discretion but has led to unforeseen and harsh consequences for family farm enterprises. This change to the taxation law was proposed by the opposition, as I have mentioned before, to correct this. The government has accepted this change as sensible, and, again, we do commend the government for that.
Before moving to schedules 2 and 3, I go to schedule 4 where we are also in agreement with the government. Schedule 4 is a consequential amendment regarding the tax on gaseous fuel. Schedule 4 seeks to clarify the treatment of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), LNG (liquefied natural gas) and CNG (compressed natural gas) following the introduction of the taxation of alternative fuels legislative package, which received royal assent on 29 June 2011. In particular the changes confirm that excise does not apply to CNG for transport use manufactured in a home refuelling unit on a non-commercial scale. It confirms that fuel tax credits are available to distributors of LPG in a wider range of circumstances. It is a clarification which the coalition supports.
I now move onto where the coalition members diverge from the government members on this committee. I turn to schedule 2, the taxing point for the petroleum resource rent tax. The petroleum resource rent tax is a profit-based tax which is levied on petroleum projects, except the North West Shelf project, in Commonwealth waters. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to clarify the taxation point of the existing PRRT regime in two main respects: firstly, in amending the definition of a 'marketable petroleum commodity' and, secondly, in applying that definition retrospectively from 1 July 1990.
The Bass Strait ExxonMobil project is the only project that will be affected by this change. Since the Bass Strait project was brought into the PRRT regime in 1990-91, the taxation point and other matters have been the subject of an ongoing dispute between the Australian Taxation Office and Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd. Earlier this year the Federal Court handed down a judgment in favour of the ATO. The single-judge decision is the subject of an appeal by Esso. A directions hearing of the full Federal Court has been set for the week of 7 November 2011. Before the coalition lost office in 2007, the fiscal position of the government was strong. The coalition left no net debt for the incoming Labor government, having eliminated the $96 billion of net debt it had inherited from the previous Labor government. The coalition instead left a surplus of $20 billion and a $60 billion investment in the Future Fund. In the May budget 2010-2011, the Treasurer announced a deficit of $49.4 billion and net debt of $107 billion. At the time that the Treasurer announced his fourth deficit, he also announced his intention to legislate retrospectively on the disputed taxation point of the PRRT.
The government claims that there will be no fiscal impact if the bill is passed. This is only half correct. Evidence was provided to committee that Esso has been paying the PRRT on a conservative basis while pursuing its dispute with the ATO through the legal process. Esso provided evidence that, if the bill is not passed and they are ultimately successful in their legal appeal, there will be very real fiscal implications for the government—that is, the ATO may be forced to refund up to $323 million of paid tax to Esso. Esso's partner, BHP, would also be entitled to a refund of a similar amount. It concerns the coalition members that the government appears to be interfering in a long-running legal dispute motivated by a need to shore up its fiscal position. The coalition notes that the fiscal position of the government has deteriorated over the last four years due to the government's poor economic management.
It is a longstanding principle in tax law that tax legislation should apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Mr Yasser El-Ansary, Tax Counsel of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the ICAA, stated in evidence that schedule 2 of the bill:
... threatens the longstanding principle of protecting taxpayers from the need to introduce retrospective tax laws when they have attempted to comply in good faith with the spirit of the law that has been in existence.
Evidence was provided that, while there are some examples of retrospective tax laws, they are unusual and generally fall into one of two categories: first, blatant anti-avoidance cases; and, second, being retrospective only insofar as it applies from the date of announcement rather than the date of enactment.
The Chairman of ExxonMobil, Mr Dashwood, stated in evidence to the committee that schedule 2:
...effectively curtails ongoing litigation between the ATO and Esso. The 2011 budget announcement seeks to reach back 21 years and change the law retrospectively.
Neither the Law Council nor the ICAA could point to an occasion in Australia's recent history where the parliament has sought to pass legislation to amend the law as far back as 21 years.
Another issue raised in evidence was that pertaining to sovereign risk. The Law Council, the Business Council of Australia, the Tax Institute, ICAA and the Australian Institute of Company Directors all provided evidence to the committee that the retrospective nature of the tax change, and the fact that the change goes back 21 years, is unprecedented. A number of organisations and individuals, including the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, also gave evidence and provided submissions that significant retrospective tax laws give rise to sovereign risk concerns.
This evidence is best summarised by Mr Dashwood from Esso, who stated that schedule 2 of the bill:
... disregards consistent advice received by governments past and present about retrospectivity in tax legislation and will damage Australia's international reputation and perceptions of sovereign risk in this country. It may well cause some investors to consider whether Australia is an appropriate destination for the mobile capital, especially at a time when international capital markets are extremely tight.
This, of course, is not the first time that concerns have been raised about sovereign risk and tax legislation. At the recent Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth, the Chief Executive of South African goldminer AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, was the latest business figure to voice concern, stating that Australia is:
... one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
The coalition notes that a perception that Australia is subject to sovereign risk concerns will damage our ability to attract capital investment, thus damaging our economy.
The final point about this schedule that was of concern to the coalition committee members is the fact that there is legal action currently afoot. It is highly unusual for a government to intervene in an ongoing legal dispute when that dispute is in the final stages of appeal. The ICAA argued that the government would be clearly:
... usurp [ing] the role of the judiciary by amending tax laws partway through a major litigation that is seeking to test certain key concepts embedded in the PRRT regime.
The ICAA also noted in its submission:
... the separation of powers as between the legislature and the judiciary is a fundamental doctrine embedded within the constitutional arrangements that underpins the integrity of Australia's governance arrangements. For the most part this separation doctrine has been adhered to by parliaments, the judiciary and the executive for many decades.
In order to protect the separation doctrine, it would be more appropriate for the government to allow the current litigation to be concluded and then to determine what course of action may be appropriate at that point in time. Not allowing the judicial process to reach its natural conclusion is seen by the Institute as an inappropriate interference in due process, which we believe would set a problematic and perilous precedent for further action of a similar nature in the future.
The Business Council of Australia cautioned that such an intervention would create a 'grave precedent'. Given that no explanation has been provided to the committee by the government as to why it has intervened in this way, at this time the coalition shares the concerns that have been expressed.
This leads to our first recommendation in the dissenting report:
The Coalition believes that schedule 2 of the bill violates a long standing principal in tax law, namely that tax laws should, with few exceptions, be prospective rather than retrospective.
The Coalition is concerned that capital investment in Australia may be impacted by sovereign risk concerns as a result of the Bill's retrospective application of the tax law going back 21 years.
Finally, the Coalition believe that the long running legal dispute between Esso and the ATO should be allowed to run its course through the court process.
For the reasons outlined above, the coalition recommends, and we will be moving an amendment, that schedule 2 be removed from the bill.
I now turn to schedule 3, where directors are to be made personally liable for unpaid superannuation and PAYG withholding tax. The coalition members do agree with the government members that fraudulent phoenix activity is abhorrent, as is the deliberate nonpayment of employee superannuation entitlements. The coalition members also agree with government members that the bill as currently drafted may result in unintended consequences and requires further work to address concerns raised by the Council of Small Business of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors in particular.
For those reasons, the coalition recommends that, until that work has been completed and the concerns satisfied, schedule 3 be removed from the bill to allow the government to address the issues raised by stakeholders. A further schedule can be brought forward when another tax bill comes before the House.
In conclusion, this is the view of the minority: the coalition members on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. Again I place on the record my thanks to the chair and to my fellow committee members for taking the time and doing the hard work, along with the staff of the secretariat, who supported our committee to ensure that we were able to meet the time line set by the government.
Report
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:41): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings.
I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Ms OWENS: The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 propose four sets of changes to the tax laws. Two of these changes generated stakeholder interest and were pursued by the committee in the inquiry. The first item of interest was the changes to the petroleum resource rent tax, which has been the subject of dispute between Exxon Mobil and the Australian Taxation Office. The dispute revolves around the definition of a marketable petroleum commodity, which affects where the taxing point occurs. The later the taxing point, the more valuable the commodity being taxed.
Since the petroleum resource rent tax is a tax on profits, a later taxing point involves more tax. The issue about these amendments is that they apply back to 1990-91, which raises the question of whether this retrospectivity is warranted. Parliaments do legislate retrospectively from time to time. The important point is that retrospective legislation should be fair and provide certainty. In this case, the committee is confident that this applies. The bills implement the original policy intent, which applied 20 years ago, and reflect how the PRRT has operated since that time, including how Exxon Mobil has lodged its tax returns and paid tax. Further, Treasury provided the committee with a time line of the dispute, which demonstrates that successive governments have consistently interpreted the legislation in this way.
The second aspect to the bills was the changes to tax penalties for company directors for the superannuation guarantee charge, which had been motivated by the activities of phoenix operators. These companies build up debt, become insolvent, liquidate their debts and then continue the business through a new company that will eventually go through the same process. The problem addressed in these bills is that the companies are insolvent partly because they are carrying debts for their staff entitlements, including superannuation. Millions of dollars of employees' superannuation is lost every year through this practice. The ATO is on the record stating that it has insufficient legal powers to enforce the superannuation guarantee charge. Recovering the amounts is also difficult in practice because of the long delay in the ATO becoming aware of the nonpayment.
Phoenix operators enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over their competitors who do the right thing. The crude nature of this business model is reminiscent of the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes of the early 1980s. Broadly, the bills make company directors liable for their company's superannuation guarantee debt. The bills also remove the requirement for the ATO to issue a 21-day director penalty notice before commencing legal action on a company director. The 21-day period is problematic because phoenix operators promptly cause their company to go into voluntary administration shortly after receiving their notice, which prevents the ATO taking further action against them. In general the committee supports these provisions because they take penalties that already successfully apply to the PAYG system and extend them to superannuation. Employers' obligations in relation to super remain the same; what will change is that these obligations will now be more rigorously enforced.
However, at the hearing, business groups expressed concerns about the provisions because they wanted to ensure that honest company directors would not be caught up in them by accident. The committee accepts that directors who act in good faith should have some comfort that they will not be subject to the provisions. The committee recommended that the government investigate whether the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 should specifically better target phoenix operators and whether the defences in the bill should be expanded. Because of the work involved in this the committee has recommended that schedule 3 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011, which contains the phoenixing provisions, should be deleted so that the remainder of the bill may pass and that the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 should remain pending while the government completes its investigations.
I thank the organisations which assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or participating in the hearing in Canberra. I thank the secretariat, who did some extraordinary work under very short timeframes. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:46): by leave—I rise to speak on the report into the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011. I speak on behalf of the coalition members of this committee. I endorse the comments that were made by the chair in that the secretariat of the committee has worked incredibly hard in a very short space of time to be able to deliver the report and to conduct the inquiry. We do thank them for their work on that.
Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the commissioner's discretion regarding certain income of primary production trusts. The coalition does support schedule 1 of this bill giving the tax commissioner discretion in relation to taxation of income from primary production trusts. I note that this amendment to the tax laws is an amendment which the opposition recommended to the government, and we commend the government for taking up our suggestion and acting in good faith in progressing it. In context, this schedule returns the law to the position prior to the introduction of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It relates to sections 385E, 385F and 385G of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which amongst other things allows primary production trusts to defer taxation liabilities on profits from the sale of livestock in years where they have been affected by drought, flood, fire or disease.
Under the current law, if any beneficiary of a trust dies, then this tax liability cannot continue to be deferred. In effect this means that a primary production trust can be liable for a large and unexpected tax liability in the event of an untimely death. A tax liability is triggered on the death of any beneficiary of the trust regardless of whether the deceased beneficiary is presently entitled to the income from the deferral. This would seem to serve no public policy interest and instead compound personal grief.
Under the previous 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act the Commissioner of Taxation had discretion over whether a death would trigger a tax liability. The change to remove the discretion was made as part of a general limiting of discretion but has led to unforeseen and harsh consequences for family farm enterprises. This change to the taxation law was proposed by the opposition, as I have mentioned before, to correct this. The government has accepted this change as sensible, and, again, we do commend the government for that.
Before moving to schedules 2 and 3, I go to schedule 4 where we are also in agreement with the government. Schedule 4 is a consequential amendment regarding the tax on gaseous fuel. Schedule 4 seeks to clarify the treatment of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), LNG (liquefied natural gas) and CNG (compressed natural gas) following the introduction of the taxation of alternative fuels legislative package, which received royal assent on 29 June 2011. In particular the changes confirm that excise does not apply to CNG for transport use manufactured in a home refuelling unit on a non-commercial scale. It confirms that fuel tax credits are available to distributors of LPG in a wider range of circumstances. It is a clarification which the coalition supports.
I now move onto where the coalition members diverge from the government members on this committee. I turn to schedule 2, the taxing point for the petroleum resource rent tax. The petroleum resource rent tax is a profit-based tax which is levied on petroleum projects, except the North West Shelf project, in Commonwealth waters. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to clarify the taxation point of the existing PRRT regime in two main respects: firstly, in amending the definition of a 'marketable petroleum commodity' and, secondly, in applying that definition retrospectively from 1 July 1990.
The Bass Strait ExxonMobil project is the only project that will be affected by this change. Since the Bass Strait project was brought into the PRRT regime in 1990-91, the taxation point and other matters have been the subject of an ongoing dispute between the Australian Taxation Office and Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd. Earlier this year the Federal Court handed down a judgment in favour of the ATO. The single-judge decision is the subject of an appeal by Esso. A directions hearing of the full Federal Court has been set for the week of 7 November 2011. Before the coalition lost office in 2007, the fiscal position of the government was strong. The coalition left no net debt for the incoming Labor government, having eliminated the $96 billion of net debt it had inherited from the previous Labor government. The coalition instead left a surplus of $20 billion and a $60 billion investment in the Future Fund. In the May budget 2010-2011, the Treasurer announced a deficit of $49.4 billion and net debt of $107 billion. At the time that the Treasurer announced his fourth deficit, he also announced his intention to legislate retrospectively on the disputed taxation point of the PRRT.
The government claims that there will be no fiscal impact if the bill is passed. This is only half correct. Evidence was provided to committee that Esso has been paying the PRRT on a conservative basis while pursuing its dispute with the ATO through the legal process. Esso provided evidence that, if the bill is not passed and they are ultimately successful in their legal appeal, there will be very real fiscal implications for the government—that is, the ATO may be forced to refund up to $323 million of paid tax to Esso. Esso's partner, BHP, would also be entitled to a refund of a similar amount. It concerns the coalition members that the government appears to be interfering in a long-running legal dispute motivated by a need to shore up its fiscal position. The coalition notes that the fiscal position of the government has deteriorated over the last four years due to the government's poor economic management.
It is a longstanding principle in tax law that tax legislation should apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Mr Yasser El-Ansary, Tax Counsel of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the ICAA, stated in evidence that schedule 2 of the bill:
... threatens the longstanding principle of protecting taxpayers from the need to introduce retrospective tax laws when they have attempted to comply in good faith with the spirit of the law that has been in existence.
Evidence was provided that, while there are some examples of retrospective tax laws, they are unusual and generally fall into one of two categories: first, blatant anti-avoidance cases; and, second, being retrospective only insofar as it applies from the date of announcement rather than the date of enactment.
The Chairman of ExxonMobil, Mr Dashwood, stated in evidence to the committee that schedule 2:
...effectively curtails ongoing litigation between the ATO and Esso. The 2011 budget announcement seeks to reach back 21 years and change the law retrospectively.
Neither the Law Council nor the ICAA could point to an occasion in Australia's recent history where the parliament has sought to pass legislation to amend the law as far back as 21 years.
Another issue raised in evidence was that pertaining to sovereign risk. The Law Council, the Business Council of Australia, the Tax Institute, ICAA and the Australian Institute of Company Directors all provided evidence to the committee that the retrospective nature of the tax change, and the fact that the change goes back 21 years, is unprecedented. A number of organisations and individuals, including the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, also gave evidence and provided submissions that significant retrospective tax laws give rise to sovereign risk concerns.
This evidence is best summarised by Mr Dashwood from Esso, who stated that schedule 2 of the bill:
... disregards consistent advice received by governments past and present about retrospectivity in tax legislation and will damage Australia's international reputation and perceptions of sovereign risk in this country. It may well cause some investors to consider whether Australia is an appropriate destination for the mobile capital, especially at a time when international capital markets are extremely tight.
This, of course, is not the first time that concerns have been raised about sovereign risk and tax legislation. At the recent Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth, the Chief Executive of South African goldminer AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, was the latest business figure to voice concern, stating that Australia is:
... one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
The coalition notes that a perception that Australia is subject to sovereign risk concerns will damage our ability to attract capital investment, thus damaging our economy.
The final point about this schedule that was of concern to the coalition committee members is the fact that there is legal action currently afoot. It is highly unusual for a government to intervene in an ongoing legal dispute when that dispute is in the final stages of appeal. The ICAA argued that the government would be clearly:
... usurp [ing] the role of the judiciary by amending tax laws partway through a major litigation that is seeking to test certain key concepts embedded in the PRRT regime.
The ICAA also noted in its submission:
... the separation of powers as between the legislature and the judiciary is a fundamental doctrine embedded within the constitutional arrangements that underpins the integrity of Australia's governance arrangements. For the most part this separation doctrine has been adhered to by parliaments, the judiciary and the executive for many decades.
In order to protect the separation doctrine, it would be more appropriate for the government to allow the current litigation to be concluded and then to determine what course of action may be appropriate at that point in time. Not allowing the judicial process to reach its natural conclusion is seen by the Institute as an inappropriate interference in due process, which we believe would set a problematic and perilous precedent for further action of a similar nature in the future.
The Business Council of Australia cautioned that such an intervention would create a 'grave precedent'. Given that no explanation has been provided to the committee by the government as to why it has intervened in this way, at this time the coalition shares the concerns that have been expressed.
This leads to our first recommendation in the dissenting report:
The Coalition believes that schedule 2 of the bill violates a long standing principal in tax law, namely that tax laws should, with few exceptions, be prospective rather than retrospective.
The Coalition is concerned that capital investment in Australia may be impacted by sovereign risk concerns as a result of the Bill's retrospective application of the tax law going back 21 years.
Finally, the Coalition believe that the long running legal dispute between Esso and the ATO should be allowed to run its course through the court process.
For the reasons outlined above, the coalition recommends, and we will be moving an amendment, that schedule 2 be removed from the bill.
I now turn to schedule 3, where directors are to be made personally liable for unpaid superannuation and PAYG withholding tax. The coalition members do agree with the government members that fraudulent phoenix activity is abhorrent, as is the deliberate nonpayment of employee superannuation entitlements. The coalition members also agree with government members that the bill as currently drafted may result in unintended consequences and requires further work to address concerns raised by the Council of Small Business of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors in particular.
For those reasons, the coalition recommends that, until that work has been completed and the concerns satisfied, schedule 3 be removed from the bill to allow the government to address the issues raised by stakeholders. A further schedule can be brought forward when another tax bill comes before the House.
In conclusion, this is the view of the minority: the coalition members on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. Again I place on the record my thanks to the chair and to my fellow committee members for taking the time and doing the hard work, along with the staff of the secretariat, who supported our committee to ensure that we were able to meet the time line set by the government.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:41): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings.
I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Ms OWENS: The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 propose four sets of changes to the tax laws. Two of these changes generated stakeholder interest and were pursued by the committee in the inquiry. The first item of interest was the changes to the petroleum resource rent tax, which has been the subject of dispute between Exxon Mobil and the Australian Taxation Office. The dispute revolves around the definition of a marketable petroleum commodity, which affects where the taxing point occurs. The later the taxing point, the more valuable the commodity being taxed.
Since the petroleum resource rent tax is a tax on profits, a later taxing point involves more tax. The issue about these amendments is that they apply back to 1990-91, which raises the question of whether this retrospectivity is warranted. Parliaments do legislate retrospectively from time to time. The important point is that retrospective legislation should be fair and provide certainty. In this case, the committee is confident that this applies. The bills implement the original policy intent, which applied 20 years ago, and reflect how the PRRT has operated since that time, including how Exxon Mobil has lodged its tax returns and paid tax. Further, Treasury provided the committee with a time line of the dispute, which demonstrates that successive governments have consistently interpreted the legislation in this way.
The second aspect to the bills was the changes to tax penalties for company directors for the superannuation guarantee charge, which had been motivated by the activities of phoenix operators. These companies build up debt, become insolvent, liquidate their debts and then continue the business through a new company that will eventually go through the same process. The problem addressed in these bills is that the companies are insolvent partly because they are carrying debts for their staff entitlements, including superannuation. Millions of dollars of employees' superannuation is lost every year through this practice. The ATO is on the record stating that it has insufficient legal powers to enforce the superannuation guarantee charge. Recovering the amounts is also difficult in practice because of the long delay in the ATO becoming aware of the nonpayment.
Phoenix operators enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over their competitors who do the right thing. The crude nature of this business model is reminiscent of the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes of the early 1980s. Broadly, the bills make company directors liable for their company's superannuation guarantee debt. The bills also remove the requirement for the ATO to issue a 21-day director penalty notice before commencing legal action on a company director. The 21-day period is problematic because phoenix operators promptly cause their company to go into voluntary administration shortly after receiving their notice, which prevents the ATO taking further action against them. In general the committee supports these provisions because they take penalties that already successfully apply to the PAYG system and extend them to superannuation. Employers' obligations in relation to super remain the same; what will change is that these obligations will now be more rigorously enforced.
However, at the hearing, business groups expressed concerns about the provisions because they wanted to ensure that honest company directors would not be caught up in them by accident. The committee accepts that directors who act in good faith should have some comfort that they will not be subject to the provisions. The committee recommended that the government investigate whether the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 should specifically better target phoenix operators and whether the defences in the bill should be expanded. Because of the work involved in this the committee has recommended that schedule 3 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011, which contains the phoenixing provisions, should be deleted so that the remainder of the bill may pass and that the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011 should remain pending while the government completes its investigations.
I thank the organisations which assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or participating in the hearing in Canberra. I thank the secretariat, who did some extraordinary work under very short timeframes. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:46): by leave—I rise to speak on the report into the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011. I speak on behalf of the coalition members of this committee. I endorse the comments that were made by the chair in that the secretariat of the committee has worked incredibly hard in a very short space of time to be able to deliver the report and to conduct the inquiry. We do thank them for their work on that.
Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the commissioner's discretion regarding certain income of primary production trusts. The coalition does support schedule 1 of this bill giving the tax commissioner discretion in relation to taxation of income from primary production trusts. I note that this amendment to the tax laws is an amendment which the opposition recommended to the government, and we commend the government for taking up our suggestion and acting in good faith in progressing it. In context, this schedule returns the law to the position prior to the introduction of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It relates to sections 385E, 385F and 385G of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which amongst other things allows primary production trusts to defer taxation liabilities on profits from the sale of livestock in years where they have been affected by drought, flood, fire or disease.
Under the current law, if any beneficiary of a trust dies, then this tax liability cannot continue to be deferred. In effect this means that a primary production trust can be liable for a large and unexpected tax liability in the event of an untimely death. A tax liability is triggered on the death of any beneficiary of the trust regardless of whether the deceased beneficiary is presently entitled to the income from the deferral. This would seem to serve no public policy interest and instead compound personal grief.
Under the previous 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act the Commissioner of Taxation had discretion over whether a death would trigger a tax liability. The change to remove the discretion was made as part of a general limiting of discretion but has led to unforeseen and harsh consequences for family farm enterprises. This change to the taxation law was proposed by the opposition, as I have mentioned before, to correct this. The government has accepted this change as sensible, and, again, we do commend the government for that.
Before moving to schedules 2 and 3, I go to schedule 4 where we are also in agreement with the government. Schedule 4 is a consequential amendment regarding the tax on gaseous fuel. Schedule 4 seeks to clarify the treatment of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), LNG (liquefied natural gas) and CNG (compressed natural gas) following the introduction of the taxation of alternative fuels legislative package, which received royal assent on 29 June 2011. In particular the changes confirm that excise does not apply to CNG for transport use manufactured in a home refuelling unit on a non-commercial scale. It confirms that fuel tax credits are available to distributors of LPG in a wider range of circumstances. It is a clarification which the coalition supports.
I now move onto where the coalition members diverge from the government members on this committee. I turn to schedule 2, the taxing point for the petroleum resource rent tax. The petroleum resource rent tax is a profit-based tax which is levied on petroleum projects, except the North West Shelf project, in Commonwealth waters. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to clarify the taxation point of the existing PRRT regime in two main respects: firstly, in amending the definition of a 'marketable petroleum commodity' and, secondly, in applying that definition retrospectively from 1 July 1990.
The Bass Strait ExxonMobil project is the only project that will be affected by this change. Since the Bass Strait project was brought into the PRRT regime in 1990-91, the taxation point and other matters have been the subject of an ongoing dispute between the Australian Taxation Office and Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd. Earlier this year the Federal Court handed down a judgment in favour of the ATO. The single-judge decision is the subject of an appeal by Esso. A directions hearing of the full Federal Court has been set for the week of 7 November 2011. Before the coalition lost office in 2007, the fiscal position of the government was strong. The coalition left no net debt for the incoming Labor government, having eliminated the $96 billion of net debt it had inherited from the previous Labor government. The coalition instead left a surplus of $20 billion and a $60 billion investment in the Future Fund. In the May budget 2010-2011, the Treasurer announced a deficit of $49.4 billion and net debt of $107 billion. At the time that the Treasurer announced his fourth deficit, he also announced his intention to legislate retrospectively on the disputed taxation point of the PRRT.
The government claims that there will be no fiscal impact if the bill is passed. This is only half correct. Evidence was provided to committee that Esso has been paying the PRRT on a conservative basis while pursuing its dispute with the ATO through the legal process. Esso provided evidence that, if the bill is not passed and they are ultimately successful in their legal appeal, there will be very real fiscal implications for the government—that is, the ATO may be forced to refund up to $323 million of paid tax to Esso. Esso's partner, BHP, would also be entitled to a refund of a similar amount. It concerns the coalition members that the government appears to be interfering in a long-running legal dispute motivated by a need to shore up its fiscal position. The coalition notes that the fiscal position of the government has deteriorated over the last four years due to the government's poor economic management.
It is a longstanding principle in tax law that tax legislation should apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Mr Yasser El-Ansary, Tax Counsel of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, the ICAA, stated in evidence that schedule 2 of the bill:
... threatens the longstanding principle of protecting taxpayers from the need to introduce retrospective tax laws when they have attempted to comply in good faith with the spirit of the law that has been in existence.
Evidence was provided that, while there are some examples of retrospective tax laws, they are unusual and generally fall into one of two categories: first, blatant anti-avoidance cases; and, second, being retrospective only insofar as it applies from the date of announcement rather than the date of enactment.
The Chairman of ExxonMobil, Mr Dashwood, stated in evidence to the committee that schedule 2:
...effectively curtails ongoing litigation between the ATO and Esso. The 2011 budget announcement seeks to reach back 21 years and change the law retrospectively.
Neither the Law Council nor the ICAA could point to an occasion in Australia's recent history where the parliament has sought to pass legislation to amend the law as far back as 21 years.
Another issue raised in evidence was that pertaining to sovereign risk. The Law Council, the Business Council of Australia, the Tax Institute, ICAA and the Australian Institute of Company Directors all provided evidence to the committee that the retrospective nature of the tax change, and the fact that the change goes back 21 years, is unprecedented. A number of organisations and individuals, including the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, also gave evidence and provided submissions that significant retrospective tax laws give rise to sovereign risk concerns.
This evidence is best summarised by Mr Dashwood from Esso, who stated that schedule 2 of the bill:
... disregards consistent advice received by governments past and present about retrospectivity in tax legislation and will damage Australia's international reputation and perceptions of sovereign risk in this country. It may well cause some investors to consider whether Australia is an appropriate destination for the mobile capital, especially at a time when international capital markets are extremely tight.
This, of course, is not the first time that concerns have been raised about sovereign risk and tax legislation. At the recent Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth, the Chief Executive of South African goldminer AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, was the latest business figure to voice concern, stating that Australia is:
... one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
The coalition notes that a perception that Australia is subject to sovereign risk concerns will damage our ability to attract capital investment, thus damaging our economy.
The final point about this schedule that was of concern to the coalition committee members is the fact that there is legal action currently afoot. It is highly unusual for a government to intervene in an ongoing legal dispute when that dispute is in the final stages of appeal. The ICAA argued that the government would be clearly:
... usurp [ing] the role of the judiciary by amending tax laws partway through a major litigation that is seeking to test certain key concepts embedded in the PRRT regime.
The ICAA also noted in its submission:
... the separation of powers as between the legislature and the judiciary is a fundamental doctrine embedded within the constitutional arrangements that underpins the integrity of Australia's governance arrangements. For the most part this separation doctrine has been adhered to by parliaments, the judiciary and the executive for many decades.
In order to protect the separation doctrine, it would be more appropriate for the government to allow the current litigation to be concluded and then to determine what course of action may be appropriate at that point in time. Not allowing the judicial process to reach its natural conclusion is seen by the Institute as an inappropriate interference in due process, which we believe would set a problematic and perilous precedent for further action of a similar nature in the future.
The Business Council of Australia cautioned that such an intervention would create a 'grave precedent'. Given that no explanation has been provided to the committee by the government as to why it has intervened in this way, at this time the coalition shares the concerns that have been expressed.
This leads to our first recommendation in the dissenting report:
The Coalition believes that schedule 2 of the bill violates a long standing principal in tax law, namely that tax laws should, with few exceptions, be prospective rather than retrospective.
The Coalition is concerned that capital investment in Australia may be impacted by sovereign risk concerns as a result of the Bill's retrospective application of the tax law going back 21 years.
Finally, the Coalition believe that the long running legal dispute between Esso and the ATO should be allowed to run its course through the court process.
For the reasons outlined above, the coalition recommends, and we will be moving an amendment, that schedule 2 be removed from the bill.
I now turn to schedule 3, where directors are to be made personally liable for unpaid superannuation and PAYG withholding tax. The coalition members do agree with the government members that fraudulent phoenix activity is abhorrent, as is the deliberate nonpayment of employee superannuation entitlements. The coalition members also agree with government members that the bill as currently drafted may result in unintended consequences and requires further work to address concerns raised by the Council of Small Business of Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors in particular.
For those reasons, the coalition recommends that, until that work has been completed and the concerns satisfied, schedule 3 be removed from the bill to allow the government to address the issues raised by stakeholders. A further schedule can be brought forward when another tax bill comes before the House.
In conclusion, this is the view of the minority: the coalition members on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. Again I place on the record my thanks to the chair and to my fellow committee members for taking the time and doing the hard work, along with the staff of the secretariat, who supported our committee to ensure that we were able to meet the time line set by the government.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:00): I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The Committee, having considered documents presented to Parliament since 13 October 2011, recommends that the following be made Parliamentary Papers:
Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Airservices Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Attorney-General's Department—Report for 2010-11.
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board—Report for 2010-11.
Australia Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Accounting Standards Board—Report for 2010-11, including a correction.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Australian Energy Regulator.
Australian Crime Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Electoral Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Federal Police—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Government Solicitor—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Hearing—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Human Rights Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 2010‑11.
Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 116—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Public Service Commissioner—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Merit Protection Commissioner.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance—Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Sports Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian War Memorial—Report for 2010-11.
Bankruptcy Act 1966—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 2010-11.
Cancer Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Centrelink—Report for 2010-11.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner for Superannuation—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 2010-11.
Crimes Act 1914—Controlled operations—Report for 2010-11.
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Defence—Report for 2010-11—
Volume 1—Department of Defence.
Volume 2—Defence Materiel Organisation.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2010-11—Corrigendum.
Department of Human Services—Report for 2010-11, incorporating reports of the Child Support Agency and CRS Australia.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Infrastructure and Transport—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of IP Australia.
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of Geoscience Australia.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 2010-11.
Department of the Treasury—Report for 2010-11.
Director of National Parks—Report for 2010-11.
Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978—Supervising Scientist's reports on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Family Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand—Report for 2010-11.
Future Fund—Report for 2010-11.
Gene Technology Regulator—Report for 2010-11.
Inspector-General of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
International Air Services Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Medicare Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees—Report for 2010-11.
National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council—Report for 2010‑11.
National Blood Authority—Report for 2010-11.
National Competition Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Film and Sound Archive—Report for 2010-11.
National Gallery of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme—Report for 2010-11.
National Library of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
National Transport Commission—Report for 2010-11.
National Water Commission—Report for 2010-11.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner—Report for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 June 2011, incorporating financial statements for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for the period 1 July to 31 October 2010.
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 2010-11.
Old Parliament House—Report for 2010-11.
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Productivity Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Professional Services Review—Report for 2010-11.
Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Royal Australian Mint—Report for 2010-11.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Comcare—Report for 2010-11.
Screen Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Tax Practitioners Board—Report for 2010-11.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010‑11, including a corrigendum.
Tourism Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Veterans' Review Board—Report for 2010-11.
War Crimes Act 1945—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report and State of the Wet Tropics Report for 2010‑11.
Wine Australia Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
CHRIS HAYES
Chair
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:00): I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The Committee, having considered documents presented to Parliament since 13 October 2011, recommends that the following be made Parliamentary Papers:
Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Airservices Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Attorney-General's Department—Report for 2010-11.
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board—Report for 2010-11.
Australia Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Accounting Standards Board—Report for 2010-11, including a correction.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Australian Energy Regulator.
Australian Crime Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Electoral Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Federal Police—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Government Solicitor—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Hearing—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Human Rights Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 2010‑11.
Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 116—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Public Service Commissioner—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Merit Protection Commissioner.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance—Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Sports Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian War Memorial—Report for 2010-11.
Bankruptcy Act 1966—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 2010-11.
Cancer Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Centrelink—Report for 2010-11.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner for Superannuation—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 2010-11.
Crimes Act 1914—Controlled operations—Report for 2010-11.
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Defence—Report for 2010-11—
Volume 1—Department of Defence.
Volume 2—Defence Materiel Organisation.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2010-11—Corrigendum.
Department of Human Services—Report for 2010-11, incorporating reports of the Child Support Agency and CRS Australia.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Infrastructure and Transport—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of IP Australia.
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of Geoscience Australia.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 2010-11.
Department of the Treasury—Report for 2010-11.
Director of National Parks—Report for 2010-11.
Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978—Supervising Scientist's reports on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Family Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand—Report for 2010-11.
Future Fund—Report for 2010-11.
Gene Technology Regulator—Report for 2010-11.
Inspector-General of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
International Air Services Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Medicare Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees—Report for 2010-11.
National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council—Report for 2010‑11.
National Blood Authority—Report for 2010-11.
National Competition Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Film and Sound Archive—Report for 2010-11.
National Gallery of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme—Report for 2010-11.
National Library of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
National Transport Commission—Report for 2010-11.
National Water Commission—Report for 2010-11.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner—Report for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 June 2011, incorporating financial statements for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for the period 1 July to 31 October 2010.
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 2010-11.
Old Parliament House—Report for 2010-11.
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Productivity Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Professional Services Review—Report for 2010-11.
Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Royal Australian Mint—Report for 2010-11.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Comcare—Report for 2010-11.
Screen Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Tax Practitioners Board—Report for 2010-11.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010‑11, including a corrigendum.
Tourism Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Veterans' Review Board—Report for 2010-11.
War Crimes Act 1945—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report and State of the Wet Tropics Report for 2010‑11.
Wine Australia Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
CHRIS HAYES
Chair
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:00): I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The Committee, having considered documents presented to Parliament since 13 October 2011, recommends that the following be made Parliamentary Papers:
Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Airservices Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Attorney-General's Department—Report for 2010-11.
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board—Report for 2010-11.
Australia Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Accounting Standards Board—Report for 2010-11, including a correction.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Australian Energy Regulator.
Australian Crime Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Electoral Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Federal Police—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Government Solicitor—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Hearing—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Human Rights Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 2010‑11.
Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 116—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Public Service Commissioner—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of the Merit Protection Commissioner.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance—Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Sports Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—Report for 2010-11.
Australian War Memorial—Report for 2010-11.
Bankruptcy Act 1966—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 2010-11.
Cancer Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Centrelink—Report for 2010-11.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner for Superannuation—Report for 2010-11.
Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 2010-11.
Crimes Act 1914—Controlled operations—Report for 2010-11.
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Defence—Report for 2010-11—
Volume 1—Department of Defence.
Volume 2—Defence Materiel Organisation.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2010-11—Corrigendum.
Department of Human Services—Report for 2010-11, incorporating reports of the Child Support Agency and CRS Australia.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Infrastructure and Transport—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of IP Australia.
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism—Report for 2010-11, incorporating the report of Geoscience Australia.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—Report for the period 14 September 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 2010-11.
Department of the Treasury—Report for 2010-11.
Director of National Parks—Report for 2010-11.
Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978—Supervising Scientist's reports on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Fair Work Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Family Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand—Report for 2010-11.
Future Fund—Report for 2010-11.
Gene Technology Regulator—Report for 2010-11.
Inspector-General of Taxation—Report for 2010-11.
International Air Services Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Medicare Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees—Report for 2010-11.
National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council—Report for 2010‑11.
National Blood Authority—Report for 2010-11.
National Competition Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Film and Sound Archive—Report for 2010-11.
National Gallery of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 2010-11.
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme—Report for 2010-11.
National Library of Australia—Report for 2010-11.
National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
National Transport Commission—Report for 2010-11.
National Water Commission—Report for 2010-11.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2010-11.
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner—Report for the period 1 November 2010 to 30 June 2011, incorporating financial statements for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for the period 1 July to 31 October 2010.
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 2010-11.
Old Parliament House—Report for 2010-11.
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11.
Productivity Commission—Report for 2010-11.
Professional Services Review—Report for 2010-11.
Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2010-11.
Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs—Report for 2010-11.
Royal Australian Mint—Report for 2010-11.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Comcare—Report for 2010-11.
Screen Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority—Report for 2010-11.
Tax Practitioners Board—Report for 2010-11.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010‑11, including a corrigendum.
Tourism Australia—Report for 2010-11.
Veterans' Review Board—Report for 2010-11.
War Crimes Act 1945—Report on the operation of the Act for 2010-11.
Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report and State of the Wet Tropics Report for 2010‑11.
Wine Australia Corporation—Report for 2010-11.
CHRIS HAYES
Chair
Report—by leave—agreed to.
BILLS
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:02): Madam Deputy Speaker, these bills—the 11 bills you just read out—were introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday by the government. This happened after the failure of the government to get consensus on the draft bills that were distributed around the community over the last few weeks. The government now are asking us to speak on 11 bills—525 pages of complicated tax legislation—after giving us notice last night at eight o'clock and then to have a considered debate in the people's house. They talked about the new paradigm—a whole new approach—but every time I raise with the Leader of the House the changes that are being made he says, 'The sins of the father should be visited on the son'—that is, 'You did it to us; therefore we're doing it to you.' I will move to adjourn the debate, and I will do so because now is the time, in the wake of the fact that the matter has gone to committee, to have a proper debate about the tax bills. I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question put.
The House divided [11:08]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Ayes 71
Noes 72
Majority 1
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Katter, RC |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Somlyay, AM |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Roxon, NL |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:13): That represents the death blow for the new paradigm—and good on you, let it be noted. The House of Representatives Economics Committee reports on 21 November on these 11 bills of 525 pages. So now, following the carbon tax, the government has yet again confirmed that in this new paradigm—this new parliament that the Independents so obviously talked about—here we go again. I remember that it was the member for Lyne who was urging in committee meetings that in fact the parliament should not have a rushed government agenda and that it should go to committee before the parliament actually makes a decision. But that is okay—hypocrisy be thy name.
The bills have clearly been rushed, and I say so because even this morning the government was downloading parts of the bills on the internet. It still had not actually—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! If we can have members take their seats or leave the chamber—
Mr HOCKEY: Just ignore him, as his electorate will, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government was still downloading parts of the bills and the explanatory memorandums this morning, and now it wants us to have a properly informed debate. Well, let's give it a good shot.
The first two of the 11 bills implement the new minerals resource rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore. The next two bills—the Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011—implement changes to the personal income tax provisions and superannuation. The remaining seven bills deal with administrative and technical issues, which this House will not have the opportunity to properly consider.
The new taxation arrangements for the mining sector will apply from 1 July next year, and there are two elements. The minerals resource rent tax regime will apply to the mining of iron ore and coal in Australia, and the petroleum resource rent tax regime will be extended to all Australian onshore and offshore oil and gas projects, including the North West Shelf. This will capture emerging projects such as converting coal seam gas to LNG. The new taxes will apply to Australia's most important commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas. The government has struggled with a number of variations of this tax to get it right—one of the reasons why we wanted to have a properly informed debate and a proper opportunity to have a look at the 11 bills. But no: this government, with typical undue haste, gets the details wrong. The big, sweeping statements it comes out with are not backed up with attention to detail. This tax in particular has been a salutary lesson in how not to introduce a new tax.
The original proposal for a resource super profits tax emerged from the Henry tax review in May of 2010. Dr Henry recommended a uniform resource rent tax on non-renewable resources, replacing existing state government royalty systems. The government's original RSPT—resource super profits tax—effectively nationalised 40 per cent of the revenue stream from the mining industry. This government nationalised Telstra again, so why would they stop now? They wanted to nationalise 40 per cent of the Australian mining industry. They would take 40 per cent of the superprofits—profits which in their view exceeded the 10-year government bond rate—and wear 40 per cent of the losses. Of particular concern for business was that the tax applied retrospectively in that it applied to existing business operations which had been developed in an environment with no Commonwealth mining tax. The RSPT was estimated to raise $12 billion over the forward estimates. Of course, there were various changes to that during the course of discussions.
There was, as we know, furious opposition, and it proved the last straw for the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. Less than two short months later, he was stabbed in the back by the current Prime Minister, Ms Gillard. The new PM offered the mining industry a truce and fresh negotiations. As it turned out, although we did not know this at the time, this was an olive branch to three major miners in the lead-up to the last election. There were no Treasury officials present. The new minerals resource rent tax was announced just two weeks later, in early July. The announcement was long on rhetoric and actually quite short on detail. In fact, the two-page memo which is the heads of agreement on the minerals resource rent tax is signed by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, the head of BHP, the head of Rio Tinto and the head of Xstrata—no other mining companies and no other agreements. It is unprecedented in the Australian taxation system that there is not even a cabinet decision on this but that a government negotiated an agreement for a multibillion-dollar tax with three players when the tax would apply to the industry. I seek leave to table the heads of agreement.
Leave granted.
Mr HOCKEY: The MRRT applies to fewer minerals and at a lower rate, but it still has retrospective implications. It was estimated to raise $7.7 billion over the same forward estimates as the RSPT, a revenue reduction of $4.3 billion. The smaller miners—the rest of the industry other than the big three—were unhappy, understandably, at not being consulted and believed they were unfairly hit while the big three got off relatively lightly. The government eventually conceded the new tax had not been thought through properly, with the announcement in early September 2010 of a policy transition group to be headed by Don Argus, the former chairman of BHP, to refine the details. The group reported in December 2010, so this is version No. 3 of the mining tax—in fact, version No.4. The first one was what Ken Henry recommended, the second one was what the government announced, the third one was the deal with the mining companies and now we have version No. 4, which the former chairman of BHP is actually engaged in consulting on.
The group reported in December 2010. It made 94 recommendations on the technical design of the new resource tax arrangements. In March this year the government accepted all the recommendations of the group, just showing that the various iterations before were totally flawed as well. In March this year, when the government accepted all the recommendations, they could not get the job done even then, and the government then had to appoint a resource tax implementation group to help with the drafting of the legislation. So there have now been two versions of the draft legislation for the MRRT. One was released in June this year. That version was followed by a revised exposure draft, which was released for comment on 18 September. The government, without notice, then introduced the 11 bills yesterday and expects everyone to sign off on them today. This is a tax that is extraordinarily complicated and fundamentally flawed. The industry, from the big companies to those that can least afford it, is being burdened with considerable costs in having to implement new internal systems to identify and record expenditure in order to ensure compliance. Planning for this new tax—whether with the assistance of external consultants or the redeployment of existing personnel—will be immensely expensive.
Let us deal with the bills before the House. After all this time we would have expected that the design of the tax would be settled and the industry would understand it. But there remains furious opposition. Taxpayers with amounts of MRRT assessable profits—that is, $50 million per annum—will be excluded from the MRRT. The MRRT will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. New investment will be allowed to be written off immediately rather than depreciated over a number of years. A project will not pay any MRRT until it has made enough profit to pay off its up-front investment. The MRRT will carry forward unutilised losses at the government long-term bond rate plus seven per cent. It will provide transferability of deductions. This supports mine development, arguably, because it means the taxpayer can use the deductions that flow from investments in the construction phase of a project to offset the MRRT liability from another of its projects that is in the production phase.
The MRRT will provide a full credit for state mining royalties. That was a point of disagreement after the heads of agreement, which was signed by the three ministers together with the three heads of the mining companies. There was a dispute about whether state mining royalties would be credited in full. Western Australia was the first to move, removing the discount for iron ore fines and therefore increasing their royalties. In its last budget New South Wales also moved to increase royalties. The net cost of that is $3 billion over the forward estimates. That is $3 billion that immediately comes off the bottom line of the MRRT.
The MRRT will provide recognition of past investments through a credit that recognises the market value of that investment. It is written down over up to 25 years. It will recognise the particular characteristics of different commodities by applying a taxing point close to the point of extraction and using appropriate pricing arrangements. It will provide a 25 per cent extraction allowance to recognise the value add and capital that mining companies bring to mineral extraction.
As you can see, it is a complicated tax. It is quite unlike other taxes such as income tax or GST. Those taxes are based on the activities of the company as a whole. The accounts of the company form the starting basis for working out the particular tax liability. Contrast that with the MRRT. It taxes profits from a part of the entity's operations, from mining projects that the entity carries on. There will be increased accounting administration, therefore increased costs to businesses, in measuring results at the project level. Resources put to use more productively will have to be deployed in dealing with this complexity. It will add to the cost of mining in Australia.
The Assistant Treasurer's second reading speech stated that the package of bills was 'developed in partnership with the resources sector', that being just three miners. It went on to say the package 'is a direct result of the strong cooperation of industry in the legislative process'. Fair dinkum—this is just spin and gross exaggeration. Take one example. Since the first material was released by the government, the mining industry has been concerned that the complex tax—which requires the application of novel concepts and principles in working out the liability—will mean the miner is faced with uncertainty in calculating the liability. So, when the government appointed the policy transition group chaired by Don Argus, it recommended that in developing the explanatory memorandum to the MRRT bill—which by the way was still being downloaded on the internet this morning—the drafters should provide clear explanations and examples.
The Minerals Council of Australia felt strongly about the need for certainty. In their submissions on both the first and second exposure drafts, the MCA asked that it be made clear in the bill that the explanatory materials and examples should be taken into account to confirm the meaning and interpretation of the legislation. They also wanted the minister's second reading speech to highlight the importance of the explanatory material to the interpretive process. So, despite the Assistant Treasurer's lofty claims about a partnership, the industry itself—even those that signed the heads of agreement—obviously has concerns about the process.
We also now have details of the petroleum resource rent tax changes for the first time, even though the tax has been in place from 1 July 1987. It will be extended to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore, at a tax rate of 40 per cent. There is a range of uplift allowances for unutilised losses and capital write-offs and immediate expensing is available for all expenditure. All state and federal resource taxes will be creditable against current and future PRRT liabilities from a project. You do not win a game by hampering your best performing player with a bad and complicated tax like this. The mining sector is important for Australia's prosperity. It is an industry in which Australia has an international comparative advantage. It employs directly 224,000 Australians, and most of these are in regional areas. In 2010 it accounted for 40 per cent of all business investment in Australia, and that is rising dramatically. The sector is a major driver of growth.
The rules of the game have been changed by the government, and Australia is competing for scarce capital and jobs in a world market. There are plenty of countries seeking to develop their mining sectors—from Brazil, Chile and Canada right through to a number of very poor countries in Africa and Asia—so there is an additional element of sovereign risk associated with these bills. But, more importantly, this illustrates the government's incompetence in making a decision.
We have had numerous versions and numerous drafts and then, when the legislation finally gets to the House, we have less than 24 hours to consider 11 new bills. No wonder the chief executive of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti said on 26 October at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth that Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
He said that about our country.
The constant changes and confusion on this tax have made international investors more wary of investing in Australia. Of course, the biggest driver of investment in Australia, the biggest pipeline of investment in Australia, is the mining sector, and the head of one of the biggest mining companies in the world identifies inconsistency in demonstrated behaviour in terms of tax policy as one of the reasons there is sovereign risk in investing in Australia.
This is a bad tax. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth and retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia in global competition for scarce capital and jobs. And at a time of heightened global uncertainty this is precisely the wrong time to introduce a complicated tax. There have now been four different sets of projections of revenue from the mining tax. The offsetting expenditures as identified in a Senate report are going to create a black hole. This tax will not raise the money that the government is claiming. It will not raise the money! And yet the government claim to have offsetting expenditure. The offsetting expenditure will grow when this tax fails to deliver the revenue that they claim.
The bottom line for Australia is that this tax not only creates a black hole for the Australian mining industry but is going to create a black hole in the budget—and it is all going to be the responsibility of the Labor Party and the Independents. (Time expired)
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (11:32): I have known the member for North Sydney for a long time. We were both elected to this place in 1996. He is a nice guy. I have never seen him so angry. I ask myself, 'Why is the member for North Sydney so angry?' It is simply because he knows that this tax is right, he knows that this is a good tax and he knows that this is a well-designed tax. But, more importantly, he knows that this is a tax which enjoys the support of the Australian community. That is his concern.
He talks about sovereign risk, yet never has the investment pipeline for the mining industry in this country been so strong. In my own electorate of Hunter the debate is not about how we attract more mining investment, it is about how we put a brake on mining investment. There are many in my communities who are concerned that we have too much mining in the Hunter Valley, with all the implications that has for air and water quality and many other issues.
This is the right thing to do. This represents a set of bills which has been agreed between the government and the mining industry after months and months of consultation and, after that, agreement. The member for North Sydney would have the House—and anyone listening to this debate—believe that we are rushing bills into this place that have not been duly considered and which have not been considered properly by the opposition. That is not true. They need no more time on this issue. They have had plenty of time on this issue, and it is time we got on with the debate. Forget about the stunts, like the one we got from the member for North Sydney. It is time we got this important legislation through both this place and the Senate.
These bills not only enjoy my support, I am very confident that they are supported by the people who make up the communities in my electorate. My communities are welcoming of the mining industry. The mining industry has brought great wealth to the Hunter Valley. It has raised average incomes and it has spawned many mining support industries around it. Many of my constituents have enjoyed standards of living they could only have dreamed of were it not for the mining industry. Many of my constituents know that their children have a bright future because of the existence of the mining industry in my electorate, and they are not going to be conned by people like the member for North Sydney. They are never going to be persuaded, because they live with it. Many of them work in the industry. They understand the industry. They are not going to be persuaded that this tax is going to be the ruin of the mining industry.
They believe—and I have consulted widely—it is only fair and right when companies are enjoying super profits as a result of higher coal prices and commodity prices more generally that, given that they are a community owned resource, a greater dividend of that production comes back to the broader Australian community, including, of course, mining communities.
As I said, the mining industry is welcome in the Hunter but it does bring some negatives. I mentioned air and water quality. By definition I should also mention that flowing from that are potential threats to industries that have sustained us for a couple of hundred years and, hopefully, will sustain us for thousands of years into the future if we protect them properly. Mining brings road congestion. It brings an inability to find child care. It brings capacity constraints in housing. If you go to Woolworths in the town of Singleton in my electorate, you will find that you will pay maybe 10 per cent more—I am making the figure up; I must admit I forget exactly what it is—on average for your goods than you would pay in Cessnock, for example, which is half an hour down the road. Why? Because of the existence of the mining industry. The supermarket chains move to the price signal. They will charge for their goods what they believe the market can sustain.
The mining boom is not all good news. While that price difference does not cause a lot of pain for those working in the mining industry, who can afford it, it does cause pain for people who do not work in the mining industry and do not enjoy the high salaries which flow from it. It does not help pensioners, for example, on fixed incomes—as much as this government has done to help them in recent years. They do not enjoy the benefits of the mining industry but they still suffer the congestion, the implications for air and water quality, and the high prices that companies are able to charge for retail goods as a result of the high average wages in that industry.
So it is not all good. My communities say, 'Well, if these guys are making superprofits from resources which, at the end of the day, we own, some of that dividend should come back to us.' Not too many of my constituents will understand the complexities of the tax, but I do not think they have any doubt whatsoever in their minds that the government is sensible enough to make sure this initiative is not going to have severe adverse impacts on the industry. They know, and they read about it all the time, how many mining companies are currently knocking on the doors of the Hunter shire councils, the state government and others looking to either establish new mines or to expand existing mines—notwithstanding the fact that the mining companies, at least some of whom, after all, have been involved in these negotiations, are fully cognisant of the fact that the supertax on mining is coming.
How are we going to use this tax to spread the bounty amongst the broader community? It is very simple, and it has been spoken of already this morning. We are going to use it as an opportunity to finally increase superannuation contributions, from nine per cent to 12 per cent—something which is absolutely necessary. This is not just part of a wish list. We know the Australian demographics, we are familiar with the ageing of the population and we know the constraints and pressures that are going to be put on the transfer system in the future. We need to reassure ourselves that, in the future, people will have a proper level of retirement income saved. It is a very important and necessary initiative.
We will of course provide significant tax cuts for small business, the primary employer of people in this country. As a former shadow minister for small business and a former small business person myself, I know all the challenges small businesses face, but I also know how important they are to the Australian economy. This is a very important and good initiative for small business.
Very importantly for me—and I know for you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird—is the way in which this tax will return some of that bounty to mining communities themselves by way of community and economic infrastructure, so critical for all the reasons I have just articulated. When you have a mining boom in your community, despite all the benefits, there are some adverse effects. Road congestion is one of them and the ever-increasing rate of coal rail traffic is another. In my electorate, we have a very long list—as I am sure you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—of infrastructure projects which in reality could never hope to receive the sort of investment from government that is needed to knock them over.
In my electorate, we have projects like the Muswellbrook bypass, the Singleton bypass and a number of black spots along the New England Highway. In Scone we have the ridiculous situation where people are having to wait up to eight minutes to continue their drive through the main street because of the level railway crossing there. Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a town being cut in half for eight minutes because of the passage of a coal train? That is unacceptable in convenience terms and unacceptable in economic transport terms, but it is also unacceptable in safety terms. We need between $20 million and $30 million for an overpass on that site so that the vehicle traffic is not disrupted. There could be no more perfect an example of an infrastructure problem being created by the mining boom than that. The coal trains are getting more regular and much longer, and cutting off that road for a much greater period of time.
This is a problem directly caused by the coal boom in the Hunter. So it makes absolute sense to take this new tax initiative and use that money to invest in that rail overpass, and there are many similar examples in my electorate. Broke Road, which runs through Hunter wine country—the jewel in the tourism crown of the Hunter Valley—is the worst road in the Hunter Valley. It is frequented by miners travelling to work each day. Undoubtedly, the mining traffic on the road is even heavier than the tourism traffic, given it is a seven-day thing. No doubt that mining traffic is largely responsible for the state of that road. No-one seems to have the money to fix the problem. That is another example of a problem directly created by the mining boom, by the traffic caused by the mining boom, a good example of an infrastructure project which now will stand a much greater chance of being funded as a result of our decision to ensure that, when the mining companies are making huge superprofits because of high coal prices, the local communities—who, yes, benefit, but also have to put up with the negatives which flow—get some relief by sharing in the bounty of those high coal prices. This is not rocket science and that is why people in my communities support this tax. The opposition has a bit of explaining to do. The opposition has to explain to the Australian community why they should not be receiving these benefits. I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions and I have had guarantees from the responsible ministers that, like your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, my electorate will receive its proportionate share of the dividends which flow from this tax. At the next election, the coalition—no doubt represented by the National Party in my electorate—will have to explain to my communities why that money should not be returned to the communities from which it comes. That is the explanation they will need to have ready for my constituents and, no doubt, constituents in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to say one last thing. I want to talk about other threats to this initiative. There is the big threat on the other side from those who are going to deny this, cosy up to the coalmining companies, let them make their super profits and deny the Australian community their share, but there is another threat and it is called the New South Wales government. Critical to this arrangement is an agreement that the states will be rebated on the royalties they would have received as a result of their old system and that they would not seek to further increase those royalties. Surprise, surprise—and I think the same is the case in Western Australia—New South Wales has reneged on that deal, which means that we will have to rebate them more money for the increase in royalties they would have received as a result of the decision to increase their royalties. What does that mean? That means that we are giving more back to the state government and we have less money to share the wealth with communities, including mine and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. This can become very complex but it is also very simple.
People who live in my electorate can do two things: they can give more and more royalties from their resource to Barry O'Farrell so he can spend the funds on roads in western Sydney or they can pay less in royalties to Barry O'Farrell and let us retain more of the tax which flows from this initiative so that we can spend the money on infrastructure in the Hunter Valley. It is a really simple thing, as complex as the arrangements are. Barry O'Farrell can collect more royalties so he can spend the funds in Sydney or he can keep his royalties where they are and get rebated that amount from us and we will have what we should have, having collected the wealth from the Hunter community—more money to spend in Hunter communities. That is another thing that those who sit opposite will have to explain. I have no doubt that those who sit opposite are talking to Barry O'Farrell because they do not want this to happen. You have seen it today. They will run interference on this at every opportunity, which takes me back to where I began: why? Because they know this is a good initiative which is supported by the Australian community. (Time expired)
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (11:48): Unfortunately, 15 minutes is not enough time to go into all of the flaws in these bills, but I will do my best. I will just comment on some of the misguided statements of the member for Hunter where he thinks that this tax is going to deliver the infrastructure that he needs in his area. I can assure him that, regarding his share of this tax on a proportional basis—and there is a fix to this, which I will come to—he would be lucky to see a couple of hundred thousand dollars going to infrastructure in his area. The last time I looked, they were suggesting only a couple of billion dollars to states like Queensland and Western Australia. You need to consider that the most needed piece of infrastructure in Australia is the Toowoomba range crossing. He talks about eight minutes to get through a level crossing. I have trucks that wait twice that time trying to get across the main street of Toowoomba because the Labor government continues to defy the need for that range crossing. That range crossing alone would cost $2 billion. So do not try and create the impression that the MRRT is just going to be like some magic pudding that will spray money for infrastructure across Australia.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The way to fund infrastructure in Australia is to stop spending money on stuff that is completely wasted, like pink batts.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Like your schools.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The member for Hunter knows—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms S Bird ): The member for Groom has the call. The member for Hunter will cease interjecting. The member for Hunter will recognise that he was not interrupted.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: I will leave the member for Hunter to contemplate on all of that. As I said, I rise to speak on a package of bills that must have the distinction of being one of the most poorly designed and economically destroying policies that this government has ever put forward. I know that is an extraordinary statement and I know we have considered a range of policy missteps, clunkers, absolute disasters and complete wastes of money by this government, whether we are talking about the school hall program, where a couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether in overcharging by contractors, never to be challenged by the government, or the pink batts program, where another couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether. As one of my constituents found out this week, she will have her insulation removed but, of course, nothing will be put in its place. What are they going to do with it? They are going to take it down to the dump and bury it—along with all the money it cost to put it in. There is complete loss of control of the Green Loans program and the photovoltaic program. If we talk about losing control, the issue of the country's borders goes to the top of the list.
I said earlier this week that the Labor government, under its current leader and under its former leader the member for Griffith—perhaps its future leader—has an appalling record on energy and resources policies, and there is no better example of that than the MRRT. It is not something we should be flippant about, given the significance of the energy and resources sector to the Australian economy. I was looking forward to hearing the Treasurer explain in here today his rationale for introducing this highly destructive and deeply flawed minerals resource rent tax. I particularly wanted to hear his justification for using the resource sector as a cash cow to cover the reckless spending that has characterised the Labor government for the entire time the member for Lilley has been in the Treasurer's seat. I also wanted to hear how the government would justify putting forward a package that is little more than a pre-election quick-fix from a government that is desperate to cling to power regardless of the consequences for small and medium sized resource miners.
Alas, circumstances intervened and the Treasurer had to pass the job to someone else because, we are told, he has lost his voice. I too would lose my voice if I were presenting this sort of rubbish as the Treasurer of Australia. In a Freudian set of circumstances if ever there was, perhaps the Treasurer just could not face the thought of coming before this place and presenting, with a straight face, such a disastrous policy. Not to worry: as we know, the Assistant Treasurer is up for any job that gets his hands dirty or his face on television, and he has been publicly proving that since the middle of last year. The MRRT is not the fine piece of fiscal policy that the government would have us believe. It is rushed, reckless, incomplete and an unworthy successor to what was easily the worst piece of policy ever put forward by this government, the resource super profits tax. In its original version—as so passionately argued by the Treasurer and the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Griffith, when he was Prime Minister—the RSPT was a truly destructive version of this tax. It would have undermined Australia's sovereign risk profile and discouraged investment even more than this tax—and that is really saying something. The biggest flaws in the MRRT are a result of the fact that it was hastily slapped together in the days after the current Prime Minister ousted the member for Griffith with the single objective of scoring a quick political fix with no consideration of the economic or sovereign risk issues associated with it. As a result, the bigger mining companies, particularly BHP Billiton, Rio and Xstrata, were able to press their advantage to get a result that suited them but did not necessarily suit the mid-cap and smaller miners who had absolutely no say in the formation of this legislation. Those junior miners have been left out altogether and, from the feedback I have received and what I have observed of the Policy Transition Group, the government has not even come close to addressing those problems. That is not to denigrate the work of the Policy Transition Group or to question their sincerity, but the fact remains that more than a year after the first resources tax was proposed the wider resource industry is still facing uncertainty and the threat of being disadvantaged relative to international competitors. That position is reaffirmed by the meetings I have had in recent days.
That is not the worst flaw—and there are so many. As I say, I feel like moving for an extension of time, but I shall not. The biggest problem with the MRRT is that it builds a structural deficit into the budget of Australia. I know that those who sit opposite are promising a surplus; I know those opposite who have never delivered a surplus are saying that they can manage the risk. The best brains in the resources industry cannot tell you what the value of the dollar and the value of iron ore will be in two years time, let alone four years time, which has to be calculated so that the government can calculate the return that it is going to get from the MRRT. If you want to know whether that is backed up by the government's own actions, you need look no further than the fact that originally the government said that this tax would return around $12 billion. The Treasurer pulled out all stops to convince us in his pre-election backflip on the MRRT that it shaved off only $1.5 billion before conceding that it was slashed by $7.5 billion. But, of course, as we all know, it later emerged that his change of position on the original super profits tax cost $100 billion. I know when I speak in this House in billions those on the other side wave it away, because a billion dollars to them is nothing. It is the sort of money they can waste in a week on one of their programs, but this is serious money. Moving closer to the here and now, we were told after the election that revenue could be less than $5 billion and then Treasury revealed in February that revenue from the MRRT would be $17 billion over a three-year period, but now we know it is estimated to be only $11.1 billion.
The impact on the budget will be devastating because not only can the government not produce a surplus budget under current circumstances but with the sort of volatility that we are seeing in the market at the moment we are going to see the budget surpluses not taken seriously. The predictions of budget surpluses by the current Treasurer are not taken seriously, but no financial house will have any confidence in their predictions. What we are seeing is Magic Pudding economics. There is no better example of that than a budget set on the iron ore price of three or four weeks ago, which was about US$180 a tonne. That price today is US$120 a tonne. No-one knows whether it is going to $150, which would be its natural balance point, or whether it will drop further. When you consider that when the price of iron ore drops from $180 to $120 the profit a company is making is cut in half—and probably more for some companies—it is impossible to use the MRRT in the calculations associated with it with any degree of certainty.
The other issue is our sovereign risk profile, and the international investment community looks in sheer wonder and amazement at what this government is doing to our country. We first had a complete reversal of a set policy position that had stood for 20 years on condensate tax, agreed to by the Labor Party, but it was so desperate for money it changed that. Then we had a decision to introduce a carbon trading scheme and then it changed its mind on that. Then we had the pledge that there would never be a carbon tax under a government led by the current Prime Minister and, of course, she changed her mind on that. We had the introduction in May last year of the RSPT, and all the reasons for that, and then it changed its mind again in July.
The end result is that the view overseas is that this government does not know what it is doing and it does not know how to position the resource industry to make sure it is internationally competitive. And guess what—we agree with them, and so does Australia. We think this government is a complete joke, an absolute shambles. It cannot put a position in place which it can actually hold for more than six months and where it can give the investment community any sort of confidence at all that it knows what it is doing. Then we get this rubbish that the member for Hunter comes up with about how this money is going to be returned to the community. Complete rubbish!
Western Australia, if the Treasurer's figures are right, will contribute about $8 billion to this tax and, if they are really lucky and they behave themselves and they do not put up their royalties and they do not do this and they do not do that, they may get back about 10 per cent of that for their infrastructure—$1 billion, maybe $2 billion, if they are really lucky. What a joke. This is a con.
This government are pretending that by introducing a new tax people are going to be better off. They are a tax-and-spend government who have never been able to manage money, who do not understand how the basic principles of commercialism work and who want to think that they can introduce a tax and pretend that they are going to return it all to the people, when we know that this money is not going to go into superannuation. The employers have to pay that. The government have to pay some superannuation for their Commonwealth employees, but it is certainly not going to be $11 billion.
What we know is that this bad tax, this tax which is going to affect so severely Australia's competitiveness in the resources sector, its place in the investment community in the world and the view that investors take in Australia is simply that—a tax. It is not a superprofits tax, because they have not applied it to all industry, and it is not just coal and iron ore that make superprofits, if that is the way they want to term making a profit in a good year. I remember when the industry did not make a cracker. What are they going to do then—call it a superloss tax? Probably.
The government do not apply it to other sectors of the economic community. They do not have the guts to try and use this rationale on a few of the other sectors. I am not going to start rabbit racing by suggesting that they are considering other areas, but we know that they are considering other commodities. They know the people who actually have control of this government, the Greens, are suggesting that there be a change in the MRRT even before it is introduced and that they expand the commodity grab. If I can be sure of one thing, it is that this government will find more ways to tax more parts of the resources sector because they need more money to plug their black holes.
In the last few days, of course, we have seen the bewildering prospect of each of the Independents—and good luck to them; they have to take their opportunities when they come—going in for their pound of flesh. It is $100 million, $200 million, $300 million and $400 million here and there. It is this research station and that concept. What do we have? No-one in the industry now knows where this is going to finish up. Are the government going to move amendments to this legislation before it passes the House? We do not know. Are they going to support amendments put forward by the Independents? We do not know. Australia does not know what is doing and, as I said earlier, this tax not only is poorly thought through but is giving Australia an international reputation of being run by a shambles of a government.
In conclusion, can I just say that the resources sector has been forced to wait too long for any degree of certainty, remembering that it is now a year since this tax was originally proposed, firstly by former Prime Minister Rudd and then amended by Prime Minister Gillard. This level of uncertainty has unacceptable impacts on Australia's sovereign risk profile and our international competitiveness. This is a bad tax. We will oppose it in opposition and we will rescind it in government.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:03): I thought that the member for Groom would have been tempted to apply for an extension of time so that he could concentrate on speaking on the minerals resource rent tax legislation before us. That was probably the only thing he did not concentrate on. I hope I can assist his contribution, and I firstly indicate that I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is legislation clearly designed to address Australia's current patchwork economy. I know that phrase rolls off the tongues of all of those opposite. They talk about a patchwork economy and a two-speed economy et cetera. That is fine as rhetoric, but sooner or later it falls to us to do something to address this issue.
These bills are designed to encourage industry, investment and development, to assist small business and to promote national savings by locking in the benefits of the mining boom and also paving the way for increases in the superannuation guarantee. Superannuation can be increased, thereby providing a more realistic retirement income for Australians. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, the benefits of the mining boom, as you would appreciate in your own electorate, are not evenly spread throughout the economy and are certainly not evenly spread throughout our respective communities.
In what could be seen as a once-in-a-lifetime mining boom, which we are now experiencing, resources companies are competing for skilled labour across the globe at a time when in this country we have very low unemployment. That in itself is creating significant pressures. Clearly these companies are in a position to provide generous wages and conditions well beyond the capacity of most other sectors in the economy. I know that firsthand. My youngest son, Nicholas, has spent some time working both in Blackwater in Queensland and in Port Hedland. I am certainly aware of what he was paid there, having helped him to do his tax returns, and I can assure members that, compared to what a 25-year-old earns in the mining industry—and no doubt they work very hard there—a politician's salary pales into insignificance.
As I said, they do work hard and good luck to them. My son is there as an electrician. He works cheek to jowl with other electricians not only from Sydney and where we live but from Launceston and South Australia. All of those young people are up there. That is why you would probably struggle—and people in the gallery would probably know this—to get someone to put an electric light pole or a power point in. It is because under this patchwork economy we are competing for those skills throughout our economy. That is the patchwork nature of the economy that we are now operating under. As a consequence, there are many businesses outside the resources sector that are struggling to attract and retain skilled labour.
I also note that there are many households across the country that do not see the benefits from the mining boom and which are struggling to keep their heads above water given the cost of housing, paying a mortgage and raising and providing for a family in today's environment. The government does not want to slow the mining industry, but the challenge is to ensure that the benefits of this boom do not simply leave our shores as excess profit for the benefit of foreign owners of our largest companies. Clearly the challenge is to ensure that there is an overall collective benefit for all Australians from Australia's mineral wealth. I do emphasise that this is wealth that is owned by all Australians.
The minerals resource rent tax is an opportunity to deliver tax breaks for small business and to provide them with the assistance and incentive they need to develop their enterprises. We know that through their diverse small businesses there will be sustainable employment, because they are the driving force for employment in this country, and it is through small business that we will see sustainable employment—not, quite frankly, through the ebbs and flows of the mining and resources industry.
This tax will also help us to fund the critical infrastructure development that the member for Hunter was talking about. That in itself will assist in enhancing the economic productivity of our nation, particularly through streamlining structures such as port facilities, export facilities and those things which will go to enhance the nation's productive capacity not only now but into the future.
This tax also paves the way to build on the superannuation guarantee by increasing superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent, which will be transitioned over the next decade, enabling more Australians to better enjoy a retirement income in their senior years and increasing the pool of national savings in superannuation by $500 billion by the year 2035, from $1.3 trillion as it stands at the moment. This money can be invested in capital and social infrastructure to benefit all Australians.
We on this side of the House are very proud to be further enhancing superannuation; after all, it was a Labor government back in 1984 that took the first steps and allowed award based superannuation to be developed. Those members of the House who, like me, have grey hair, might recall that the union movement forwent wage increases at that stage to productivity increases to enhance superannuation development through award based superannuation and then in 1988 the superannuation guarantee came into effect and applied to all Australians. This is something that we on this side of the House are proud of.
For those Australians on low incomes or working part time, many of whom are below the tax-free threshold, this will enable their superannuation contributions to be made effectively on a tax-free basis, not providing the 15 per cent entry fee for superannuation contributions and therefore providing a much fairer taxation and superannuation benefit for them.
The MRRT is a tax on profit. It is not a tax based on commodity price, size of a mine, or the actual extraction of ore. It is a tax on the profit that is made by a particular mining project. And it is important to note that the MRRT is not a tax on operating costs but one that applies to the net profit from mines that have an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million. It seems to me that we are talking about major companies if we are talking about after-tax profit, to be divided amongst shareholders, of $50 million. Further, the MRRT will not apply to the mining industry in general. It will be levied only on the major iron ore and coal projects that enjoy an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million.
It is important also to note the objective and independent assessments of the value of the MRRT to the Australian people. For instance, the OECD in its 2010 economic survey of Australia said:
The proposed Mining Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) on coal and iron ore operations, along with the extension of the Petroleum Rent Resource Tax, are justified on both equity and efficiency grounds.
It goes on to say:
This Resource Rent Tax is more efficient than the current royalties system, as it raises taxation on finite and immobile resources.
It concludes by saying:
This will improve the efficiency in the resource sector.
Economic commentator Saul Eslake, who I understand is these days at the Grattan Institute, said in relation to the principles of resource rent tax:
The return to Australian people from the exploitation of mineral and energy resources should be based on the profits derived from the extraction and sale of those resources, rather than on the volume of resource production—is one that I and most other Economists strongly support.
The minerals resource rent tax was developed in consultation with the industry. Those major companies that will be paying the tax were engaged in the discussion and have acknowledged their capacity to make a greater contribution to this country.
Despite the objective and authoritative positions and assessments of the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and most mainstream economic commentators, the Leader of the Opposition's position is that he will oppose this legislation and, if given the opportunity to occupy the treasury bench, will get rid of it. He will turn it over.
Mr Champion: Give the miners a tax cut.
Mr HAYES: Yes, give the miners a tax cut. Give it back. In doing so, the Leader of the Opposition and his party will be not only squandering the potential benefits to the Australian people of this once in a lifetime boom but also turning their backs on small businesses and destroying the hopes of 8.4 million Australians who are seeking to have better opportunities in their retirement. Once again he is happy to put politics ahead of the community, and he maintains his rhetoric that the MRRT would force the likes of BHP Billiton and Rio to close their projects in Australia, to vacate to South America or other places, despite the enormous investment programs currently underway by those very companies. Despite making all that rhetoric and playing it out in the popular media, you might recall that it was not all that long ago that a Western Australian Liberal government decided without notice to unilaterally increase the mining royalties on the iron ore industry. You would expect at least some protestation about that. There was not even a peep. There was not one line of criticism from Mr Abbott and his supporters. It was okay to raise revenues over there but not to raise revenues on the basis of doing something for the Australian people. That is a different issue.
In contrast to the Liberal Party, the Gillard government will be locking in the benefits of the mining boom for all Australians, including the less economically fortunate Australians. They will see that they have a government that is prepared to invest not only in this nation but in this nation's people. The Leader of the Opposition and those at the table have the opportunity to explain why it is that the Liberal Party is lining up with some of the richest companies in the world instead of the Australian people, who see that their resources are being dug up and shipped overseas for foreign companies' enhanced profit. This is about doing something to ensure that those excess profits are redistributed through our economy to make sure that we do address the issue of the patchwork economy.
This is not for people to come into this place and simply wax on about a two-speed patchwork economy and multispeed drivers in the economy. This is a matter of people coming in here with an ability to do something about it. This Labor government is standing up and doing something about it. I commend this legislation to the House.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): As a proud Western Australian I am an avowed supporter of the mining industry in Australia because of the enormous benefits that flow through our economy and the boost that it gives to our overall prosperity. But those in the government cannot make that claim, as they seek to impose an unfair, complex, divisive, fiscally irresponsible and distorting tax that will reduce our international competitiveness and cost jobs and which has been developed through a deeply flawed and improper process.
Government members are talking of the success of the mining industry but in terms of the problem that it is causing for Australia in creating a patchwork economy. The government appears blind to the obvious threat of a recession in the Australian economy were it not for the mining industry. Our mining industry is critical for our nation's success but only if it can remain competitive against other great mining nations.
The story of mining in Australia is the story of achievement, rising national prosperity, development, opportunity and jobs. That is why I am opposed to any measures that would cripple our mining industry. The talk from the government is all doom and gloom, lamenting the impact of the mining sector on other areas of the economy, particularly manufacturing, and acting as if we have previously lived in a one-speed economy. With the unions and the government's coalition partner the Greens reverting to protectionist rhetoric, I fear that the old socialist mindset is creeping back into the national debate as Labor seeks ways to soak money out of the most productive part of the economy.
The coalition are opposed to the mining tax. Rather than adding cost burdens to the mining sector, we believe that it should be as internationally competitive as possible because we recognise that in a global economy capital can easily move to countries where the rate of return is the greatest. The buyers of our commodities have alternatives. Other countries have or are developing mining sectors that could well rival ours. The development of Asia's great economies explains the level of investment we are currently witnessing in the sector. The strong growth in mining investment over the last decade has reached its highest level in history. The huge demand for Australia's mineral commodities in 2009 increased mining investment to above four per cent of GDP, around eight times its share just 50 years ago.
Australia is currently enjoying the best terms of trade in 140 years on the back of high commodity prices and strong levels of demand, yet still this government cannot manage the budget. They have an appalling fiscal record of a cumulative total of $150 billion in budget deficits over the past four years; in other words, they have spent $150 billion more than they have raised in revenue at a time of record terms of trade. That means that they are entirely dependent upon the strength of the Asian economies, particularly China and India, to continue to drive Australia's economic growth. That cannot be taken for granted. As the dark clouds continue to gather on the global economic horizon, this government is putting in place one of the most burdensome tax regimes in the world on our most productive sector.
The government likes to take credit for Australia's enviable position in the world economy, but it fails to acknowledge that it is derived in large part from our reputation as a safe, reliable exporter of mineral resources and energy. We are a world leader in the export of black coal and iron ore. In 2009 Australia's mineral resources sector contributed close to $160 billion to export earnings. This is compared to around $36 billion for the rural sector and $38 billion for manufacturing. During that period the sector accounted for eight per cent of Australia's gross national product. According to the Minerals Council of Australia, mining companies contributed more than $7 billion in royalties as part of $21 billion paid in state and federal taxes in that year alone.
Mining companies have invested more than $125 billion in Australia over the last decade, including in new capital, exploration, and research and development. Today the mining sector is responsible for the direct employment of over 180,000 people and almost 600,000 people benefit through indirect employment in support industries. As Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens recently highlighted, there is positive spillover from the mining sector to other parts of the Australian economy. He said:
… beyond the benefits being experienced by equipment hire, engineering, surveying and consulting firms, businesses as diverse as those supplying modular housing, laboratory services and the training of semi-skilled, trade and other workers are seeing effects of the expansion.
There are also thousands of additional jobs in broader sections of the service economy, including retail. Since 2007, many of the challenges facing Australia and the mining sector have come from the federal government, first under Prime Minister Rudd and now under Prime Minister Gillard. The superprofits tax announced last year would have had a massive impact on Australia's international competitiveness, and it hit hard our reputation as a safe investment haven. The way the tax was announced and the way it was allegedly sold to the public made it clear that this government just does not get mining; it just does not get the Australian economy. From publicly deriding mining companies as being foreign owned and ripping off taxpayers, to claiming that mining companies only pay minimal tax—and they relied on a student paper from an American university to make that claim rather than the actual tax paid according to the Australian tax office—this was evidence of a government with absolutely no understanding of a vital element of the Australian economy.
On 23 June last year—and the member for Mackellar, who is at the table, will remember that date well—I referred in question time to the comments of the Chief Executive Officer of the Mining Association of Canada, who had called Prime Minister Rudd the mining man of the year in Canada because he would bring a lot of investment their way, and I asked the then Prime Minister if he intended picking up his award when he was in Toronto the following week for the G20 meeting. Well, that was the very last question that I ever got to ask Prime Minister Rudd, for that very night the forces of darkness moved against him—the faceless men of the Labor Party staged a midnight coup. But it does appear as if history is about to repeat itself.
Having unceremoniously removed Prime Minister Rudd from office because of his failures over the superprofits tax, amongst other things, the Gillard government is now seeking to implement an even worse tax, based on the deeply flawed agreement that she reached with the big three mining companies over 12 months ago. This version of the tax is extraordinarily complex, and it introduces a new federal tax on top of corporate tax, payroll tax and the existing state royalties.
There are serious questions as to how much tax will actually be raised and upon which companies the burden will fall. But, due to the extraordinarily clumsy negotiations with the three mining companies—to the exclusion of the 3½ thousand other mining companies in this country—the federal budget is now hostage to decisions by state governments, who are perfectly entitled and constitutionally enabled to raise their royalty rates. The federal government now has to repay all of the royalties that the state governments, whether Liberal or Labor, around the country impose on the mining companies. What an extraordinarily inept negotiating performance by this Prime Minister.
There are serious questions about the constitutional validity of the proposed tax. And, after the government's humiliating loss in the High Court over the legality of its Malaysia asylum-seeker swap deal, we have every reason to be sceptical in the face of the government's assurances that it could win a High Court challenge to its mining tax laws.
Following recent mining tax profit announcements, the Prime Minister is now under renewed pressure from her coalition partner the Greens to claw back an even greater tax take from the mining companies. Senator Bob Brown has labelled the new arrangements 'a perverse outcome' and has called on the government to revive its original tax of 40 per cent on mining profits, although Senator Brown muses that '50 per cent would be more like it'. So watch this space.
I did not ever think that I would see the day when 'Australia' and 'sovereign risk' would be uttered in the same sentence. But reports of investor concern continue as the government continues its assault on our mining sector. A couple of months ago I attended an Australia-central Africa trade forum in Sydney. Ministers and representatives from central African governments—Cameroon, Chad, the Congo and Gabon—were present. I was somewhat taken aback when they announced that they were in Australia to promote investment in their countries because, as Australia was now a sovereign risk, central Africa was a more attractive option. And they knew the details of this mining tax debacle chapter and verse.
There were similar discussions at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth last week as part of CHOGM, as delegates from African nations promoted the fact that investment in mining in Africa would be a better bet than investing in Australia under this government's burdensome tax regime. As the chief executive officer of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, said, Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
Having introduced the mining tax measures to increase the government's share of iron ore and coal companies' profits, the Gillard government is now set to increase the cost of a mining company's overheads as well.
Despite having solemnly promised at the last election that she would not introduce a carbon tax, the Gillard government has introduced legislation to implement a carbon tax, which is essentially a tax on energy. So the dangers posed to Australia's economy by this mining tax policy—as well as those posed by the carbon tax policy, which will cascade throughout the economy—are well documented. Yet the Australian mining sector will be amongst the hardest hit. In a statement to the ASX in July, Rio Tinto expressed the widespread concern of the mining sector, and said that the company was:
… deeply concerned the proposed carbon tax fails to shield Australia’s export sector and leaves it at a disadvantage compared to international competitors.
This sentiment has been echoed by others. Marius Kloppers of BHP Billiton has described the government's carbon tax as an economic deadweight cost and a tax on exports.
For small to medium sized companies with lesser profit margins to absorb these additional costs, this new tax will be hard felt. This is likely to be the case with Australia's goldmining industry, and I mention the goldmining industry because, while it is currently not included in this mining tax, we should be very well aware that the Greens are calling for its inclusion. So it is only a matter of time before the mining tax will be expanded to include every conceivable mining activity, including quarries, as their superprofits tax did last year. That was included in their resource superprofits tax—an absolute disgrace. So the Greens are calling for its inclusion; the government will fold.
Earlier this year the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency released data which showed that a typical size goldmining company will be hit hard by the carbon tax, which will directly increase operating costs by more than 13 per cent, putting pressure on contractors and their ability to employ people. Currently the goldmining industry employs 7½ thousand people nationwide—but clearly that is of no concern or no interest to this government. Other participants in the mining industry supply chain—such as transport companies, cleaning companies and accommodation providers—will also be affected by increased operating costs.
There has been discussion in Australia recently about the desirability of a sovereign wealth fund to capture the benefits of our mining boom, but it is a fact that the Howard government established such a fund with the Future Fund. However, virtually no money has been added to that fund since Labor took office. We also established the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which was designed to be a fund in perpetuity to receive surplus moneys and, with income earned, to help make our higher education sector world class. That fund has been gutted by Labor.
The point is, of course, that we ran successive budget surpluses and paid down the $96 billion debt we inherited from the last Labor government. But it can only be hypothetical to talk about establishing a sovereign wealth fund any time soon while the government is billions and billions of dollars in debt. The first priority must be to repay the government's debt, which today stands at around $110 billion to $120 billion. The sooner we pay off that debt, the sooner we can recoup the billions in dead money being paid in interest each year.
The coalition's priorities are to get the budget back into surplus, pay down debt and ensure that Australia is in the best possible position to withstand further external economic shocks. But this government just does not understand mining, whether it is imposing a $2 billion condensate tax on Woodside without notice, announcing a superprofits tax that destroyed our international reputation, announcing an economy-wide carbon tax that no other country in the world is implementing, unleashing the militant unions or placing a blanket heritage listing the size of the state of Victoria over Kimberley and Western Australia.
The Gillard-Greens government is no friend of mining, no friend of the Australian people and no friend of this economy. As a nation we should be playing to our strengths. We are world leaders in mining, yet this government wants to drag our mining sector down to the back of the pack with taxes that our competitors will not be paying. We oppose this mining tax and so should all members of this House.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:31): Listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who never misses a chance to talk Australia and our economic performance down, you would think things were pretty grim. But in my state of South Australia we have just announced progress on a new mine opening with $1.2 billion set aside to expand Olympic Dam into the biggest copper and uranium mine in the world. I am a bit perplexed by some of her rhetoric on how grim it is, given that mining is expanding at a rate of knots in my state—not just exploration and the development of Olympic Dam but many other mineral developments in that area.
This is self-serving rhetoric which covers the fact that the Liberal Party and the coalition have always opposed taxation measures on resources. They opposed the petroleum resource rent tax when it came through in the 1980s. They said that would bring an end to investment and the sky was going to fall. They made the same speeches on the PRRT then as they are doing now—it was going to be the end of the world and it would end economic growth. Instead, we know the PRRT provided valuable revenue which the Howard government later relied on to fund its great budget surpluses.
Labor in government have always been concerned with both the growth of the economy and the distribution of wealth. We have always endeavoured to marry those two things in a manner that is consistent with ongoing prosperity and fairness in the economy. It is important that when we have economic growth not only a small group of people gain the benefits of that growth. It is important to spread that growth throughout the middle-class and working families all over this country. The economic reforms of the 1980s—the floating of the dollar and the reduction in tariffs—were underpinned by social reforms. These included reforms in Medicare, superannuation and family payments which were all about supporting families and making sure middle-class and working-class families had a good standard of living and that health care, retirement incomes and family payments were not left to the market. These payments are needed when kids are growing up.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill and related legislation represent a continuation of that tradition. We are endeavouring to marry great growth in our resources sector—which is ever present and ongoing despite the claims of the opposition—with the need to properly share that wealth with the majority of Australians. Most importantly, it will be shared not just with this generation but with future generations. For that to happen, we need to have something left when all of this is done.
I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Curtin, talking about how the Howard government had put money away in the Future Fund, and indeed they did. But I remember reading in Peter Hartcher's book that the Howard government in the 2004-07 budget cycle received some $320-odd billion in extra revenue during that period. A portion of that was put away in the Future Fund, but a great amount of it was spent—and we all know spending in the later years of the Howard government galloped out of control.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: We left you a surplus—something you'll never do!
Mr CHAMPION: You might have run a surplus, but spending was also growing. Any mug can run a surplus in a growing economy.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Really! Why don't you?
Mr CHAMPION: That's not true, we ran the first budget surplus in 1988. The Liberal Party never ran one when John Howard was Treasurer. But history is history and we will let the economic historians argue over it. The point is that what we want from this extra resource revenue and what we want from this tax is to be able to hand future generations something of the national providence that we have today. Mining profits over the last decade have skyrocketed by 262 per cent. Normal Australians marvel at the profits of BHP and Rio Tinto, and they marvel at the extraordinary individual wealth that is being generated by some of the mining magnates, who like to offer their opinion from time to time about matters such as this tax. There is no doubt this is a gilded age for some. Some people give rather generous gifts away—good luck to them—but they have vast profits, vast executive remuneration and vast personal wealth, and that is what is being generated. Profits are being repatriated out of this country.
We know that mining workforces and ancillary industries also are deriving gain from mining. Some of the previous speakers talked about the young workers up in the Pilbara region and the great wealth that is derived from mining jobs and from the jobs associated with mining. But it is all derived from the Australian nation. The nation owns the minerals and so it is all derived from the providence we have been bequeathed by having this continent to ourselves.
These mining companies and individuals are allowed to extract these minerals by agreement with the states and by agreement, ultimately, with the nation. The nation has a legitimate right and expectation in the public interest to derive revenue from these minerals that does not just come in the form of royalties but also in the form of a profits based tax. Much has been said about what the mining industry has said about this, but the more sensible voices accept that a profits based tax is a sensible way to go. Although we hear talk about sovereign risk and all the rest of it, much of it is self-serving talk by the minerals industry because it wants to prevent profit taxes in other jurisdictions. It wants to prevent the spread of good ideas, so it is running a scare campaign. It wants to maintain the current arrangement. But, as I said, many Australians have looked upon this gilded age and wondered what it means for them.
Too many communities and too many individuals have been locked out of this great wealth, this wealth that is produced, ultimately, by the nation. Too many people have been adversely affected and we see that as the currency has risen dramatically. We see the impact of that on other sectors, other jobs and the like. We see the rising costs of labour, the rising costs of living in remote mining communities and the effects of booming regional economies. We know that for everybody who is doing well there is a business that is struggling to find a worker or a tradesman. We know that pensioners and people on fixed incomes are struggling with the cost of living. We know from this experience that it is a problem and it has to be dealt with. We know from international experience there are threats to nations' economies that are excessively dependent on resource extraction. We all know about Dutch disease. It has being talked about many times, about how success in resources lifts the currency and that has a correspondingly negative effect on the rest of the economy. We know that excessive disparities in wealth also can occur and that is not desirable. Australia has had a fine tradition of equality and of sharing our wealth. I think that is important to a country.
This bill overcomes these threats. It overcomes those challenges to the country and it ensures the growth in mining profits benefits the whole of the community and ensures that it benefits business. It ensures it adds to national savings and it ensures that regional infrastructure is not left behind. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the coalition on business, but one of the aims of this bill is to share some of the proceeds of this wealth to make sure we have a company tax cut to 29 per cent on 1 July 2013. That is to make sure that companies can compete.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: I hear my friend opposite interjecting and talking about one per cent. If it was such a small increase, why were you trying to match it during the last election? That is the question.
This bill will provide a new tax break for 2.7 million small businesses. Up to 13,000 businesses in my electorate will benefit from the small business $6,500 instant asset right off. It is important to support business during this time because they are the engine room of employment. It is important also that national savings are lifted. National savings have made a significant contribution to protecting this economy from some of the international ups and downs during the global financial crisis. Our national savings are a huge benefit to this country.
Where would we be without superannuation? This bill increases superannuation contributions from nine per cent to 12 per cent, a very important increase. It also expands the superannuation concessions for 3.5 million low-income earners, so it is not just the top end of town that gets a tax benefit from superannuation. It is a very important equity measure and very important for our national savings and our confidence in the long-term benefits of superannuation. We know that 8.4 million working Australians will benefit and we know it will increase national savings by $500 billion by 2035. This measure will simplify personal tax arrangements. It will allow a $500 standard deduction from 2012 and $1,000 standard deduction from 2013 and will also reward personal savings for five million Australians. The whole gist of this is to put money away for a rainy day—into national savings, into individual accounts. People talk about sovereign wealth funds; but there is no greater sovereign wealth fund in this country than superannuation, and it has been operating since Bob Hawke set it up and Paul Keating expanded it. The tragedy, of course, is that while the coalition fight like blazes before these things get in and say 'the sky is going to fall', once they have been brought in they are happy to benefit from them and happy to have them in place but never, ever to expand them. That is the great tragedy of the opposition's approach.
We know that infrastructure, which has been a great problem area, will benefit. The Howard government only built one piece of infrastructure: the Alice to Darwin rail link. It is a good bit of infrastructure and the nation had waited a long time for it, but it is not much to hang your hat on. We would hope to do better than that and build infrastructure in the regions, particularly to expand resource projects and our capacity for economic development, so that mining communities can expand and those regions can prosper. So there is quite a bit in this for regions and quite a bit for building the national project and for building the north of Australia—these great aims and projects.
This bill is in the national interest. It would be a great act of vandalism to block it or repeal it. That is why, when it is implemented, the coalition will not repeal it. That is just talk—beating their chests and acting like they are going to repeal something when they will not. They will adopt the same approach as they always do: fight it right up to the point that it is successful and then take the benefits this bill will yield for the Australian people and leave it in place. To remove it would be a great act of national vandalism and, I think, a great folly.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:46): I rise to speak today on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and associated bills. I think the comments by the most recent speaker, the member for Wakefield, say it all. He mentioned early in his speech that 'any mug can deliver a surplus in a growing economy'. I remind the member for Wakefield that the government he is a part of have proudly talked about keeping the economy growing and yet at the same time have presided over the three biggest deficits in this country's history—by a country mile.
This is the level of economic incompetence that is running this country. This is what we have to deal with. This is what industry has to deal with. This is why we have seen such enormous frustration from industry, not just the mining industry but also so many other areas of industry, who are just gobsmacked by the economic illiteracy of those opposite—and it was characterised today by the member for Wakefield. He said it all, and he said it on behalf of all his colleagues. They do not understand business. They do not understand economics. They are all about politics and spin.
We heard recently from the CEO of the New South Wales Minerals Council, Dr Nikki Williams—and, again, I think this says it all:
"We are the darlings of the business pages, yet we painted as demons in the early general news.
"We help treasurers keep budgets healthy and give Australia the strength to stave off the threat of recession, yet our industry is a lightning rod for the most adversarial of political debates."
The report goes on:
Dr Williams said Australia was in the middle of one of the longest mining booms in the nation's history.
"Yet we face multiple policy, regulatory and legislative challenges that might collectively render our sector a less attractive destination for international investment than countries such as Indonesia, Colombia or even Mongolia," she warned.
This is at the heart of the problem that we have with this stupid tax, this dangerous tax, this tax born of envy and paraded as a subject of envy when in fact it is ensuring that Australia, in a policy sense, once again under this government shoots itself in the foot.
The attempted implementation of this mining tax over the last 18 months has been one of the most shambolic policy episodes this country has ever seen. This legislation comes 18 months after the Treasurer announced his half-baked so-called resources super profits tax. The first version brought down one Prime Minister, who had not even seen out a term. This second version is contributing significantly to the imminent demise of another, if we are to believe the private talk of those opposite—and are they talking! And are they worried! The member for Wakefield should be in one of the safest seats around, but even he has problems.
Mr Champion: I'm not worried about you!
Mr ROBB: This tax is yet another symbol of the gross incompetence of this government. Firstly they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector—
Mr Champion: What are you going to do with your taxing measures?
Mr ROBB: Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have to put up with this ignorance from the other side?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! I ask the honourable member for Goldstein to keep to his speech and not take any notice of interjections.
Mr ROBB: It is very difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! And I ask for the interjections to cease or I will have to deal with people.
Mr ROBB: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. First they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector. This is unprecedented, and it spooked investors around the world. Now this tax targets the mid-tier miners. It is a highly discriminatory tax. It is still in a very dysfunctional form as a tax. It has not received any favourable treatment except from the three big miners. It is seen as a bungled proposal and it reinforces that the government's core instinct is to tax, spend and borrow.
If you are responsible in any organisation—whether you are in business, sport or government—the first thing you do is identify your strengths. Once you have identified the two or three major strengths of your business or your country, you then seek to nurture, develop and protect those strengths, because they underpin your success. You do not see a football team send their champion player out onto the ground with a lead weight around his neck. You nurture your best players. They are the ones that give you the premiership. They are the ones who do something magical in the last half of the last quarter.
Clearly the mining and resources sector is one of our nation's great strengths. But what do we see? We see a government that has sought to introduce not just a carbon tax but also a mining tax into the environment of a mining boom when our mining and resources sector, perhaps our greatest strength, has contributed so importantly to the quality of life that we have enjoyed in Australia for well over 100 years. This government is imposing in the middle of a mining boom two new taxes. It is ignorance and it is envy, but, most importantly of all, it is dangerous. It is dangerous in terms of the lost job opportunities and the lost investment opportunities—and we are seeing sovereign risk manifest itself as a consequence.
Not only did they bungle the proposal in terms of its design—it has taken 18 months—but it is now being rushed in as a symbolic attempt at achievement by a Prime Minister who is hanging by her fingernails onto the leadership. That is what this is about. The way this thing has been designed and the way it is being introduced is all about politics.
Agriculture is another of our great strengths, but look at the way they handled the live cattle job. The incompetence with which they handled that has added to sovereign risk. Our international education effort is another of our great strengths, but they introduced a visa requirement where families have to have three years of the education cost and accommodation to get a visa. Then they wonder why 20,000 Chinese students have stopped coming here. That is ignorance and incompetence. They are obsessed with taxing, spending and borrowing. That drives every policy of this government. They are an old-style socialist government—under pressure all they know how to do is tax, spend and borrow. This mining tax is nothing but a tax grab, pure and simple. It is a tax that will discourage investment. It is a discriminatory tax.
Let's look at where it falls. In research released today by BDO, a major research group, the mining tax liability on Rio Tinto was calculated for the first five years, and it was zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. They calculated the mining tax liability on BHP, and you will not be surprised to learn that, for the first five years, it is another five zeros. They have taken the real-life numbers of a small emerging miner who is making revenue in the order of $600 million to $700 million and calculated its mining tax revenue: first year—2012—zero; second year, $49 million; third year, $107 million; fourth year, $96 million; fifth year, $68 million; and the following year, $63 million. So we are seeing a total effective tax rate of 40.18 per cent in the first year in which they pay the tax, 45.68 per cent in the second year; 45.76 per cent in the third year, 46.12 per cent in the fourth year, and 46.20 per cent in the fifth year.
This is a scandal. We are putting a lead weight around the neck of our greatest strength in this economy. When you look at our competitors around the world—and they are significant, they are large and they are coming at us as they invest in infrastructure to move a mountain of resources that exist around the world—the highest effective rate of tax including royalties is 40 per cent in Canada. We are talking about mid-tier companies paying a 46 per cent effective rate of tax with this new tax. In other countries, such as Brazil and Mongolia and other major future competitors, they are paying in some cases as low as 30 per cent and less. This tax is a lazy and short-sighted attempt by an incompetent government to prop up its budget. That is all it is.
Let's for a minute examine the myth that the minerals sector is somehow not paying its way. They paid very little in 1999, but by 2002-03—when the mining boom was just taking off—they paid around $6 billion in taxes including royalties and corporate taxes. In 2010-11, that figure exceeded $23 billion, a fourfold increase. The profits-based company tax was in the order of $4 billion in 2002-03. That grew to nearly $15 billion. A massive new investment over the next four or five years and the reduction in costs offsetting profits will mean that revenue will continue in a very strong way, depending on the price of the product. So with the existing taxes we have a fourfold increase which is likely to get much higher in the next three or four years, yet the government wants to come in with a carbon tax and a mining tax which will add billions and billions to the tax that these companies are paying, and the effective rate of tax will head towards 50 per cent. This is nonsense. At a time when we should be locking in all of the potential investment that this great resources sector can produce, we are inviting competitors around the world as we see a supply response coming down the line. We think we are awash with resources, and we are. Our iron ore is 13 per cent of the world's supply, and our coal is 15 or 16 per cent of the world's supply. But there are mountains of it elsewhere, and this government is oblivious to that. They are inviting competition, they are ensuring that we will not be competitive and they are taking great risks. They have spent this money before they have earned it.
Then there is the prospect of China. Global reports came from Paul Wiseman yesterday that China's comedown is being engineered by its policy makers. They want to slow expansion just enough to cool inflation. If they get down to six or seven per cent growth—which will cool inflation—China will still have strong growth, but there will be a 15, 25 or 30 per cent reduction in prices. This government is vulnerable: our structural deficit at the last budget was twice Germany's and was 30 per cent higher than even Italy.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr ROBB: The member for Wakefield smiles. He does not understand what a structural deficit is.
Mr Champion: I understand it.
Mr ROBB: It means we are highly vulnerable. With this mining tax and the carbon tax, the government are spending money they do not have. This means we are being put in a highly vulnerable position with deficits potentially for another 10 years.
This bill should never have come before this House. It is the result of the politics of envy. It means that, as a country, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Under this appalling government it will turn away job creating investment, it will make our economy more vulnerable, it is antigrowth and it is just another piece of stupidity. If we get the privilege of government, we will remove this tax.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:02): I proudly rise to voice my strong support for the economy-building, future-proofing Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills before the House. It is always good to hear from the member for Goldstein. He has certainly had a tough time lately. I remember the budget reply speech from the Leader of the Opposition, who said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually do the budget reply speech. I'm going to give that to the shadow Treasurer.' The shadow Treasurer then came out and said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually get around to doing my budget reply speech. I'll ask the shadow finance minister.' It was amazing. As a teacher, I have heard a lot of excuses about why homework was not done, but that was the first time I ever heard anyone say, 'The dog did my homework.' I have never heard that before. It was amazing.
Some Australians are getting very rich from the mining boom, especially very profitable mining companies. Obviously the Labor Party is not concerned about profits—we support profits—but we are concerned when many Australians are left out. While some Australian small businesses are happy just to break even, our biggest miners are generating phenomenal profits. Mining profits for the year ending 30 June 2011 were a massive $93 billion with $430 billion of further investment in the pipeline, so to speak. So much for the member for Goldstein saying that investment in mining is about to dry up. That is ridiculous.
I say again that there is nothing wrong with big profits. Profits are good for shareholders, they reward workers, they help fund future investment and they stimulate our economy. But where we are seeing such enormous profits from the mining of our coal and our iron ore—Australians' coal and Australians' iron ore—much of this money goes overseas. A responsible government, a sensible government, must ensure that Australians are getting a fair return for our resources, which can only be mined once.
The minerals resource rent tax will apply to all new and existing iron ore and coal projects, and it will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. Only coal and iron ore producers generating an annual profit of more than $50 million will pay the tax. I repeat this for those opposite—you must be making an annual profit of more than $50 million before you have to pay this tax. State mining royalties will be fully credited back to the company, whether that state government is a Labor government or a Liberal government. The tax is expected to raise about $3.7 billion in 2012-13, $4 billion in 2013-14 and $3.4 billion in 2014-15, subject obviously to the variability of long-term international commodity prices. Over 10 years the mining tax, it is expected, will deliver an extra $38.5 billion to Australians.
The Gillard Labor government is determined to share these benefits with all Australians. How will we do this? Firstly, employer superannuation contributions will rise from nine per cent to 12 per cent, giving a 30-year-old worker on average earnings an extra $100,000 of savings.
Secondly, we will also give small business a take in the cut. They will be able to write off every asset worth up to $6,500. Who in this chamber would not support small business receiving such a benefit? You would have to be crazy not to support such a cut.
Thirdly, we will slash company tax to 29 per cent from 1 July 2013. All Australian companies—small, medium and large—will go from 30 per cent down to 29 per cent. In contrast, those opposite plan to effectively increase company taxes with their clumsy two per cent paid parental leave tax.
Fourthly, we will simplify personal tax by introducing a $500 standard deduction from 1 July 2012 and a $1,000 deduction from 1 July 2013.
Fifthly, we will reward personal saving for more than five million Australians with a 50 per cent tax discount on up to $500 of interest income from 1 July 2012.
Sixthly, the government will direct more investment back into mining communities through a regional infrastructure fund.
How could a wise man vote against such a tax? Well, I have heard that the honourable Leader of the Opposition does intend to change his name by deed poll to Joseph Wiseman because, as all film buffs would know, that is the actor who played Dr No in the James Bond movie. That is the only way we would be able to have a Wiseman voting against this incredibly sensible policy.
These projects will boost productivity, they will support jobs and they will look after our hard-working mining communities. I do find the opposition's position on this completely perplexing. The opposition climate change spokesperson told Sky Agenda on Tuesday:
… let me say that the mining tax is a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because capital is mobile in this world, that companies and investors have a choice as to where they set up their mining activities.
Obviously, he is half right: capital is mobile and companies do compete in the global mining market. But mining companies do not easily take their capital and just go to any other country to mine immobile resources. They come to Australia not just because of the present tax arrangements but also—wait for it—obviously because we have some of the best minerals in the world. We are blessed geologically. The competitive edge of Australian mining is not only our lean tax regime but also the abundance of these high-quality minerals and natural gas deposits beneath the ground.
Australia has 10 per cent of the world's coal resources, and most of this is top quality black coal like we have in Queensland—with no disrespect at all to the Victorians who are here. We have some of the top coal in the world, with higher energy burns and lower emissions. Australia has 47 per cent of the world's uranium. So this idea that miners will easily just move their capital around the world and mine somewhere else is quite ridiculous.
Let us have a look at the proposed projects. I will go through some which are on the horizon or have already been announced for new investment or CAPEX. Fortescue has a US$8.4 billion expansion in the Pilbara. Xstrata, to name just a couple of their announced projects, has $270 million in the McArthur River lead/zinc expansion, $1.4 billion in the Ravensworth North open cut coking coal project in New South Wales, $234 million in the George Fisher zinc mine expansion at Mt Isa, US$1.1 billion in the Ulan West underground thermal coal mine in New South Wales and $6 billion in the Wandoan coal mine in Queensland. Rio Tinto has US$6 billion in the Pilbara, $803 million in the Argyle open pit transition and $1.78 billion in the Hope Downs iron ore project. BHP Billiton has US$7.4 billion in the Jimblebar mine development in the Pilbara and US$5 billion in the Bowen Basin. These sums are all in US dollars, which I suppose is at approximate parity at the moment. Woodside has $14 billion in the Pluto project. The Woodside Energy joint venture with BP, BHP Billiton, Chevron and Shell has $30 billion in the Browse Basin LNG project. The Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil joint venture has $43 billion in the Gorgon LNG project. Santos has $16 billion in the coal seam gas in Gladstone and Curtis Island. BG Group has a $15 billion LNG plant on Curtis Island and in the Surat Basin, Queensland. Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips have a $35 billion LNG project at Gladstone. Royal Dutch Shell has a $11 billion LNG project.
These are just a few of these mining projects that are supposed to be drying up! It is ridiculous that those opposite can actually stand up and seriously argue that we are threatening the mining industry in Australia with this tax. Australia's resources are finite and precious. Australians own them, and the Gillard Labor government understands the responsibility we have to future generations to ensure that all Australians get a fair return—everyone today, everyone tomorrow and those who are not even a twinkle in the eye today. They all need to have a share in the finite resources that we own.
Speaker after speaker from the opposition got on the protest bandwagon and claimed that this tax would all but bring mining to its knees. I remember the member for Warringah wearing his Mitch Hooke-provided white T-shirt. The jeremiad went like this: 'Investment would end, jobs would go and mines would close.' That was only a year ago. That is what the Henny Penny on steroids, aka the Leader of the Opposition, would have us believe. But the reality looks nothing like this. Since we announced the MRRT, mining investment has soared and stronger growth is coming over the horizon, as I detailed. It has grown from $35 billion in 2009-10 to $47 billion in 2010-11 and will nearly double to $82 billion this financial year. Employment in the mining industry has also advanced rapidly. Just go to regional Queensland and you will see that. Go to Western Australia and you will see that. More than 44,000 new jobs have been created, an increase of nearly 25 per cent. The towns in these areas know that. There is absolutely no sign that the mining tax will damage mining investment.
The Labor government has built a strong economy. We have created 700,000 new jobs—140,000 of them in the last year alone. We have more Australians than ever before in traineeships or apprenticeships. Unemployment is at 5.2 per cent. We abolished Work Choices and restored unfair dismissal protections for 2.8 million workers, and we have slashed income taxes for everyone.
The Labor government is standing between the future prosperity of Australia and the road that the Liberal Party want to take us down, which is a US style economy where one per cent of the population controls 42 per cent of the wealth; where the latest data shows that instead of there being 13 per cent of the population living in poverty it has gone up to 15 per cent; where there are more unemployed people than there are union members. That is the sort of economy those opposite would like here.
Australians have confidence that the Labor government will make the tough and necessary decisions to protect jobs and to manage our economy sensibly. The mining tax will deliver for all Australians and help keep our economy strong into the future. I commend the bill, proudly, to the House.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:13): I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011. I, like the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Curtin—who spoke here before—am a proud West Australian and see that this tax will affect my home state more than it will affect any of the other states. It was clear from the results of the 2010 election in Western Australia that this mining tax and the carbon tax were overwhelmingly rejected by the West Australian population.
I started my career as an apprentice electrician and eventually ran a small business, which is how I earned my living before entering parliament. Unlike many on the other side of the House who had careers working for the trade union movement before entering this place, I know what it is like to run a business and to have to deal with burdensome taxes and government regulations. I know how prohibitive to running a successful business those taxes and regulations can become. That is why I always take great caution when it comes to these sorts of bills and look at why new taxes are being introduced. If this great country of ours is to stay strong and if our industries are to create wealth and provide jobs to Australians, we need to be creating and maintaining economic conditions for those industries to prosper. To maintain strong economic conditions we need investment, and those investors need a return on investment. This bill will suffocate investment, as it will be suffocating return on investment. It is as simple as that. We just heard the member for Moreton talk about what they are doing for small business, but this is just the misunderstanding of the Labor Party—they just don't get business and they just don't get taxes. As an example, he said they were going to reduce small business tax from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, a total of one per cent. The only small business that will benefit from that at all is the small business that is making a profit; if it is not making a profit this will be of no help at all. The other example is that they have just increased the superannuation levy, which wipes out the one per cent straightaway. If a small business man is making a profit, he will get an extra dollar for every $100 that he makes in profit. Big deal. That is no assistance to small business at all. But the Labor Party people think that it is a great bonus for small businesses.
To maintain strong economic conditions, we need investment, and investors need a return on investment. This bill will not maintain strong economic conditions; it will do exactly the opposite. The flawed process with which those opposite announced this mining tax to the public remains one of the most embarrassing performances of the government's time in office. It led to chaos across the country, which led to the ending of the prime ministership of the member for Griffith by the current Prime Minister and left an industry with an uncertain future.
No consultation was done with any stakeholders when the initial mining tax was announced. There was no consultation with industry or with state or territory governments despite serious implications for their own-source revenue. The Henry recommendation that a national profit based resource rent tax should replace state and territory royalties and that the federal government should negotiate the federal-state implications of such a move has been ignored by the federal government. The government's decision to provide no consultation on the implications of the mining tax is worrisome, given that resource royalties are 20 per cent of Western Australian state government revenues, nine per cent of Queensland state government revenues and six per cent of Northern Territory government revenues—and despite major implications for GST sharing arrangements around Australia.
This bill will damage Australia's ability to attract foreign investment. The increased sovereign risk brought on by the retrospective nature of the tax, and the large rise in taxation in comparison to overseas investment destinations, will no doubt cause foreign investors to think twice before entering the Australian market. The mineral resource rent tax is divisive. The government has created a situation where we have three big miners—and the rest. It is turning different parts of the industry and the economy against each other.
The WA state Treasurer, Christian Porter, has informed the government that 65 per cent of the revenue will come from iron ore production in Western Australia alone. It is extraordinary that one new national tax would raise 65 per cent of its revenue from one single state economy. This is about $25 billion coming from WA, out of the $38.5 billion total predicted revenue over the next decade.
This tax is deeply unpopular within my electorate of Swan, and obviously all of Western Australia, judging by the 2010 election results. I see the member for Hasluck in the chamber, and I am sure it is just as unpopular in his electorate. That is why it is disturbing that the federal government is trying to link infrastructure projects that would normally be funded out of consolidated revenue to the passage of the mining tax. The government is trying to hold a gun to the head of the Australian people, saying: support this tax, or else.
Of course, the government has shamelessly tried to use this strategy in my own electorate of Swan, when prior to the last election the government tried to link the future of the mining tax with the Gateway WA project for the roads around Perth. This was a very poor strategy. The government said to the people of Swan, many of whose livelihoods depend on the mining sector, 'Your roads are not going to be upgraded by the government unless you support the world's biggest mining tax, which will impact on the economy, your livelihood and your future.' We in the coalition made it clear that we would be funding these road projects, including the airport roads upgrade and the Great Eastern Highway upgrade, without the mining tax. Gateway WA has been identified by the WA government as critical to relieving state transport bottlenecks. Local people in my electorate know only too well of these bottlenecks, which they have to face during their everyday activities on roads which they share with industrial traffic coming to and from Kewdale and the transport hub in Welshpool. That is why on behalf of the community I campaigned hard for the upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway, which I am pleased to say is now underway, after some worrying times, including when there were concerns about the federal government not meeting a shortfall, which would have seen the upgrade cease at Hardey Road.
Gateway WA is a very important project. The federal contribution to the $600 million project is $480 million. The future of such a project should not be linked to what the Premier of Western Australia has described as a tax on WA. The project should also not have been thrown into the realms of uncertainty as it has been by the government's shaky and unreliable negotiations with the Independents. Today in the Australian we saw a big spread on how the member for New England plans to 'hold a gun to the government's head' on the mining tax legislation over issues in his electorate. The message coming out of Canberra is chaotic and the result may well be delays in this project.
We know the real reason why the federal government is introducing this mining tax legislation: it cannot fund any more of the nation's vital infrastructure projects through usual channels because of the massive national debt it has built up. It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton talking about a figure of $94 billion—it just rolled off his tongue. That is close to the national debt that the government has now built up. Kevin Rudd told all Australians he was an economic conservative but misled the Australian people. This country has never in its history been in more debt than it is now. The government cannot meet its obligations to the Australian people to continue to invest in infrastructure, and that is why it has to introduce this mining tax.
If the mining industry is threatened, so will be Western Australia and also the nation. That is why this was such a serious issue in WA before the last election, not only because of a threat to the jobs of the many people who work directly or indirectly in the mining sector but because the people of Western Australia understand the threat to the health of the local and national economy. There are many fly in, fly out workers in Perth and I know that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia is conducting an inquiry into fly in, fly out work practices at the moment, which I know do place strain on many families across WA. It might also be worth consulting with these workers over this legislation and how they feel it will affect them.
It is well known that Western Australia's GST intake is the lowest in the country, at 68c in the dollar. However, projections from the WA government suggest this could reduce to 50c within three years and be on its way down to the 30c mark. Given this, the Premier's recent decision on iron ore royalties was understandable. With no guarantee of WA's future GST return, the Premier was forced to act to secure some royalties. However the impact of this decision on the federal government's budget shows how the mish-mash deal hammered out before the election by the government with only three of the mining companies was just a short-term political fix. Under this deal the government promised to underwrite any rises in state royalties. State governments in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have increased royalties on iron ore and coal, and the result has been a massive hit on the federal budget bottom line.
I heard members on the other side of the chamber complaining about this, but that was the deal the government set up. It was their deal, so they have nothing to complain about. Other states such as Queensland have reserved the right to raise royalties in the future. None of the states were party to the Prime Minister's pre-election quick political deal and now the government is paying the price. As the shadow Treasurer said in his contribution, you cannot have serious and genuine reform of resource taxation and royalty arrangements without active and constructive engagement between the Commonwealth and state or territory governments.
Perhaps most significantly, there are serious question marks over the constitutional validity of the mining tax. We know that Ken Henry said that the federal government never sought advice on the constitutional validity of the tax before its announcement, and there is now the prospect that this legislation may not be lawful under the existing Constitution. As a tax on a resource at the point of extraction, this could constitute a tax on state property as prohibited by section 114 of the Constitution. Following the Malaysia people-swap decision from the High Court, the government is once again introducing legislation that one would think will inevitably result in a High Court challenge.
I would also say that, based on the outcome of the last election, it is particularly unclear whether the parliament has a mandate to introduce this legislation. I will be listening carefully to the speeches from the Independent members but, as I have already mentioned, the member for New England has announced that he will not support the legislation in its current form. Should these Independents have changed their minds since the last election campaign, it would indeed be another sad day for democracy if this legislation is passed in the House—following on from the carbon tax legislation, which only one or two members out of the 150 went to the last election in support of.
The government should start from scratch and pursue genuine tax reform to give Australians lower, fairer and simpler taxes through an open and transparent process. The parliament should stop the MRRT from going ahead and force the government to start again. The Gillard government needs to get its spending under control so it can focus on delivering lower, simpler, fairer taxes and genuine tax reform based on a proper process that gives everyone a fair opportunity to have their say. Instead of doing this, another 287 pages of tax law will now be added, increasing complexity and compliance costs.
It is concerning that the big three miners have been able to gain benefits for themselves that smaller miners do not have access to. For example, the introduction of a market valuation system to calculate applicable deductions gives the big three miners a significant tax shield that the smaller and mid-tier miners cannot access. Smaller companies will suffer under increased compliance burdens. The Henry tax review recommended a lower tax burden for smaller mining ventures, to help start-ups grow and prosper and to keep mining ventures in their decline phase alive longer. Instead, smaller and mid-tier mining ventures will pay a higher effective tax rate under the Gillard MRRT than the big three who were given exclusive access to the negotiations with the government.
One of the most concerning outcomes of this legislation is that it will worsen our structural deficit. The MRRT will help the government create the illusion of an early surplus in 2012-13 but it will leave the budget worse off from 2013-14 onwards. Treasury projections of MRRT revenue to 2020, released under FOI, indicate that Treasury expects revenue to reduce over time. The revenue not only will be downward trending but also will be volatile. Over the first year since the MRRT was announced revenue estimates fluctuated from between $7.7 billion to $24 billion.
While the revenue will diminish, the cost of the measures the government has attached to the MRRT will continue to grow strongly. For example, the cost of the proposed increase in compulsory super to 12 per cent is expected to rise to $3.6 billion in 2019-20, which is when it would be fully implemented. That same year, Treasury projections show MRRT revenue at $3 billion. The Senate inquiry into the mining tax has conservatively estimated that over the next decade the net cost to the budget will be $20 billion.
The MRRT remains a tax based on a deal negotiated exclusively with the three biggest miners who were given privileged access. Instead of making our tax system simpler and fairer, as we were promised, Labor's mining tax will make it less fair and more complex. This tax is divisive to the country, it distorts the national economy and it diminishes our international competitiveness. It is another example of a bad government getting worse. I will not vote for a bill that will reduce the standard of living for Western Australians and drive investment offshore to other countries that are now offering our miners incentives not taxes.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:27): I rise to speak on a series of bills which implement the mineral resources rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax. I would like to acknowledge the assistance in preparing this speech of Chelsea Pietsch, who is participating in a Lachlan Macquarie Internship and spending her week with me here in parliament. I think it is very apt that it is Lachlan Macquarie that is figuring here in this consideration and that Chelsea is from that internship group, because Lachlan Macquarie was a man who had a vision for this country, and we see his vision for the country still evident today in many of the buildings along Macquarie Street in Sydney—and there is no doubt that this is nation-building legislation that is before us today.
Labor is and always has been committed to achieving fairness within the Australian community. As our national platform and constitution state, fairness is one of our key priorities in government. It is our commitment to fairness that shapes our policies and what sets them apart from policies formulated by the opposition. The bills we are debating here today are yet another example of Labor's commitment to achieving fair outcomes for all Australians. And I will repeat that phrase many times throughout this speech, because Labor is for all Australians, not just for some.
Australia has been blessed with incredible natural resources and minerals, which fuel the heart of the Australian economy through the mining industry. Labor fully appreciates the central role of the mining industry in our Australian economy. However, we are also conscious that these natural, wealth-producing resources are finite. We can only dig up our resources once. For this reason, the Gillard government is committed to ensuring that we spread the benefits of the mining boom so that all Australians receive a fair return from the use of our valuable mineral and petroleum resources on the one occasion on which they can be extracted to the benefit of the entire nation. We believe it is not just the very profitable mining companies who should benefit from these natural resources but also the Australian community at large.
More than just achieving fairness with our country's non-renewable resources, however, these bills support growth across the entire economy. This is particularly important to me for the seat of Robertson and the Central Coast region that I represent here in this parliament. I represent an area that has grown at an astronomical rate in the last 30 years. We have many small businesses that are great employers there. We also have incredible pressure on infrastructure. We need to have our economy growing, and the type of legislation that we have before this parliament and the outcomes for Australians are exactly the recipe for success for people from the Central Coast who want to work hard and build this great nation. I can assure the people of the Central Coast that we, the Labor government, will keep delivering for them.
Our government's priority is to lay down the foundations for the long-term prosperity of this nation by ensuring a strong and broad economy. How, you may ask, can we bring about a more equitable share in the profits of natural resources and, at the same time, strengthen the Australian economy? We can achieve these objectives through two critical tools: firstly, by providing an efficient, internationally competitive and sustainable taxation framework on Australia's most significant bulk commodities; and, secondly, by using these taxes to fund important personal and company tax and superannuation reforms that benefit small business and individuals within our Australian community. This is precisely what these bills do.
The Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill 2011 provides for the taxation of the above-normal profits from mining iron ore and coal. This is a tax on Australia's most significant bulk commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas, commodities that very few Australians have access to in their backyard—but they do have them in our nation. We share in them as a nation. They are commodities that make a significant profit—profits that can help create a fairer Australia. The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to extend an already existing tax on gas and coal projects to onshore and offshore projects. Applying the tax to both onshore and offshore contexts will not only provide certainty to the industry but also ensure broadly equitable tax treatment between competing projects.
Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, the revenue derived from both of these taxes will be used for the benefit of the entire community. Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, we will use the revenue to implement significant tax and superannuation reforms for all Australians, including a cut in the company tax rate to 29 per cent; a new tax break for up to 2.4 million small businesses; reinvestment in Australia's regions through a $6 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund; a boost to superannuation and expanded superannuation concessions for low-income earners; simplification of the personal tax system; and personal tax discounts. That has to be a good recipe for Australia in anyone's book, at least on this side of the chamber. These much-needed reforms represent this government's attempt to make sure all Australians in our patchwork economy get our fair share of the mining boom. We know that many households and small businesses are doing it tough, and we believe that these tax reforms will provide them with the assistance they need to keep managing these challenges as we move together to a better economic and social future—again, for all Australians.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a recent study published by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, entitled Australian small business key statistics. As the Minister for Small Business, Senator Nick Sherry, revealed during the launch of the study, small businesses accounted for nearly half of total Australian industry employment and a third of industry value-added in 2009-10. In fact, at June 2009, small businesses accounted for nearly 98 per cent of all businesses in the agriculture sector, about 96 per cent in the services sector, about 91 per cent in the mining sector and just over 88 per cent in the manufacturing sector. What these figures indicate is that small business is indeed the backbone of the Australian economy. By implementing the mineral and petroleum resource rent tax bills, the Gillard government is keen to ensure that these critical small businesses receive the support they need to continue providing the essential economic activity they provide to this nation. Labor understands the pressures on small business, and this is why, as of 1 July 2012, the government is offering up to 2.4 million small businesses a new tax break.
As I have already indicated, it is not just small business that will benefit from this new tax. The proceeds of the MRRT will also flow through to regional parts of Australia by means of a Regional Infrastructure Fund. This fund will help communities with much-needed infrastructure support. I have seen this need in my own electorate, the electorate of Robertson. As I said, the growth of our electorate in the last 30 years has been really significant. It has led to ever-growing pressure on our infrastructure. Most evident is the pressure on our roads, our rail, our schools and our health services. Parts of many electorates around the country are bursting at the seams. The tax reforms will help relieve some of this real pressure and, through that relief, stimulate business and further enhance the economic outcomes for our nation.
I now wish to clarify some important points about our tax reform proposals. Firstly, the Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill is not a tax on production; rather, it is a tax on profit. This is absolutely in line with the recommendations made by the Australia's Future Tax System review. These are recommendations our government takes very seriously. They are recommendations from experts, ignored by those opposite, who always seem to know better than everybody else in every situation—or so they would have us believe. The recommendations we follow are taken very seriously, and we seek to implement viable tax systems for Australia—that is, tax systems that do not destroy, but rather build, the Australian economy. This profits-based tax is a much more efficient way of taxing than state royalties, and it will certainly ensure a much better return for Australia. The opposition will tell you that the introduction of the minerals resource rent tax will derail the mining boom and probably break every worst record they can conjure up. But this is simply not supported by the facts. Consistently we see the real facts getting in the way of the myth making, the negativity and the mischief of those opposite who would tell Australians that all our good days are behind us and none in front of us. The reality is very different to what we hear from the other side—'no, no, no' and the carping negativity—and the leadership this country needs is embodied in this legislation.
The latest survey of business investment plans shows that mining companies invested $34 billion last year. They are going to invest $55 billion this year and—wait for it—the amount is growing. They are going to invest $76 billion next year, hardly a sign of an industry in decay. To put that into perspective: that is more than five times the amount of mining investment undertaken six years ago, before the boom took off. However, it is not just an increase in raw dollar investments happening in the mining sector. Since Labor announced its intention to introduce this tax, mining employment has increased by 34.3 per cent. That is 44,200 mining jobs. And as much as those opposite do not like it, this is no indicator of a mining slump.
The second clarification I wish to make about the minerals resource rent tax is that we were only willing to announce it after significant consultations with major players in the industry. These consultations were facilitated by the Policy Transition Group, chaired by none other than Don Argus—the former Chairman of BHP Billiton—and comprised of numerous representatives, including those from peak industry organisations such as APPEA, MCA and a wide range of mining companies both large and small covering iron ore, petroleum, magnetite and coal seam gas operations across the country.
Our government has not only met with and listened to these representatives, we have also accepted every single one of the 98 recommendations made to us by this group. This is an indication of our commitment to work closely with those in industry. The Labor government cares about industry and highly values the opinions of those who are engaged in the mining boom. We have met with the key players in the mining industry, we have listened to them, we have talked with them and we have made our way forward together for the short- and the long-term future, for the sector as well as the nation. This is unlike those opposite who this week in the Qantas debate sided only with big business. They showed no regard for workers and little regard for the ordinary travelling public. Labor listens and Labor leads with a proper regard for business leaders, for union leaders and ordinary working Australians. We get that we are all in it together.
We have listened to all parties and we have brought the best plans into being in the national interest in this legislation before the House today. We are now seeking to implement all those things which have been recommended to us by stakeholders. Suffice it to say, these bills are none other than a collaborative effort with all at the coalface of the mining industry. But more than this, these tax reforms are our attempt to spread the wealth of the mining boom to all of those struggling to make ends meet in our patchwork economy.
The Leader of the Opposition is against these reforms. As we have seen time and time again, the opposition is much more interested in supporting big business than in addressing the needs of those who are doing it tough. With these tax reforms, small businesses within my electorate, such as the scrumptious Terrigal Bakery, the well-patronised Sushi Circle in downtown Gosford, and hard-working tradies like Paul Palmer, a local plumber, and John Owens, a local painter, will be able to reap some of the benefits of the Australian mining boom. This is a very significant tax reform for small business and they will be able to have multiple items written off immediately.
Labor will provide a boost in the super guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent for around 8.4 million workers, increasing the pool of retirement savings by $500 billion by 2035. What more can I say, aside from the fact that we are the party who introduced super and now we are the ones increasing it. As a woman with two daughters, I am keenly aware that women really need this legislation to pass through this parliament to practically improve their lives in retirement. Women retire with 40 per cent less than men in their super, despite the fact that, happily, we live longer. But through the introduction of these bills, implementation of the mineral resource rent tax and the petroleum resource rent tax, Labor is giving all Australians a fair share of the mining boom—a boost to retirement savings, tax breaks for small business, company tax cuts—and at the same time supporting growth of the Australian economy. I commend these bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:02): Madam Deputy Speaker, these bills—the 11 bills you just read out—were introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday by the government. This happened after the failure of the government to get consensus on the draft bills that were distributed around the community over the last few weeks. The government now are asking us to speak on 11 bills—525 pages of complicated tax legislation—after giving us notice last night at eight o'clock and then to have a considered debate in the people's house. They talked about the new paradigm—a whole new approach—but every time I raise with the Leader of the House the changes that are being made he says, 'The sins of the father should be visited on the son'—that is, 'You did it to us; therefore we're doing it to you.' I will move to adjourn the debate, and I will do so because now is the time, in the wake of the fact that the matter has gone to committee, to have a proper debate about the tax bills. I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question put.
The House divided [11:08]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Ayes 71
Noes 72
Majority 1
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Katter, RC |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Somlyay, AM |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Roxon, NL |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:13): That represents the death blow for the new paradigm—and good on you, let it be noted. The House of Representatives Economics Committee reports on 21 November on these 11 bills of 525 pages. So now, following the carbon tax, the government has yet again confirmed that in this new paradigm—this new parliament that the Independents so obviously talked about—here we go again. I remember that it was the member for Lyne who was urging in committee meetings that in fact the parliament should not have a rushed government agenda and that it should go to committee before the parliament actually makes a decision. But that is okay—hypocrisy be thy name.
The bills have clearly been rushed, and I say so because even this morning the government was downloading parts of the bills on the internet. It still had not actually—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! If we can have members take their seats or leave the chamber—
Mr HOCKEY: Just ignore him, as his electorate will, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government was still downloading parts of the bills and the explanatory memorandums this morning, and now it wants us to have a properly informed debate. Well, let's give it a good shot.
The first two of the 11 bills implement the new minerals resource rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore. The next two bills—the Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011—implement changes to the personal income tax provisions and superannuation. The remaining seven bills deal with administrative and technical issues, which this House will not have the opportunity to properly consider.
The new taxation arrangements for the mining sector will apply from 1 July next year, and there are two elements. The minerals resource rent tax regime will apply to the mining of iron ore and coal in Australia, and the petroleum resource rent tax regime will be extended to all Australian onshore and offshore oil and gas projects, including the North West Shelf. This will capture emerging projects such as converting coal seam gas to LNG. The new taxes will apply to Australia's most important commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas. The government has struggled with a number of variations of this tax to get it right—one of the reasons why we wanted to have a properly informed debate and a proper opportunity to have a look at the 11 bills. But no: this government, with typical undue haste, gets the details wrong. The big, sweeping statements it comes out with are not backed up with attention to detail. This tax in particular has been a salutary lesson in how not to introduce a new tax.
The original proposal for a resource super profits tax emerged from the Henry tax review in May of 2010. Dr Henry recommended a uniform resource rent tax on non-renewable resources, replacing existing state government royalty systems. The government's original RSPT—resource super profits tax—effectively nationalised 40 per cent of the revenue stream from the mining industry. This government nationalised Telstra again, so why would they stop now? They wanted to nationalise 40 per cent of the Australian mining industry. They would take 40 per cent of the superprofits—profits which in their view exceeded the 10-year government bond rate—and wear 40 per cent of the losses. Of particular concern for business was that the tax applied retrospectively in that it applied to existing business operations which had been developed in an environment with no Commonwealth mining tax. The RSPT was estimated to raise $12 billion over the forward estimates. Of course, there were various changes to that during the course of discussions.
There was, as we know, furious opposition, and it proved the last straw for the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. Less than two short months later, he was stabbed in the back by the current Prime Minister, Ms Gillard. The new PM offered the mining industry a truce and fresh negotiations. As it turned out, although we did not know this at the time, this was an olive branch to three major miners in the lead-up to the last election. There were no Treasury officials present. The new minerals resource rent tax was announced just two weeks later, in early July. The announcement was long on rhetoric and actually quite short on detail. In fact, the two-page memo which is the heads of agreement on the minerals resource rent tax is signed by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, the head of BHP, the head of Rio Tinto and the head of Xstrata—no other mining companies and no other agreements. It is unprecedented in the Australian taxation system that there is not even a cabinet decision on this but that a government negotiated an agreement for a multibillion-dollar tax with three players when the tax would apply to the industry. I seek leave to table the heads of agreement.
Leave granted.
Mr HOCKEY: The MRRT applies to fewer minerals and at a lower rate, but it still has retrospective implications. It was estimated to raise $7.7 billion over the same forward estimates as the RSPT, a revenue reduction of $4.3 billion. The smaller miners—the rest of the industry other than the big three—were unhappy, understandably, at not being consulted and believed they were unfairly hit while the big three got off relatively lightly. The government eventually conceded the new tax had not been thought through properly, with the announcement in early September 2010 of a policy transition group to be headed by Don Argus, the former chairman of BHP, to refine the details. The group reported in December 2010, so this is version No. 3 of the mining tax—in fact, version No.4. The first one was what Ken Henry recommended, the second one was what the government announced, the third one was the deal with the mining companies and now we have version No. 4, which the former chairman of BHP is actually engaged in consulting on.
The group reported in December 2010. It made 94 recommendations on the technical design of the new resource tax arrangements. In March this year the government accepted all the recommendations of the group, just showing that the various iterations before were totally flawed as well. In March this year, when the government accepted all the recommendations, they could not get the job done even then, and the government then had to appoint a resource tax implementation group to help with the drafting of the legislation. So there have now been two versions of the draft legislation for the MRRT. One was released in June this year. That version was followed by a revised exposure draft, which was released for comment on 18 September. The government, without notice, then introduced the 11 bills yesterday and expects everyone to sign off on them today. This is a tax that is extraordinarily complicated and fundamentally flawed. The industry, from the big companies to those that can least afford it, is being burdened with considerable costs in having to implement new internal systems to identify and record expenditure in order to ensure compliance. Planning for this new tax—whether with the assistance of external consultants or the redeployment of existing personnel—will be immensely expensive.
Let us deal with the bills before the House. After all this time we would have expected that the design of the tax would be settled and the industry would understand it. But there remains furious opposition. Taxpayers with amounts of MRRT assessable profits—that is, $50 million per annum—will be excluded from the MRRT. The MRRT will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. New investment will be allowed to be written off immediately rather than depreciated over a number of years. A project will not pay any MRRT until it has made enough profit to pay off its up-front investment. The MRRT will carry forward unutilised losses at the government long-term bond rate plus seven per cent. It will provide transferability of deductions. This supports mine development, arguably, because it means the taxpayer can use the deductions that flow from investments in the construction phase of a project to offset the MRRT liability from another of its projects that is in the production phase.
The MRRT will provide a full credit for state mining royalties. That was a point of disagreement after the heads of agreement, which was signed by the three ministers together with the three heads of the mining companies. There was a dispute about whether state mining royalties would be credited in full. Western Australia was the first to move, removing the discount for iron ore fines and therefore increasing their royalties. In its last budget New South Wales also moved to increase royalties. The net cost of that is $3 billion over the forward estimates. That is $3 billion that immediately comes off the bottom line of the MRRT.
The MRRT will provide recognition of past investments through a credit that recognises the market value of that investment. It is written down over up to 25 years. It will recognise the particular characteristics of different commodities by applying a taxing point close to the point of extraction and using appropriate pricing arrangements. It will provide a 25 per cent extraction allowance to recognise the value add and capital that mining companies bring to mineral extraction.
As you can see, it is a complicated tax. It is quite unlike other taxes such as income tax or GST. Those taxes are based on the activities of the company as a whole. The accounts of the company form the starting basis for working out the particular tax liability. Contrast that with the MRRT. It taxes profits from a part of the entity's operations, from mining projects that the entity carries on. There will be increased accounting administration, therefore increased costs to businesses, in measuring results at the project level. Resources put to use more productively will have to be deployed in dealing with this complexity. It will add to the cost of mining in Australia.
The Assistant Treasurer's second reading speech stated that the package of bills was 'developed in partnership with the resources sector', that being just three miners. It went on to say the package 'is a direct result of the strong cooperation of industry in the legislative process'. Fair dinkum—this is just spin and gross exaggeration. Take one example. Since the first material was released by the government, the mining industry has been concerned that the complex tax—which requires the application of novel concepts and principles in working out the liability—will mean the miner is faced with uncertainty in calculating the liability. So, when the government appointed the policy transition group chaired by Don Argus, it recommended that in developing the explanatory memorandum to the MRRT bill—which by the way was still being downloaded on the internet this morning—the drafters should provide clear explanations and examples.
The Minerals Council of Australia felt strongly about the need for certainty. In their submissions on both the first and second exposure drafts, the MCA asked that it be made clear in the bill that the explanatory materials and examples should be taken into account to confirm the meaning and interpretation of the legislation. They also wanted the minister's second reading speech to highlight the importance of the explanatory material to the interpretive process. So, despite the Assistant Treasurer's lofty claims about a partnership, the industry itself—even those that signed the heads of agreement—obviously has concerns about the process.
We also now have details of the petroleum resource rent tax changes for the first time, even though the tax has been in place from 1 July 1987. It will be extended to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore, at a tax rate of 40 per cent. There is a range of uplift allowances for unutilised losses and capital write-offs and immediate expensing is available for all expenditure. All state and federal resource taxes will be creditable against current and future PRRT liabilities from a project. You do not win a game by hampering your best performing player with a bad and complicated tax like this. The mining sector is important for Australia's prosperity. It is an industry in which Australia has an international comparative advantage. It employs directly 224,000 Australians, and most of these are in regional areas. In 2010 it accounted for 40 per cent of all business investment in Australia, and that is rising dramatically. The sector is a major driver of growth.
The rules of the game have been changed by the government, and Australia is competing for scarce capital and jobs in a world market. There are plenty of countries seeking to develop their mining sectors—from Brazil, Chile and Canada right through to a number of very poor countries in Africa and Asia—so there is an additional element of sovereign risk associated with these bills. But, more importantly, this illustrates the government's incompetence in making a decision.
We have had numerous versions and numerous drafts and then, when the legislation finally gets to the House, we have less than 24 hours to consider 11 new bills. No wonder the chief executive of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti said on 26 October at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth that Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
He said that about our country.
The constant changes and confusion on this tax have made international investors more wary of investing in Australia. Of course, the biggest driver of investment in Australia, the biggest pipeline of investment in Australia, is the mining sector, and the head of one of the biggest mining companies in the world identifies inconsistency in demonstrated behaviour in terms of tax policy as one of the reasons there is sovereign risk in investing in Australia.
This is a bad tax. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth and retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia in global competition for scarce capital and jobs. And at a time of heightened global uncertainty this is precisely the wrong time to introduce a complicated tax. There have now been four different sets of projections of revenue from the mining tax. The offsetting expenditures as identified in a Senate report are going to create a black hole. This tax will not raise the money that the government is claiming. It will not raise the money! And yet the government claim to have offsetting expenditure. The offsetting expenditure will grow when this tax fails to deliver the revenue that they claim.
The bottom line for Australia is that this tax not only creates a black hole for the Australian mining industry but is going to create a black hole in the budget—and it is all going to be the responsibility of the Labor Party and the Independents. (Time expired)
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (11:32): I have known the member for North Sydney for a long time. We were both elected to this place in 1996. He is a nice guy. I have never seen him so angry. I ask myself, 'Why is the member for North Sydney so angry?' It is simply because he knows that this tax is right, he knows that this is a good tax and he knows that this is a well-designed tax. But, more importantly, he knows that this is a tax which enjoys the support of the Australian community. That is his concern.
He talks about sovereign risk, yet never has the investment pipeline for the mining industry in this country been so strong. In my own electorate of Hunter the debate is not about how we attract more mining investment, it is about how we put a brake on mining investment. There are many in my communities who are concerned that we have too much mining in the Hunter Valley, with all the implications that has for air and water quality and many other issues.
This is the right thing to do. This represents a set of bills which has been agreed between the government and the mining industry after months and months of consultation and, after that, agreement. The member for North Sydney would have the House—and anyone listening to this debate—believe that we are rushing bills into this place that have not been duly considered and which have not been considered properly by the opposition. That is not true. They need no more time on this issue. They have had plenty of time on this issue, and it is time we got on with the debate. Forget about the stunts, like the one we got from the member for North Sydney. It is time we got this important legislation through both this place and the Senate.
These bills not only enjoy my support, I am very confident that they are supported by the people who make up the communities in my electorate. My communities are welcoming of the mining industry. The mining industry has brought great wealth to the Hunter Valley. It has raised average incomes and it has spawned many mining support industries around it. Many of my constituents have enjoyed standards of living they could only have dreamed of were it not for the mining industry. Many of my constituents know that their children have a bright future because of the existence of the mining industry in my electorate, and they are not going to be conned by people like the member for North Sydney. They are never going to be persuaded, because they live with it. Many of them work in the industry. They understand the industry. They are not going to be persuaded that this tax is going to be the ruin of the mining industry.
They believe—and I have consulted widely—it is only fair and right when companies are enjoying super profits as a result of higher coal prices and commodity prices more generally that, given that they are a community owned resource, a greater dividend of that production comes back to the broader Australian community, including, of course, mining communities.
As I said, the mining industry is welcome in the Hunter but it does bring some negatives. I mentioned air and water quality. By definition I should also mention that flowing from that are potential threats to industries that have sustained us for a couple of hundred years and, hopefully, will sustain us for thousands of years into the future if we protect them properly. Mining brings road congestion. It brings an inability to find child care. It brings capacity constraints in housing. If you go to Woolworths in the town of Singleton in my electorate, you will find that you will pay maybe 10 per cent more—I am making the figure up; I must admit I forget exactly what it is—on average for your goods than you would pay in Cessnock, for example, which is half an hour down the road. Why? Because of the existence of the mining industry. The supermarket chains move to the price signal. They will charge for their goods what they believe the market can sustain.
The mining boom is not all good news. While that price difference does not cause a lot of pain for those working in the mining industry, who can afford it, it does cause pain for people who do not work in the mining industry and do not enjoy the high salaries which flow from it. It does not help pensioners, for example, on fixed incomes—as much as this government has done to help them in recent years. They do not enjoy the benefits of the mining industry but they still suffer the congestion, the implications for air and water quality, and the high prices that companies are able to charge for retail goods as a result of the high average wages in that industry.
So it is not all good. My communities say, 'Well, if these guys are making superprofits from resources which, at the end of the day, we own, some of that dividend should come back to us.' Not too many of my constituents will understand the complexities of the tax, but I do not think they have any doubt whatsoever in their minds that the government is sensible enough to make sure this initiative is not going to have severe adverse impacts on the industry. They know, and they read about it all the time, how many mining companies are currently knocking on the doors of the Hunter shire councils, the state government and others looking to either establish new mines or to expand existing mines—notwithstanding the fact that the mining companies, at least some of whom, after all, have been involved in these negotiations, are fully cognisant of the fact that the supertax on mining is coming.
How are we going to use this tax to spread the bounty amongst the broader community? It is very simple, and it has been spoken of already this morning. We are going to use it as an opportunity to finally increase superannuation contributions, from nine per cent to 12 per cent—something which is absolutely necessary. This is not just part of a wish list. We know the Australian demographics, we are familiar with the ageing of the population and we know the constraints and pressures that are going to be put on the transfer system in the future. We need to reassure ourselves that, in the future, people will have a proper level of retirement income saved. It is a very important and necessary initiative.
We will of course provide significant tax cuts for small business, the primary employer of people in this country. As a former shadow minister for small business and a former small business person myself, I know all the challenges small businesses face, but I also know how important they are to the Australian economy. This is a very important and good initiative for small business.
Very importantly for me—and I know for you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird—is the way in which this tax will return some of that bounty to mining communities themselves by way of community and economic infrastructure, so critical for all the reasons I have just articulated. When you have a mining boom in your community, despite all the benefits, there are some adverse effects. Road congestion is one of them and the ever-increasing rate of coal rail traffic is another. In my electorate, we have a very long list—as I am sure you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—of infrastructure projects which in reality could never hope to receive the sort of investment from government that is needed to knock them over.
In my electorate, we have projects like the Muswellbrook bypass, the Singleton bypass and a number of black spots along the New England Highway. In Scone we have the ridiculous situation where people are having to wait up to eight minutes to continue their drive through the main street because of the level railway crossing there. Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a town being cut in half for eight minutes because of the passage of a coal train? That is unacceptable in convenience terms and unacceptable in economic transport terms, but it is also unacceptable in safety terms. We need between $20 million and $30 million for an overpass on that site so that the vehicle traffic is not disrupted. There could be no more perfect an example of an infrastructure problem being created by the mining boom than that. The coal trains are getting more regular and much longer, and cutting off that road for a much greater period of time.
This is a problem directly caused by the coal boom in the Hunter. So it makes absolute sense to take this new tax initiative and use that money to invest in that rail overpass, and there are many similar examples in my electorate. Broke Road, which runs through Hunter wine country—the jewel in the tourism crown of the Hunter Valley—is the worst road in the Hunter Valley. It is frequented by miners travelling to work each day. Undoubtedly, the mining traffic on the road is even heavier than the tourism traffic, given it is a seven-day thing. No doubt that mining traffic is largely responsible for the state of that road. No-one seems to have the money to fix the problem. That is another example of a problem directly created by the mining boom, by the traffic caused by the mining boom, a good example of an infrastructure project which now will stand a much greater chance of being funded as a result of our decision to ensure that, when the mining companies are making huge superprofits because of high coal prices, the local communities—who, yes, benefit, but also have to put up with the negatives which flow—get some relief by sharing in the bounty of those high coal prices. This is not rocket science and that is why people in my communities support this tax. The opposition has a bit of explaining to do. The opposition has to explain to the Australian community why they should not be receiving these benefits. I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions and I have had guarantees from the responsible ministers that, like your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, my electorate will receive its proportionate share of the dividends which flow from this tax. At the next election, the coalition—no doubt represented by the National Party in my electorate—will have to explain to my communities why that money should not be returned to the communities from which it comes. That is the explanation they will need to have ready for my constituents and, no doubt, constituents in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to say one last thing. I want to talk about other threats to this initiative. There is the big threat on the other side from those who are going to deny this, cosy up to the coalmining companies, let them make their super profits and deny the Australian community their share, but there is another threat and it is called the New South Wales government. Critical to this arrangement is an agreement that the states will be rebated on the royalties they would have received as a result of their old system and that they would not seek to further increase those royalties. Surprise, surprise—and I think the same is the case in Western Australia—New South Wales has reneged on that deal, which means that we will have to rebate them more money for the increase in royalties they would have received as a result of the decision to increase their royalties. What does that mean? That means that we are giving more back to the state government and we have less money to share the wealth with communities, including mine and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. This can become very complex but it is also very simple.
People who live in my electorate can do two things: they can give more and more royalties from their resource to Barry O'Farrell so he can spend the funds on roads in western Sydney or they can pay less in royalties to Barry O'Farrell and let us retain more of the tax which flows from this initiative so that we can spend the money on infrastructure in the Hunter Valley. It is a really simple thing, as complex as the arrangements are. Barry O'Farrell can collect more royalties so he can spend the funds in Sydney or he can keep his royalties where they are and get rebated that amount from us and we will have what we should have, having collected the wealth from the Hunter community—more money to spend in Hunter communities. That is another thing that those who sit opposite will have to explain. I have no doubt that those who sit opposite are talking to Barry O'Farrell because they do not want this to happen. You have seen it today. They will run interference on this at every opportunity, which takes me back to where I began: why? Because they know this is a good initiative which is supported by the Australian community. (Time expired)
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (11:48): Unfortunately, 15 minutes is not enough time to go into all of the flaws in these bills, but I will do my best. I will just comment on some of the misguided statements of the member for Hunter where he thinks that this tax is going to deliver the infrastructure that he needs in his area. I can assure him that, regarding his share of this tax on a proportional basis—and there is a fix to this, which I will come to—he would be lucky to see a couple of hundred thousand dollars going to infrastructure in his area. The last time I looked, they were suggesting only a couple of billion dollars to states like Queensland and Western Australia. You need to consider that the most needed piece of infrastructure in Australia is the Toowoomba range crossing. He talks about eight minutes to get through a level crossing. I have trucks that wait twice that time trying to get across the main street of Toowoomba because the Labor government continues to defy the need for that range crossing. That range crossing alone would cost $2 billion. So do not try and create the impression that the MRRT is just going to be like some magic pudding that will spray money for infrastructure across Australia.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The way to fund infrastructure in Australia is to stop spending money on stuff that is completely wasted, like pink batts.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Like your schools.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The member for Hunter knows—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms S Bird ): The member for Groom has the call. The member for Hunter will cease interjecting. The member for Hunter will recognise that he was not interrupted.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: I will leave the member for Hunter to contemplate on all of that. As I said, I rise to speak on a package of bills that must have the distinction of being one of the most poorly designed and economically destroying policies that this government has ever put forward. I know that is an extraordinary statement and I know we have considered a range of policy missteps, clunkers, absolute disasters and complete wastes of money by this government, whether we are talking about the school hall program, where a couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether in overcharging by contractors, never to be challenged by the government, or the pink batts program, where another couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether. As one of my constituents found out this week, she will have her insulation removed but, of course, nothing will be put in its place. What are they going to do with it? They are going to take it down to the dump and bury it—along with all the money it cost to put it in. There is complete loss of control of the Green Loans program and the photovoltaic program. If we talk about losing control, the issue of the country's borders goes to the top of the list.
I said earlier this week that the Labor government, under its current leader and under its former leader the member for Griffith—perhaps its future leader—has an appalling record on energy and resources policies, and there is no better example of that than the MRRT. It is not something we should be flippant about, given the significance of the energy and resources sector to the Australian economy. I was looking forward to hearing the Treasurer explain in here today his rationale for introducing this highly destructive and deeply flawed minerals resource rent tax. I particularly wanted to hear his justification for using the resource sector as a cash cow to cover the reckless spending that has characterised the Labor government for the entire time the member for Lilley has been in the Treasurer's seat. I also wanted to hear how the government would justify putting forward a package that is little more than a pre-election quick-fix from a government that is desperate to cling to power regardless of the consequences for small and medium sized resource miners.
Alas, circumstances intervened and the Treasurer had to pass the job to someone else because, we are told, he has lost his voice. I too would lose my voice if I were presenting this sort of rubbish as the Treasurer of Australia. In a Freudian set of circumstances if ever there was, perhaps the Treasurer just could not face the thought of coming before this place and presenting, with a straight face, such a disastrous policy. Not to worry: as we know, the Assistant Treasurer is up for any job that gets his hands dirty or his face on television, and he has been publicly proving that since the middle of last year. The MRRT is not the fine piece of fiscal policy that the government would have us believe. It is rushed, reckless, incomplete and an unworthy successor to what was easily the worst piece of policy ever put forward by this government, the resource super profits tax. In its original version—as so passionately argued by the Treasurer and the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Griffith, when he was Prime Minister—the RSPT was a truly destructive version of this tax. It would have undermined Australia's sovereign risk profile and discouraged investment even more than this tax—and that is really saying something. The biggest flaws in the MRRT are a result of the fact that it was hastily slapped together in the days after the current Prime Minister ousted the member for Griffith with the single objective of scoring a quick political fix with no consideration of the economic or sovereign risk issues associated with it. As a result, the bigger mining companies, particularly BHP Billiton, Rio and Xstrata, were able to press their advantage to get a result that suited them but did not necessarily suit the mid-cap and smaller miners who had absolutely no say in the formation of this legislation. Those junior miners have been left out altogether and, from the feedback I have received and what I have observed of the Policy Transition Group, the government has not even come close to addressing those problems. That is not to denigrate the work of the Policy Transition Group or to question their sincerity, but the fact remains that more than a year after the first resources tax was proposed the wider resource industry is still facing uncertainty and the threat of being disadvantaged relative to international competitors. That position is reaffirmed by the meetings I have had in recent days.
That is not the worst flaw—and there are so many. As I say, I feel like moving for an extension of time, but I shall not. The biggest problem with the MRRT is that it builds a structural deficit into the budget of Australia. I know that those who sit opposite are promising a surplus; I know those opposite who have never delivered a surplus are saying that they can manage the risk. The best brains in the resources industry cannot tell you what the value of the dollar and the value of iron ore will be in two years time, let alone four years time, which has to be calculated so that the government can calculate the return that it is going to get from the MRRT. If you want to know whether that is backed up by the government's own actions, you need look no further than the fact that originally the government said that this tax would return around $12 billion. The Treasurer pulled out all stops to convince us in his pre-election backflip on the MRRT that it shaved off only $1.5 billion before conceding that it was slashed by $7.5 billion. But, of course, as we all know, it later emerged that his change of position on the original super profits tax cost $100 billion. I know when I speak in this House in billions those on the other side wave it away, because a billion dollars to them is nothing. It is the sort of money they can waste in a week on one of their programs, but this is serious money. Moving closer to the here and now, we were told after the election that revenue could be less than $5 billion and then Treasury revealed in February that revenue from the MRRT would be $17 billion over a three-year period, but now we know it is estimated to be only $11.1 billion.
The impact on the budget will be devastating because not only can the government not produce a surplus budget under current circumstances but with the sort of volatility that we are seeing in the market at the moment we are going to see the budget surpluses not taken seriously. The predictions of budget surpluses by the current Treasurer are not taken seriously, but no financial house will have any confidence in their predictions. What we are seeing is Magic Pudding economics. There is no better example of that than a budget set on the iron ore price of three or four weeks ago, which was about US$180 a tonne. That price today is US$120 a tonne. No-one knows whether it is going to $150, which would be its natural balance point, or whether it will drop further. When you consider that when the price of iron ore drops from $180 to $120 the profit a company is making is cut in half—and probably more for some companies—it is impossible to use the MRRT in the calculations associated with it with any degree of certainty.
The other issue is our sovereign risk profile, and the international investment community looks in sheer wonder and amazement at what this government is doing to our country. We first had a complete reversal of a set policy position that had stood for 20 years on condensate tax, agreed to by the Labor Party, but it was so desperate for money it changed that. Then we had a decision to introduce a carbon trading scheme and then it changed its mind on that. Then we had the pledge that there would never be a carbon tax under a government led by the current Prime Minister and, of course, she changed her mind on that. We had the introduction in May last year of the RSPT, and all the reasons for that, and then it changed its mind again in July.
The end result is that the view overseas is that this government does not know what it is doing and it does not know how to position the resource industry to make sure it is internationally competitive. And guess what—we agree with them, and so does Australia. We think this government is a complete joke, an absolute shambles. It cannot put a position in place which it can actually hold for more than six months and where it can give the investment community any sort of confidence at all that it knows what it is doing. Then we get this rubbish that the member for Hunter comes up with about how this money is going to be returned to the community. Complete rubbish!
Western Australia, if the Treasurer's figures are right, will contribute about $8 billion to this tax and, if they are really lucky and they behave themselves and they do not put up their royalties and they do not do this and they do not do that, they may get back about 10 per cent of that for their infrastructure—$1 billion, maybe $2 billion, if they are really lucky. What a joke. This is a con.
This government are pretending that by introducing a new tax people are going to be better off. They are a tax-and-spend government who have never been able to manage money, who do not understand how the basic principles of commercialism work and who want to think that they can introduce a tax and pretend that they are going to return it all to the people, when we know that this money is not going to go into superannuation. The employers have to pay that. The government have to pay some superannuation for their Commonwealth employees, but it is certainly not going to be $11 billion.
What we know is that this bad tax, this tax which is going to affect so severely Australia's competitiveness in the resources sector, its place in the investment community in the world and the view that investors take in Australia is simply that—a tax. It is not a superprofits tax, because they have not applied it to all industry, and it is not just coal and iron ore that make superprofits, if that is the way they want to term making a profit in a good year. I remember when the industry did not make a cracker. What are they going to do then—call it a superloss tax? Probably.
The government do not apply it to other sectors of the economic community. They do not have the guts to try and use this rationale on a few of the other sectors. I am not going to start rabbit racing by suggesting that they are considering other areas, but we know that they are considering other commodities. They know the people who actually have control of this government, the Greens, are suggesting that there be a change in the MRRT even before it is introduced and that they expand the commodity grab. If I can be sure of one thing, it is that this government will find more ways to tax more parts of the resources sector because they need more money to plug their black holes.
In the last few days, of course, we have seen the bewildering prospect of each of the Independents—and good luck to them; they have to take their opportunities when they come—going in for their pound of flesh. It is $100 million, $200 million, $300 million and $400 million here and there. It is this research station and that concept. What do we have? No-one in the industry now knows where this is going to finish up. Are the government going to move amendments to this legislation before it passes the House? We do not know. Are they going to support amendments put forward by the Independents? We do not know. Australia does not know what is doing and, as I said earlier, this tax not only is poorly thought through but is giving Australia an international reputation of being run by a shambles of a government.
In conclusion, can I just say that the resources sector has been forced to wait too long for any degree of certainty, remembering that it is now a year since this tax was originally proposed, firstly by former Prime Minister Rudd and then amended by Prime Minister Gillard. This level of uncertainty has unacceptable impacts on Australia's sovereign risk profile and our international competitiveness. This is a bad tax. We will oppose it in opposition and we will rescind it in government.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:03): I thought that the member for Groom would have been tempted to apply for an extension of time so that he could concentrate on speaking on the minerals resource rent tax legislation before us. That was probably the only thing he did not concentrate on. I hope I can assist his contribution, and I firstly indicate that I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is legislation clearly designed to address Australia's current patchwork economy. I know that phrase rolls off the tongues of all of those opposite. They talk about a patchwork economy and a two-speed economy et cetera. That is fine as rhetoric, but sooner or later it falls to us to do something to address this issue.
These bills are designed to encourage industry, investment and development, to assist small business and to promote national savings by locking in the benefits of the mining boom and also paving the way for increases in the superannuation guarantee. Superannuation can be increased, thereby providing a more realistic retirement income for Australians. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, the benefits of the mining boom, as you would appreciate in your own electorate, are not evenly spread throughout the economy and are certainly not evenly spread throughout our respective communities.
In what could be seen as a once-in-a-lifetime mining boom, which we are now experiencing, resources companies are competing for skilled labour across the globe at a time when in this country we have very low unemployment. That in itself is creating significant pressures. Clearly these companies are in a position to provide generous wages and conditions well beyond the capacity of most other sectors in the economy. I know that firsthand. My youngest son, Nicholas, has spent some time working both in Blackwater in Queensland and in Port Hedland. I am certainly aware of what he was paid there, having helped him to do his tax returns, and I can assure members that, compared to what a 25-year-old earns in the mining industry—and no doubt they work very hard there—a politician's salary pales into insignificance.
As I said, they do work hard and good luck to them. My son is there as an electrician. He works cheek to jowl with other electricians not only from Sydney and where we live but from Launceston and South Australia. All of those young people are up there. That is why you would probably struggle—and people in the gallery would probably know this—to get someone to put an electric light pole or a power point in. It is because under this patchwork economy we are competing for those skills throughout our economy. That is the patchwork nature of the economy that we are now operating under. As a consequence, there are many businesses outside the resources sector that are struggling to attract and retain skilled labour.
I also note that there are many households across the country that do not see the benefits from the mining boom and which are struggling to keep their heads above water given the cost of housing, paying a mortgage and raising and providing for a family in today's environment. The government does not want to slow the mining industry, but the challenge is to ensure that the benefits of this boom do not simply leave our shores as excess profit for the benefit of foreign owners of our largest companies. Clearly the challenge is to ensure that there is an overall collective benefit for all Australians from Australia's mineral wealth. I do emphasise that this is wealth that is owned by all Australians.
The minerals resource rent tax is an opportunity to deliver tax breaks for small business and to provide them with the assistance and incentive they need to develop their enterprises. We know that through their diverse small businesses there will be sustainable employment, because they are the driving force for employment in this country, and it is through small business that we will see sustainable employment—not, quite frankly, through the ebbs and flows of the mining and resources industry.
This tax will also help us to fund the critical infrastructure development that the member for Hunter was talking about. That in itself will assist in enhancing the economic productivity of our nation, particularly through streamlining structures such as port facilities, export facilities and those things which will go to enhance the nation's productive capacity not only now but into the future.
This tax also paves the way to build on the superannuation guarantee by increasing superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent, which will be transitioned over the next decade, enabling more Australians to better enjoy a retirement income in their senior years and increasing the pool of national savings in superannuation by $500 billion by the year 2035, from $1.3 trillion as it stands at the moment. This money can be invested in capital and social infrastructure to benefit all Australians.
We on this side of the House are very proud to be further enhancing superannuation; after all, it was a Labor government back in 1984 that took the first steps and allowed award based superannuation to be developed. Those members of the House who, like me, have grey hair, might recall that the union movement forwent wage increases at that stage to productivity increases to enhance superannuation development through award based superannuation and then in 1988 the superannuation guarantee came into effect and applied to all Australians. This is something that we on this side of the House are proud of.
For those Australians on low incomes or working part time, many of whom are below the tax-free threshold, this will enable their superannuation contributions to be made effectively on a tax-free basis, not providing the 15 per cent entry fee for superannuation contributions and therefore providing a much fairer taxation and superannuation benefit for them.
The MRRT is a tax on profit. It is not a tax based on commodity price, size of a mine, or the actual extraction of ore. It is a tax on the profit that is made by a particular mining project. And it is important to note that the MRRT is not a tax on operating costs but one that applies to the net profit from mines that have an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million. It seems to me that we are talking about major companies if we are talking about after-tax profit, to be divided amongst shareholders, of $50 million. Further, the MRRT will not apply to the mining industry in general. It will be levied only on the major iron ore and coal projects that enjoy an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million.
It is important also to note the objective and independent assessments of the value of the MRRT to the Australian people. For instance, the OECD in its 2010 economic survey of Australia said:
The proposed Mining Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) on coal and iron ore operations, along with the extension of the Petroleum Rent Resource Tax, are justified on both equity and efficiency grounds.
It goes on to say:
This Resource Rent Tax is more efficient than the current royalties system, as it raises taxation on finite and immobile resources.
It concludes by saying:
This will improve the efficiency in the resource sector.
Economic commentator Saul Eslake, who I understand is these days at the Grattan Institute, said in relation to the principles of resource rent tax:
The return to Australian people from the exploitation of mineral and energy resources should be based on the profits derived from the extraction and sale of those resources, rather than on the volume of resource production—is one that I and most other Economists strongly support.
The minerals resource rent tax was developed in consultation with the industry. Those major companies that will be paying the tax were engaged in the discussion and have acknowledged their capacity to make a greater contribution to this country.
Despite the objective and authoritative positions and assessments of the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and most mainstream economic commentators, the Leader of the Opposition's position is that he will oppose this legislation and, if given the opportunity to occupy the treasury bench, will get rid of it. He will turn it over.
Mr Champion: Give the miners a tax cut.
Mr HAYES: Yes, give the miners a tax cut. Give it back. In doing so, the Leader of the Opposition and his party will be not only squandering the potential benefits to the Australian people of this once in a lifetime boom but also turning their backs on small businesses and destroying the hopes of 8.4 million Australians who are seeking to have better opportunities in their retirement. Once again he is happy to put politics ahead of the community, and he maintains his rhetoric that the MRRT would force the likes of BHP Billiton and Rio to close their projects in Australia, to vacate to South America or other places, despite the enormous investment programs currently underway by those very companies. Despite making all that rhetoric and playing it out in the popular media, you might recall that it was not all that long ago that a Western Australian Liberal government decided without notice to unilaterally increase the mining royalties on the iron ore industry. You would expect at least some protestation about that. There was not even a peep. There was not one line of criticism from Mr Abbott and his supporters. It was okay to raise revenues over there but not to raise revenues on the basis of doing something for the Australian people. That is a different issue.
In contrast to the Liberal Party, the Gillard government will be locking in the benefits of the mining boom for all Australians, including the less economically fortunate Australians. They will see that they have a government that is prepared to invest not only in this nation but in this nation's people. The Leader of the Opposition and those at the table have the opportunity to explain why it is that the Liberal Party is lining up with some of the richest companies in the world instead of the Australian people, who see that their resources are being dug up and shipped overseas for foreign companies' enhanced profit. This is about doing something to ensure that those excess profits are redistributed through our economy to make sure that we do address the issue of the patchwork economy.
This is not for people to come into this place and simply wax on about a two-speed patchwork economy and multispeed drivers in the economy. This is a matter of people coming in here with an ability to do something about it. This Labor government is standing up and doing something about it. I commend this legislation to the House.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): As a proud Western Australian I am an avowed supporter of the mining industry in Australia because of the enormous benefits that flow through our economy and the boost that it gives to our overall prosperity. But those in the government cannot make that claim, as they seek to impose an unfair, complex, divisive, fiscally irresponsible and distorting tax that will reduce our international competitiveness and cost jobs and which has been developed through a deeply flawed and improper process.
Government members are talking of the success of the mining industry but in terms of the problem that it is causing for Australia in creating a patchwork economy. The government appears blind to the obvious threat of a recession in the Australian economy were it not for the mining industry. Our mining industry is critical for our nation's success but only if it can remain competitive against other great mining nations.
The story of mining in Australia is the story of achievement, rising national prosperity, development, opportunity and jobs. That is why I am opposed to any measures that would cripple our mining industry. The talk from the government is all doom and gloom, lamenting the impact of the mining sector on other areas of the economy, particularly manufacturing, and acting as if we have previously lived in a one-speed economy. With the unions and the government's coalition partner the Greens reverting to protectionist rhetoric, I fear that the old socialist mindset is creeping back into the national debate as Labor seeks ways to soak money out of the most productive part of the economy.
The coalition are opposed to the mining tax. Rather than adding cost burdens to the mining sector, we believe that it should be as internationally competitive as possible because we recognise that in a global economy capital can easily move to countries where the rate of return is the greatest. The buyers of our commodities have alternatives. Other countries have or are developing mining sectors that could well rival ours. The development of Asia's great economies explains the level of investment we are currently witnessing in the sector. The strong growth in mining investment over the last decade has reached its highest level in history. The huge demand for Australia's mineral commodities in 2009 increased mining investment to above four per cent of GDP, around eight times its share just 50 years ago.
Australia is currently enjoying the best terms of trade in 140 years on the back of high commodity prices and strong levels of demand, yet still this government cannot manage the budget. They have an appalling fiscal record of a cumulative total of $150 billion in budget deficits over the past four years; in other words, they have spent $150 billion more than they have raised in revenue at a time of record terms of trade. That means that they are entirely dependent upon the strength of the Asian economies, particularly China and India, to continue to drive Australia's economic growth. That cannot be taken for granted. As the dark clouds continue to gather on the global economic horizon, this government is putting in place one of the most burdensome tax regimes in the world on our most productive sector.
The government likes to take credit for Australia's enviable position in the world economy, but it fails to acknowledge that it is derived in large part from our reputation as a safe, reliable exporter of mineral resources and energy. We are a world leader in the export of black coal and iron ore. In 2009 Australia's mineral resources sector contributed close to $160 billion to export earnings. This is compared to around $36 billion for the rural sector and $38 billion for manufacturing. During that period the sector accounted for eight per cent of Australia's gross national product. According to the Minerals Council of Australia, mining companies contributed more than $7 billion in royalties as part of $21 billion paid in state and federal taxes in that year alone.
Mining companies have invested more than $125 billion in Australia over the last decade, including in new capital, exploration, and research and development. Today the mining sector is responsible for the direct employment of over 180,000 people and almost 600,000 people benefit through indirect employment in support industries. As Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens recently highlighted, there is positive spillover from the mining sector to other parts of the Australian economy. He said:
… beyond the benefits being experienced by equipment hire, engineering, surveying and consulting firms, businesses as diverse as those supplying modular housing, laboratory services and the training of semi-skilled, trade and other workers are seeing effects of the expansion.
There are also thousands of additional jobs in broader sections of the service economy, including retail. Since 2007, many of the challenges facing Australia and the mining sector have come from the federal government, first under Prime Minister Rudd and now under Prime Minister Gillard. The superprofits tax announced last year would have had a massive impact on Australia's international competitiveness, and it hit hard our reputation as a safe investment haven. The way the tax was announced and the way it was allegedly sold to the public made it clear that this government just does not get mining; it just does not get the Australian economy. From publicly deriding mining companies as being foreign owned and ripping off taxpayers, to claiming that mining companies only pay minimal tax—and they relied on a student paper from an American university to make that claim rather than the actual tax paid according to the Australian tax office—this was evidence of a government with absolutely no understanding of a vital element of the Australian economy.
On 23 June last year—and the member for Mackellar, who is at the table, will remember that date well—I referred in question time to the comments of the Chief Executive Officer of the Mining Association of Canada, who had called Prime Minister Rudd the mining man of the year in Canada because he would bring a lot of investment their way, and I asked the then Prime Minister if he intended picking up his award when he was in Toronto the following week for the G20 meeting. Well, that was the very last question that I ever got to ask Prime Minister Rudd, for that very night the forces of darkness moved against him—the faceless men of the Labor Party staged a midnight coup. But it does appear as if history is about to repeat itself.
Having unceremoniously removed Prime Minister Rudd from office because of his failures over the superprofits tax, amongst other things, the Gillard government is now seeking to implement an even worse tax, based on the deeply flawed agreement that she reached with the big three mining companies over 12 months ago. This version of the tax is extraordinarily complex, and it introduces a new federal tax on top of corporate tax, payroll tax and the existing state royalties.
There are serious questions as to how much tax will actually be raised and upon which companies the burden will fall. But, due to the extraordinarily clumsy negotiations with the three mining companies—to the exclusion of the 3½ thousand other mining companies in this country—the federal budget is now hostage to decisions by state governments, who are perfectly entitled and constitutionally enabled to raise their royalty rates. The federal government now has to repay all of the royalties that the state governments, whether Liberal or Labor, around the country impose on the mining companies. What an extraordinarily inept negotiating performance by this Prime Minister.
There are serious questions about the constitutional validity of the proposed tax. And, after the government's humiliating loss in the High Court over the legality of its Malaysia asylum-seeker swap deal, we have every reason to be sceptical in the face of the government's assurances that it could win a High Court challenge to its mining tax laws.
Following recent mining tax profit announcements, the Prime Minister is now under renewed pressure from her coalition partner the Greens to claw back an even greater tax take from the mining companies. Senator Bob Brown has labelled the new arrangements 'a perverse outcome' and has called on the government to revive its original tax of 40 per cent on mining profits, although Senator Brown muses that '50 per cent would be more like it'. So watch this space.
I did not ever think that I would see the day when 'Australia' and 'sovereign risk' would be uttered in the same sentence. But reports of investor concern continue as the government continues its assault on our mining sector. A couple of months ago I attended an Australia-central Africa trade forum in Sydney. Ministers and representatives from central African governments—Cameroon, Chad, the Congo and Gabon—were present. I was somewhat taken aback when they announced that they were in Australia to promote investment in their countries because, as Australia was now a sovereign risk, central Africa was a more attractive option. And they knew the details of this mining tax debacle chapter and verse.
There were similar discussions at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth last week as part of CHOGM, as delegates from African nations promoted the fact that investment in mining in Africa would be a better bet than investing in Australia under this government's burdensome tax regime. As the chief executive officer of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, said, Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
Having introduced the mining tax measures to increase the government's share of iron ore and coal companies' profits, the Gillard government is now set to increase the cost of a mining company's overheads as well.
Despite having solemnly promised at the last election that she would not introduce a carbon tax, the Gillard government has introduced legislation to implement a carbon tax, which is essentially a tax on energy. So the dangers posed to Australia's economy by this mining tax policy—as well as those posed by the carbon tax policy, which will cascade throughout the economy—are well documented. Yet the Australian mining sector will be amongst the hardest hit. In a statement to the ASX in July, Rio Tinto expressed the widespread concern of the mining sector, and said that the company was:
… deeply concerned the proposed carbon tax fails to shield Australia’s export sector and leaves it at a disadvantage compared to international competitors.
This sentiment has been echoed by others. Marius Kloppers of BHP Billiton has described the government's carbon tax as an economic deadweight cost and a tax on exports.
For small to medium sized companies with lesser profit margins to absorb these additional costs, this new tax will be hard felt. This is likely to be the case with Australia's goldmining industry, and I mention the goldmining industry because, while it is currently not included in this mining tax, we should be very well aware that the Greens are calling for its inclusion. So it is only a matter of time before the mining tax will be expanded to include every conceivable mining activity, including quarries, as their superprofits tax did last year. That was included in their resource superprofits tax—an absolute disgrace. So the Greens are calling for its inclusion; the government will fold.
Earlier this year the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency released data which showed that a typical size goldmining company will be hit hard by the carbon tax, which will directly increase operating costs by more than 13 per cent, putting pressure on contractors and their ability to employ people. Currently the goldmining industry employs 7½ thousand people nationwide—but clearly that is of no concern or no interest to this government. Other participants in the mining industry supply chain—such as transport companies, cleaning companies and accommodation providers—will also be affected by increased operating costs.
There has been discussion in Australia recently about the desirability of a sovereign wealth fund to capture the benefits of our mining boom, but it is a fact that the Howard government established such a fund with the Future Fund. However, virtually no money has been added to that fund since Labor took office. We also established the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which was designed to be a fund in perpetuity to receive surplus moneys and, with income earned, to help make our higher education sector world class. That fund has been gutted by Labor.
The point is, of course, that we ran successive budget surpluses and paid down the $96 billion debt we inherited from the last Labor government. But it can only be hypothetical to talk about establishing a sovereign wealth fund any time soon while the government is billions and billions of dollars in debt. The first priority must be to repay the government's debt, which today stands at around $110 billion to $120 billion. The sooner we pay off that debt, the sooner we can recoup the billions in dead money being paid in interest each year.
The coalition's priorities are to get the budget back into surplus, pay down debt and ensure that Australia is in the best possible position to withstand further external economic shocks. But this government just does not understand mining, whether it is imposing a $2 billion condensate tax on Woodside without notice, announcing a superprofits tax that destroyed our international reputation, announcing an economy-wide carbon tax that no other country in the world is implementing, unleashing the militant unions or placing a blanket heritage listing the size of the state of Victoria over Kimberley and Western Australia.
The Gillard-Greens government is no friend of mining, no friend of the Australian people and no friend of this economy. As a nation we should be playing to our strengths. We are world leaders in mining, yet this government wants to drag our mining sector down to the back of the pack with taxes that our competitors will not be paying. We oppose this mining tax and so should all members of this House.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:31): Listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who never misses a chance to talk Australia and our economic performance down, you would think things were pretty grim. But in my state of South Australia we have just announced progress on a new mine opening with $1.2 billion set aside to expand Olympic Dam into the biggest copper and uranium mine in the world. I am a bit perplexed by some of her rhetoric on how grim it is, given that mining is expanding at a rate of knots in my state—not just exploration and the development of Olympic Dam but many other mineral developments in that area.
This is self-serving rhetoric which covers the fact that the Liberal Party and the coalition have always opposed taxation measures on resources. They opposed the petroleum resource rent tax when it came through in the 1980s. They said that would bring an end to investment and the sky was going to fall. They made the same speeches on the PRRT then as they are doing now—it was going to be the end of the world and it would end economic growth. Instead, we know the PRRT provided valuable revenue which the Howard government later relied on to fund its great budget surpluses.
Labor in government have always been concerned with both the growth of the economy and the distribution of wealth. We have always endeavoured to marry those two things in a manner that is consistent with ongoing prosperity and fairness in the economy. It is important that when we have economic growth not only a small group of people gain the benefits of that growth. It is important to spread that growth throughout the middle-class and working families all over this country. The economic reforms of the 1980s—the floating of the dollar and the reduction in tariffs—were underpinned by social reforms. These included reforms in Medicare, superannuation and family payments which were all about supporting families and making sure middle-class and working-class families had a good standard of living and that health care, retirement incomes and family payments were not left to the market. These payments are needed when kids are growing up.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill and related legislation represent a continuation of that tradition. We are endeavouring to marry great growth in our resources sector—which is ever present and ongoing despite the claims of the opposition—with the need to properly share that wealth with the majority of Australians. Most importantly, it will be shared not just with this generation but with future generations. For that to happen, we need to have something left when all of this is done.
I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Curtin, talking about how the Howard government had put money away in the Future Fund, and indeed they did. But I remember reading in Peter Hartcher's book that the Howard government in the 2004-07 budget cycle received some $320-odd billion in extra revenue during that period. A portion of that was put away in the Future Fund, but a great amount of it was spent—and we all know spending in the later years of the Howard government galloped out of control.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: We left you a surplus—something you'll never do!
Mr CHAMPION: You might have run a surplus, but spending was also growing. Any mug can run a surplus in a growing economy.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Really! Why don't you?
Mr CHAMPION: That's not true, we ran the first budget surplus in 1988. The Liberal Party never ran one when John Howard was Treasurer. But history is history and we will let the economic historians argue over it. The point is that what we want from this extra resource revenue and what we want from this tax is to be able to hand future generations something of the national providence that we have today. Mining profits over the last decade have skyrocketed by 262 per cent. Normal Australians marvel at the profits of BHP and Rio Tinto, and they marvel at the extraordinary individual wealth that is being generated by some of the mining magnates, who like to offer their opinion from time to time about matters such as this tax. There is no doubt this is a gilded age for some. Some people give rather generous gifts away—good luck to them—but they have vast profits, vast executive remuneration and vast personal wealth, and that is what is being generated. Profits are being repatriated out of this country.
We know that mining workforces and ancillary industries also are deriving gain from mining. Some of the previous speakers talked about the young workers up in the Pilbara region and the great wealth that is derived from mining jobs and from the jobs associated with mining. But it is all derived from the Australian nation. The nation owns the minerals and so it is all derived from the providence we have been bequeathed by having this continent to ourselves.
These mining companies and individuals are allowed to extract these minerals by agreement with the states and by agreement, ultimately, with the nation. The nation has a legitimate right and expectation in the public interest to derive revenue from these minerals that does not just come in the form of royalties but also in the form of a profits based tax. Much has been said about what the mining industry has said about this, but the more sensible voices accept that a profits based tax is a sensible way to go. Although we hear talk about sovereign risk and all the rest of it, much of it is self-serving talk by the minerals industry because it wants to prevent profit taxes in other jurisdictions. It wants to prevent the spread of good ideas, so it is running a scare campaign. It wants to maintain the current arrangement. But, as I said, many Australians have looked upon this gilded age and wondered what it means for them.
Too many communities and too many individuals have been locked out of this great wealth, this wealth that is produced, ultimately, by the nation. Too many people have been adversely affected and we see that as the currency has risen dramatically. We see the impact of that on other sectors, other jobs and the like. We see the rising costs of labour, the rising costs of living in remote mining communities and the effects of booming regional economies. We know that for everybody who is doing well there is a business that is struggling to find a worker or a tradesman. We know that pensioners and people on fixed incomes are struggling with the cost of living. We know from this experience that it is a problem and it has to be dealt with. We know from international experience there are threats to nations' economies that are excessively dependent on resource extraction. We all know about Dutch disease. It has being talked about many times, about how success in resources lifts the currency and that has a correspondingly negative effect on the rest of the economy. We know that excessive disparities in wealth also can occur and that is not desirable. Australia has had a fine tradition of equality and of sharing our wealth. I think that is important to a country.
This bill overcomes these threats. It overcomes those challenges to the country and it ensures the growth in mining profits benefits the whole of the community and ensures that it benefits business. It ensures it adds to national savings and it ensures that regional infrastructure is not left behind. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the coalition on business, but one of the aims of this bill is to share some of the proceeds of this wealth to make sure we have a company tax cut to 29 per cent on 1 July 2013. That is to make sure that companies can compete.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: I hear my friend opposite interjecting and talking about one per cent. If it was such a small increase, why were you trying to match it during the last election? That is the question.
This bill will provide a new tax break for 2.7 million small businesses. Up to 13,000 businesses in my electorate will benefit from the small business $6,500 instant asset right off. It is important to support business during this time because they are the engine room of employment. It is important also that national savings are lifted. National savings have made a significant contribution to protecting this economy from some of the international ups and downs during the global financial crisis. Our national savings are a huge benefit to this country.
Where would we be without superannuation? This bill increases superannuation contributions from nine per cent to 12 per cent, a very important increase. It also expands the superannuation concessions for 3.5 million low-income earners, so it is not just the top end of town that gets a tax benefit from superannuation. It is a very important equity measure and very important for our national savings and our confidence in the long-term benefits of superannuation. We know that 8.4 million working Australians will benefit and we know it will increase national savings by $500 billion by 2035. This measure will simplify personal tax arrangements. It will allow a $500 standard deduction from 2012 and $1,000 standard deduction from 2013 and will also reward personal savings for five million Australians. The whole gist of this is to put money away for a rainy day—into national savings, into individual accounts. People talk about sovereign wealth funds; but there is no greater sovereign wealth fund in this country than superannuation, and it has been operating since Bob Hawke set it up and Paul Keating expanded it. The tragedy, of course, is that while the coalition fight like blazes before these things get in and say 'the sky is going to fall', once they have been brought in they are happy to benefit from them and happy to have them in place but never, ever to expand them. That is the great tragedy of the opposition's approach.
We know that infrastructure, which has been a great problem area, will benefit. The Howard government only built one piece of infrastructure: the Alice to Darwin rail link. It is a good bit of infrastructure and the nation had waited a long time for it, but it is not much to hang your hat on. We would hope to do better than that and build infrastructure in the regions, particularly to expand resource projects and our capacity for economic development, so that mining communities can expand and those regions can prosper. So there is quite a bit in this for regions and quite a bit for building the national project and for building the north of Australia—these great aims and projects.
This bill is in the national interest. It would be a great act of vandalism to block it or repeal it. That is why, when it is implemented, the coalition will not repeal it. That is just talk—beating their chests and acting like they are going to repeal something when they will not. They will adopt the same approach as they always do: fight it right up to the point that it is successful and then take the benefits this bill will yield for the Australian people and leave it in place. To remove it would be a great act of national vandalism and, I think, a great folly.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:46): I rise to speak today on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and associated bills. I think the comments by the most recent speaker, the member for Wakefield, say it all. He mentioned early in his speech that 'any mug can deliver a surplus in a growing economy'. I remind the member for Wakefield that the government he is a part of have proudly talked about keeping the economy growing and yet at the same time have presided over the three biggest deficits in this country's history—by a country mile.
This is the level of economic incompetence that is running this country. This is what we have to deal with. This is what industry has to deal with. This is why we have seen such enormous frustration from industry, not just the mining industry but also so many other areas of industry, who are just gobsmacked by the economic illiteracy of those opposite—and it was characterised today by the member for Wakefield. He said it all, and he said it on behalf of all his colleagues. They do not understand business. They do not understand economics. They are all about politics and spin.
We heard recently from the CEO of the New South Wales Minerals Council, Dr Nikki Williams—and, again, I think this says it all:
"We are the darlings of the business pages, yet we painted as demons in the early general news.
"We help treasurers keep budgets healthy and give Australia the strength to stave off the threat of recession, yet our industry is a lightning rod for the most adversarial of political debates."
The report goes on:
Dr Williams said Australia was in the middle of one of the longest mining booms in the nation's history.
"Yet we face multiple policy, regulatory and legislative challenges that might collectively render our sector a less attractive destination for international investment than countries such as Indonesia, Colombia or even Mongolia," she warned.
This is at the heart of the problem that we have with this stupid tax, this dangerous tax, this tax born of envy and paraded as a subject of envy when in fact it is ensuring that Australia, in a policy sense, once again under this government shoots itself in the foot.
The attempted implementation of this mining tax over the last 18 months has been one of the most shambolic policy episodes this country has ever seen. This legislation comes 18 months after the Treasurer announced his half-baked so-called resources super profits tax. The first version brought down one Prime Minister, who had not even seen out a term. This second version is contributing significantly to the imminent demise of another, if we are to believe the private talk of those opposite—and are they talking! And are they worried! The member for Wakefield should be in one of the safest seats around, but even he has problems.
Mr Champion: I'm not worried about you!
Mr ROBB: This tax is yet another symbol of the gross incompetence of this government. Firstly they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector—
Mr Champion: What are you going to do with your taxing measures?
Mr ROBB: Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have to put up with this ignorance from the other side?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! I ask the honourable member for Goldstein to keep to his speech and not take any notice of interjections.
Mr ROBB: It is very difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! And I ask for the interjections to cease or I will have to deal with people.
Mr ROBB: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. First they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector. This is unprecedented, and it spooked investors around the world. Now this tax targets the mid-tier miners. It is a highly discriminatory tax. It is still in a very dysfunctional form as a tax. It has not received any favourable treatment except from the three big miners. It is seen as a bungled proposal and it reinforces that the government's core instinct is to tax, spend and borrow.
If you are responsible in any organisation—whether you are in business, sport or government—the first thing you do is identify your strengths. Once you have identified the two or three major strengths of your business or your country, you then seek to nurture, develop and protect those strengths, because they underpin your success. You do not see a football team send their champion player out onto the ground with a lead weight around his neck. You nurture your best players. They are the ones that give you the premiership. They are the ones who do something magical in the last half of the last quarter.
Clearly the mining and resources sector is one of our nation's great strengths. But what do we see? We see a government that has sought to introduce not just a carbon tax but also a mining tax into the environment of a mining boom when our mining and resources sector, perhaps our greatest strength, has contributed so importantly to the quality of life that we have enjoyed in Australia for well over 100 years. This government is imposing in the middle of a mining boom two new taxes. It is ignorance and it is envy, but, most importantly of all, it is dangerous. It is dangerous in terms of the lost job opportunities and the lost investment opportunities—and we are seeing sovereign risk manifest itself as a consequence.
Not only did they bungle the proposal in terms of its design—it has taken 18 months—but it is now being rushed in as a symbolic attempt at achievement by a Prime Minister who is hanging by her fingernails onto the leadership. That is what this is about. The way this thing has been designed and the way it is being introduced is all about politics.
Agriculture is another of our great strengths, but look at the way they handled the live cattle job. The incompetence with which they handled that has added to sovereign risk. Our international education effort is another of our great strengths, but they introduced a visa requirement where families have to have three years of the education cost and accommodation to get a visa. Then they wonder why 20,000 Chinese students have stopped coming here. That is ignorance and incompetence. They are obsessed with taxing, spending and borrowing. That drives every policy of this government. They are an old-style socialist government—under pressure all they know how to do is tax, spend and borrow. This mining tax is nothing but a tax grab, pure and simple. It is a tax that will discourage investment. It is a discriminatory tax.
Let's look at where it falls. In research released today by BDO, a major research group, the mining tax liability on Rio Tinto was calculated for the first five years, and it was zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. They calculated the mining tax liability on BHP, and you will not be surprised to learn that, for the first five years, it is another five zeros. They have taken the real-life numbers of a small emerging miner who is making revenue in the order of $600 million to $700 million and calculated its mining tax revenue: first year—2012—zero; second year, $49 million; third year, $107 million; fourth year, $96 million; fifth year, $68 million; and the following year, $63 million. So we are seeing a total effective tax rate of 40.18 per cent in the first year in which they pay the tax, 45.68 per cent in the second year; 45.76 per cent in the third year, 46.12 per cent in the fourth year, and 46.20 per cent in the fifth year.
This is a scandal. We are putting a lead weight around the neck of our greatest strength in this economy. When you look at our competitors around the world—and they are significant, they are large and they are coming at us as they invest in infrastructure to move a mountain of resources that exist around the world—the highest effective rate of tax including royalties is 40 per cent in Canada. We are talking about mid-tier companies paying a 46 per cent effective rate of tax with this new tax. In other countries, such as Brazil and Mongolia and other major future competitors, they are paying in some cases as low as 30 per cent and less. This tax is a lazy and short-sighted attempt by an incompetent government to prop up its budget. That is all it is.
Let's for a minute examine the myth that the minerals sector is somehow not paying its way. They paid very little in 1999, but by 2002-03—when the mining boom was just taking off—they paid around $6 billion in taxes including royalties and corporate taxes. In 2010-11, that figure exceeded $23 billion, a fourfold increase. The profits-based company tax was in the order of $4 billion in 2002-03. That grew to nearly $15 billion. A massive new investment over the next four or five years and the reduction in costs offsetting profits will mean that revenue will continue in a very strong way, depending on the price of the product. So with the existing taxes we have a fourfold increase which is likely to get much higher in the next three or four years, yet the government wants to come in with a carbon tax and a mining tax which will add billions and billions to the tax that these companies are paying, and the effective rate of tax will head towards 50 per cent. This is nonsense. At a time when we should be locking in all of the potential investment that this great resources sector can produce, we are inviting competitors around the world as we see a supply response coming down the line. We think we are awash with resources, and we are. Our iron ore is 13 per cent of the world's supply, and our coal is 15 or 16 per cent of the world's supply. But there are mountains of it elsewhere, and this government is oblivious to that. They are inviting competition, they are ensuring that we will not be competitive and they are taking great risks. They have spent this money before they have earned it.
Then there is the prospect of China. Global reports came from Paul Wiseman yesterday that China's comedown is being engineered by its policy makers. They want to slow expansion just enough to cool inflation. If they get down to six or seven per cent growth—which will cool inflation—China will still have strong growth, but there will be a 15, 25 or 30 per cent reduction in prices. This government is vulnerable: our structural deficit at the last budget was twice Germany's and was 30 per cent higher than even Italy.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr ROBB: The member for Wakefield smiles. He does not understand what a structural deficit is.
Mr Champion: I understand it.
Mr ROBB: It means we are highly vulnerable. With this mining tax and the carbon tax, the government are spending money they do not have. This means we are being put in a highly vulnerable position with deficits potentially for another 10 years.
This bill should never have come before this House. It is the result of the politics of envy. It means that, as a country, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Under this appalling government it will turn away job creating investment, it will make our economy more vulnerable, it is antigrowth and it is just another piece of stupidity. If we get the privilege of government, we will remove this tax.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:02): I proudly rise to voice my strong support for the economy-building, future-proofing Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills before the House. It is always good to hear from the member for Goldstein. He has certainly had a tough time lately. I remember the budget reply speech from the Leader of the Opposition, who said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually do the budget reply speech. I'm going to give that to the shadow Treasurer.' The shadow Treasurer then came out and said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually get around to doing my budget reply speech. I'll ask the shadow finance minister.' It was amazing. As a teacher, I have heard a lot of excuses about why homework was not done, but that was the first time I ever heard anyone say, 'The dog did my homework.' I have never heard that before. It was amazing.
Some Australians are getting very rich from the mining boom, especially very profitable mining companies. Obviously the Labor Party is not concerned about profits—we support profits—but we are concerned when many Australians are left out. While some Australian small businesses are happy just to break even, our biggest miners are generating phenomenal profits. Mining profits for the year ending 30 June 2011 were a massive $93 billion with $430 billion of further investment in the pipeline, so to speak. So much for the member for Goldstein saying that investment in mining is about to dry up. That is ridiculous.
I say again that there is nothing wrong with big profits. Profits are good for shareholders, they reward workers, they help fund future investment and they stimulate our economy. But where we are seeing such enormous profits from the mining of our coal and our iron ore—Australians' coal and Australians' iron ore—much of this money goes overseas. A responsible government, a sensible government, must ensure that Australians are getting a fair return for our resources, which can only be mined once.
The minerals resource rent tax will apply to all new and existing iron ore and coal projects, and it will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. Only coal and iron ore producers generating an annual profit of more than $50 million will pay the tax. I repeat this for those opposite—you must be making an annual profit of more than $50 million before you have to pay this tax. State mining royalties will be fully credited back to the company, whether that state government is a Labor government or a Liberal government. The tax is expected to raise about $3.7 billion in 2012-13, $4 billion in 2013-14 and $3.4 billion in 2014-15, subject obviously to the variability of long-term international commodity prices. Over 10 years the mining tax, it is expected, will deliver an extra $38.5 billion to Australians.
The Gillard Labor government is determined to share these benefits with all Australians. How will we do this? Firstly, employer superannuation contributions will rise from nine per cent to 12 per cent, giving a 30-year-old worker on average earnings an extra $100,000 of savings.
Secondly, we will also give small business a take in the cut. They will be able to write off every asset worth up to $6,500. Who in this chamber would not support small business receiving such a benefit? You would have to be crazy not to support such a cut.
Thirdly, we will slash company tax to 29 per cent from 1 July 2013. All Australian companies—small, medium and large—will go from 30 per cent down to 29 per cent. In contrast, those opposite plan to effectively increase company taxes with their clumsy two per cent paid parental leave tax.
Fourthly, we will simplify personal tax by introducing a $500 standard deduction from 1 July 2012 and a $1,000 deduction from 1 July 2013.
Fifthly, we will reward personal saving for more than five million Australians with a 50 per cent tax discount on up to $500 of interest income from 1 July 2012.
Sixthly, the government will direct more investment back into mining communities through a regional infrastructure fund.
How could a wise man vote against such a tax? Well, I have heard that the honourable Leader of the Opposition does intend to change his name by deed poll to Joseph Wiseman because, as all film buffs would know, that is the actor who played Dr No in the James Bond movie. That is the only way we would be able to have a Wiseman voting against this incredibly sensible policy.
These projects will boost productivity, they will support jobs and they will look after our hard-working mining communities. I do find the opposition's position on this completely perplexing. The opposition climate change spokesperson told Sky Agenda on Tuesday:
… let me say that the mining tax is a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because capital is mobile in this world, that companies and investors have a choice as to where they set up their mining activities.
Obviously, he is half right: capital is mobile and companies do compete in the global mining market. But mining companies do not easily take their capital and just go to any other country to mine immobile resources. They come to Australia not just because of the present tax arrangements but also—wait for it—obviously because we have some of the best minerals in the world. We are blessed geologically. The competitive edge of Australian mining is not only our lean tax regime but also the abundance of these high-quality minerals and natural gas deposits beneath the ground.
Australia has 10 per cent of the world's coal resources, and most of this is top quality black coal like we have in Queensland—with no disrespect at all to the Victorians who are here. We have some of the top coal in the world, with higher energy burns and lower emissions. Australia has 47 per cent of the world's uranium. So this idea that miners will easily just move their capital around the world and mine somewhere else is quite ridiculous.
Let us have a look at the proposed projects. I will go through some which are on the horizon or have already been announced for new investment or CAPEX. Fortescue has a US$8.4 billion expansion in the Pilbara. Xstrata, to name just a couple of their announced projects, has $270 million in the McArthur River lead/zinc expansion, $1.4 billion in the Ravensworth North open cut coking coal project in New South Wales, $234 million in the George Fisher zinc mine expansion at Mt Isa, US$1.1 billion in the Ulan West underground thermal coal mine in New South Wales and $6 billion in the Wandoan coal mine in Queensland. Rio Tinto has US$6 billion in the Pilbara, $803 million in the Argyle open pit transition and $1.78 billion in the Hope Downs iron ore project. BHP Billiton has US$7.4 billion in the Jimblebar mine development in the Pilbara and US$5 billion in the Bowen Basin. These sums are all in US dollars, which I suppose is at approximate parity at the moment. Woodside has $14 billion in the Pluto project. The Woodside Energy joint venture with BP, BHP Billiton, Chevron and Shell has $30 billion in the Browse Basin LNG project. The Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil joint venture has $43 billion in the Gorgon LNG project. Santos has $16 billion in the coal seam gas in Gladstone and Curtis Island. BG Group has a $15 billion LNG plant on Curtis Island and in the Surat Basin, Queensland. Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips have a $35 billion LNG project at Gladstone. Royal Dutch Shell has a $11 billion LNG project.
These are just a few of these mining projects that are supposed to be drying up! It is ridiculous that those opposite can actually stand up and seriously argue that we are threatening the mining industry in Australia with this tax. Australia's resources are finite and precious. Australians own them, and the Gillard Labor government understands the responsibility we have to future generations to ensure that all Australians get a fair return—everyone today, everyone tomorrow and those who are not even a twinkle in the eye today. They all need to have a share in the finite resources that we own.
Speaker after speaker from the opposition got on the protest bandwagon and claimed that this tax would all but bring mining to its knees. I remember the member for Warringah wearing his Mitch Hooke-provided white T-shirt. The jeremiad went like this: 'Investment would end, jobs would go and mines would close.' That was only a year ago. That is what the Henny Penny on steroids, aka the Leader of the Opposition, would have us believe. But the reality looks nothing like this. Since we announced the MRRT, mining investment has soared and stronger growth is coming over the horizon, as I detailed. It has grown from $35 billion in 2009-10 to $47 billion in 2010-11 and will nearly double to $82 billion this financial year. Employment in the mining industry has also advanced rapidly. Just go to regional Queensland and you will see that. Go to Western Australia and you will see that. More than 44,000 new jobs have been created, an increase of nearly 25 per cent. The towns in these areas know that. There is absolutely no sign that the mining tax will damage mining investment.
The Labor government has built a strong economy. We have created 700,000 new jobs—140,000 of them in the last year alone. We have more Australians than ever before in traineeships or apprenticeships. Unemployment is at 5.2 per cent. We abolished Work Choices and restored unfair dismissal protections for 2.8 million workers, and we have slashed income taxes for everyone.
The Labor government is standing between the future prosperity of Australia and the road that the Liberal Party want to take us down, which is a US style economy where one per cent of the population controls 42 per cent of the wealth; where the latest data shows that instead of there being 13 per cent of the population living in poverty it has gone up to 15 per cent; where there are more unemployed people than there are union members. That is the sort of economy those opposite would like here.
Australians have confidence that the Labor government will make the tough and necessary decisions to protect jobs and to manage our economy sensibly. The mining tax will deliver for all Australians and help keep our economy strong into the future. I commend the bill, proudly, to the House.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:13): I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011. I, like the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Curtin—who spoke here before—am a proud West Australian and see that this tax will affect my home state more than it will affect any of the other states. It was clear from the results of the 2010 election in Western Australia that this mining tax and the carbon tax were overwhelmingly rejected by the West Australian population.
I started my career as an apprentice electrician and eventually ran a small business, which is how I earned my living before entering parliament. Unlike many on the other side of the House who had careers working for the trade union movement before entering this place, I know what it is like to run a business and to have to deal with burdensome taxes and government regulations. I know how prohibitive to running a successful business those taxes and regulations can become. That is why I always take great caution when it comes to these sorts of bills and look at why new taxes are being introduced. If this great country of ours is to stay strong and if our industries are to create wealth and provide jobs to Australians, we need to be creating and maintaining economic conditions for those industries to prosper. To maintain strong economic conditions we need investment, and those investors need a return on investment. This bill will suffocate investment, as it will be suffocating return on investment. It is as simple as that. We just heard the member for Moreton talk about what they are doing for small business, but this is just the misunderstanding of the Labor Party—they just don't get business and they just don't get taxes. As an example, he said they were going to reduce small business tax from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, a total of one per cent. The only small business that will benefit from that at all is the small business that is making a profit; if it is not making a profit this will be of no help at all. The other example is that they have just increased the superannuation levy, which wipes out the one per cent straightaway. If a small business man is making a profit, he will get an extra dollar for every $100 that he makes in profit. Big deal. That is no assistance to small business at all. But the Labor Party people think that it is a great bonus for small businesses.
To maintain strong economic conditions, we need investment, and investors need a return on investment. This bill will not maintain strong economic conditions; it will do exactly the opposite. The flawed process with which those opposite announced this mining tax to the public remains one of the most embarrassing performances of the government's time in office. It led to chaos across the country, which led to the ending of the prime ministership of the member for Griffith by the current Prime Minister and left an industry with an uncertain future.
No consultation was done with any stakeholders when the initial mining tax was announced. There was no consultation with industry or with state or territory governments despite serious implications for their own-source revenue. The Henry recommendation that a national profit based resource rent tax should replace state and territory royalties and that the federal government should negotiate the federal-state implications of such a move has been ignored by the federal government. The government's decision to provide no consultation on the implications of the mining tax is worrisome, given that resource royalties are 20 per cent of Western Australian state government revenues, nine per cent of Queensland state government revenues and six per cent of Northern Territory government revenues—and despite major implications for GST sharing arrangements around Australia.
This bill will damage Australia's ability to attract foreign investment. The increased sovereign risk brought on by the retrospective nature of the tax, and the large rise in taxation in comparison to overseas investment destinations, will no doubt cause foreign investors to think twice before entering the Australian market. The mineral resource rent tax is divisive. The government has created a situation where we have three big miners—and the rest. It is turning different parts of the industry and the economy against each other.
The WA state Treasurer, Christian Porter, has informed the government that 65 per cent of the revenue will come from iron ore production in Western Australia alone. It is extraordinary that one new national tax would raise 65 per cent of its revenue from one single state economy. This is about $25 billion coming from WA, out of the $38.5 billion total predicted revenue over the next decade.
This tax is deeply unpopular within my electorate of Swan, and obviously all of Western Australia, judging by the 2010 election results. I see the member for Hasluck in the chamber, and I am sure it is just as unpopular in his electorate. That is why it is disturbing that the federal government is trying to link infrastructure projects that would normally be funded out of consolidated revenue to the passage of the mining tax. The government is trying to hold a gun to the head of the Australian people, saying: support this tax, or else.
Of course, the government has shamelessly tried to use this strategy in my own electorate of Swan, when prior to the last election the government tried to link the future of the mining tax with the Gateway WA project for the roads around Perth. This was a very poor strategy. The government said to the people of Swan, many of whose livelihoods depend on the mining sector, 'Your roads are not going to be upgraded by the government unless you support the world's biggest mining tax, which will impact on the economy, your livelihood and your future.' We in the coalition made it clear that we would be funding these road projects, including the airport roads upgrade and the Great Eastern Highway upgrade, without the mining tax. Gateway WA has been identified by the WA government as critical to relieving state transport bottlenecks. Local people in my electorate know only too well of these bottlenecks, which they have to face during their everyday activities on roads which they share with industrial traffic coming to and from Kewdale and the transport hub in Welshpool. That is why on behalf of the community I campaigned hard for the upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway, which I am pleased to say is now underway, after some worrying times, including when there were concerns about the federal government not meeting a shortfall, which would have seen the upgrade cease at Hardey Road.
Gateway WA is a very important project. The federal contribution to the $600 million project is $480 million. The future of such a project should not be linked to what the Premier of Western Australia has described as a tax on WA. The project should also not have been thrown into the realms of uncertainty as it has been by the government's shaky and unreliable negotiations with the Independents. Today in the Australian we saw a big spread on how the member for New England plans to 'hold a gun to the government's head' on the mining tax legislation over issues in his electorate. The message coming out of Canberra is chaotic and the result may well be delays in this project.
We know the real reason why the federal government is introducing this mining tax legislation: it cannot fund any more of the nation's vital infrastructure projects through usual channels because of the massive national debt it has built up. It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton talking about a figure of $94 billion—it just rolled off his tongue. That is close to the national debt that the government has now built up. Kevin Rudd told all Australians he was an economic conservative but misled the Australian people. This country has never in its history been in more debt than it is now. The government cannot meet its obligations to the Australian people to continue to invest in infrastructure, and that is why it has to introduce this mining tax.
If the mining industry is threatened, so will be Western Australia and also the nation. That is why this was such a serious issue in WA before the last election, not only because of a threat to the jobs of the many people who work directly or indirectly in the mining sector but because the people of Western Australia understand the threat to the health of the local and national economy. There are many fly in, fly out workers in Perth and I know that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia is conducting an inquiry into fly in, fly out work practices at the moment, which I know do place strain on many families across WA. It might also be worth consulting with these workers over this legislation and how they feel it will affect them.
It is well known that Western Australia's GST intake is the lowest in the country, at 68c in the dollar. However, projections from the WA government suggest this could reduce to 50c within three years and be on its way down to the 30c mark. Given this, the Premier's recent decision on iron ore royalties was understandable. With no guarantee of WA's future GST return, the Premier was forced to act to secure some royalties. However the impact of this decision on the federal government's budget shows how the mish-mash deal hammered out before the election by the government with only three of the mining companies was just a short-term political fix. Under this deal the government promised to underwrite any rises in state royalties. State governments in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have increased royalties on iron ore and coal, and the result has been a massive hit on the federal budget bottom line.
I heard members on the other side of the chamber complaining about this, but that was the deal the government set up. It was their deal, so they have nothing to complain about. Other states such as Queensland have reserved the right to raise royalties in the future. None of the states were party to the Prime Minister's pre-election quick political deal and now the government is paying the price. As the shadow Treasurer said in his contribution, you cannot have serious and genuine reform of resource taxation and royalty arrangements without active and constructive engagement between the Commonwealth and state or territory governments.
Perhaps most significantly, there are serious question marks over the constitutional validity of the mining tax. We know that Ken Henry said that the federal government never sought advice on the constitutional validity of the tax before its announcement, and there is now the prospect that this legislation may not be lawful under the existing Constitution. As a tax on a resource at the point of extraction, this could constitute a tax on state property as prohibited by section 114 of the Constitution. Following the Malaysia people-swap decision from the High Court, the government is once again introducing legislation that one would think will inevitably result in a High Court challenge.
I would also say that, based on the outcome of the last election, it is particularly unclear whether the parliament has a mandate to introduce this legislation. I will be listening carefully to the speeches from the Independent members but, as I have already mentioned, the member for New England has announced that he will not support the legislation in its current form. Should these Independents have changed their minds since the last election campaign, it would indeed be another sad day for democracy if this legislation is passed in the House—following on from the carbon tax legislation, which only one or two members out of the 150 went to the last election in support of.
The government should start from scratch and pursue genuine tax reform to give Australians lower, fairer and simpler taxes through an open and transparent process. The parliament should stop the MRRT from going ahead and force the government to start again. The Gillard government needs to get its spending under control so it can focus on delivering lower, simpler, fairer taxes and genuine tax reform based on a proper process that gives everyone a fair opportunity to have their say. Instead of doing this, another 287 pages of tax law will now be added, increasing complexity and compliance costs.
It is concerning that the big three miners have been able to gain benefits for themselves that smaller miners do not have access to. For example, the introduction of a market valuation system to calculate applicable deductions gives the big three miners a significant tax shield that the smaller and mid-tier miners cannot access. Smaller companies will suffer under increased compliance burdens. The Henry tax review recommended a lower tax burden for smaller mining ventures, to help start-ups grow and prosper and to keep mining ventures in their decline phase alive longer. Instead, smaller and mid-tier mining ventures will pay a higher effective tax rate under the Gillard MRRT than the big three who were given exclusive access to the negotiations with the government.
One of the most concerning outcomes of this legislation is that it will worsen our structural deficit. The MRRT will help the government create the illusion of an early surplus in 2012-13 but it will leave the budget worse off from 2013-14 onwards. Treasury projections of MRRT revenue to 2020, released under FOI, indicate that Treasury expects revenue to reduce over time. The revenue not only will be downward trending but also will be volatile. Over the first year since the MRRT was announced revenue estimates fluctuated from between $7.7 billion to $24 billion.
While the revenue will diminish, the cost of the measures the government has attached to the MRRT will continue to grow strongly. For example, the cost of the proposed increase in compulsory super to 12 per cent is expected to rise to $3.6 billion in 2019-20, which is when it would be fully implemented. That same year, Treasury projections show MRRT revenue at $3 billion. The Senate inquiry into the mining tax has conservatively estimated that over the next decade the net cost to the budget will be $20 billion.
The MRRT remains a tax based on a deal negotiated exclusively with the three biggest miners who were given privileged access. Instead of making our tax system simpler and fairer, as we were promised, Labor's mining tax will make it less fair and more complex. This tax is divisive to the country, it distorts the national economy and it diminishes our international competitiveness. It is another example of a bad government getting worse. I will not vote for a bill that will reduce the standard of living for Western Australians and drive investment offshore to other countries that are now offering our miners incentives not taxes.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:27): I rise to speak on a series of bills which implement the mineral resources rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax. I would like to acknowledge the assistance in preparing this speech of Chelsea Pietsch, who is participating in a Lachlan Macquarie Internship and spending her week with me here in parliament. I think it is very apt that it is Lachlan Macquarie that is figuring here in this consideration and that Chelsea is from that internship group, because Lachlan Macquarie was a man who had a vision for this country, and we see his vision for the country still evident today in many of the buildings along Macquarie Street in Sydney—and there is no doubt that this is nation-building legislation that is before us today.
Labor is and always has been committed to achieving fairness within the Australian community. As our national platform and constitution state, fairness is one of our key priorities in government. It is our commitment to fairness that shapes our policies and what sets them apart from policies formulated by the opposition. The bills we are debating here today are yet another example of Labor's commitment to achieving fair outcomes for all Australians. And I will repeat that phrase many times throughout this speech, because Labor is for all Australians, not just for some.
Australia has been blessed with incredible natural resources and minerals, which fuel the heart of the Australian economy through the mining industry. Labor fully appreciates the central role of the mining industry in our Australian economy. However, we are also conscious that these natural, wealth-producing resources are finite. We can only dig up our resources once. For this reason, the Gillard government is committed to ensuring that we spread the benefits of the mining boom so that all Australians receive a fair return from the use of our valuable mineral and petroleum resources on the one occasion on which they can be extracted to the benefit of the entire nation. We believe it is not just the very profitable mining companies who should benefit from these natural resources but also the Australian community at large.
More than just achieving fairness with our country's non-renewable resources, however, these bills support growth across the entire economy. This is particularly important to me for the seat of Robertson and the Central Coast region that I represent here in this parliament. I represent an area that has grown at an astronomical rate in the last 30 years. We have many small businesses that are great employers there. We also have incredible pressure on infrastructure. We need to have our economy growing, and the type of legislation that we have before this parliament and the outcomes for Australians are exactly the recipe for success for people from the Central Coast who want to work hard and build this great nation. I can assure the people of the Central Coast that we, the Labor government, will keep delivering for them.
Our government's priority is to lay down the foundations for the long-term prosperity of this nation by ensuring a strong and broad economy. How, you may ask, can we bring about a more equitable share in the profits of natural resources and, at the same time, strengthen the Australian economy? We can achieve these objectives through two critical tools: firstly, by providing an efficient, internationally competitive and sustainable taxation framework on Australia's most significant bulk commodities; and, secondly, by using these taxes to fund important personal and company tax and superannuation reforms that benefit small business and individuals within our Australian community. This is precisely what these bills do.
The Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill 2011 provides for the taxation of the above-normal profits from mining iron ore and coal. This is a tax on Australia's most significant bulk commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas, commodities that very few Australians have access to in their backyard—but they do have them in our nation. We share in them as a nation. They are commodities that make a significant profit—profits that can help create a fairer Australia. The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to extend an already existing tax on gas and coal projects to onshore and offshore projects. Applying the tax to both onshore and offshore contexts will not only provide certainty to the industry but also ensure broadly equitable tax treatment between competing projects.
Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, the revenue derived from both of these taxes will be used for the benefit of the entire community. Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, we will use the revenue to implement significant tax and superannuation reforms for all Australians, including a cut in the company tax rate to 29 per cent; a new tax break for up to 2.4 million small businesses; reinvestment in Australia's regions through a $6 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund; a boost to superannuation and expanded superannuation concessions for low-income earners; simplification of the personal tax system; and personal tax discounts. That has to be a good recipe for Australia in anyone's book, at least on this side of the chamber. These much-needed reforms represent this government's attempt to make sure all Australians in our patchwork economy get our fair share of the mining boom. We know that many households and small businesses are doing it tough, and we believe that these tax reforms will provide them with the assistance they need to keep managing these challenges as we move together to a better economic and social future—again, for all Australians.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a recent study published by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, entitled Australian small business key statistics. As the Minister for Small Business, Senator Nick Sherry, revealed during the launch of the study, small businesses accounted for nearly half of total Australian industry employment and a third of industry value-added in 2009-10. In fact, at June 2009, small businesses accounted for nearly 98 per cent of all businesses in the agriculture sector, about 96 per cent in the services sector, about 91 per cent in the mining sector and just over 88 per cent in the manufacturing sector. What these figures indicate is that small business is indeed the backbone of the Australian economy. By implementing the mineral and petroleum resource rent tax bills, the Gillard government is keen to ensure that these critical small businesses receive the support they need to continue providing the essential economic activity they provide to this nation. Labor understands the pressures on small business, and this is why, as of 1 July 2012, the government is offering up to 2.4 million small businesses a new tax break.
As I have already indicated, it is not just small business that will benefit from this new tax. The proceeds of the MRRT will also flow through to regional parts of Australia by means of a Regional Infrastructure Fund. This fund will help communities with much-needed infrastructure support. I have seen this need in my own electorate, the electorate of Robertson. As I said, the growth of our electorate in the last 30 years has been really significant. It has led to ever-growing pressure on our infrastructure. Most evident is the pressure on our roads, our rail, our schools and our health services. Parts of many electorates around the country are bursting at the seams. The tax reforms will help relieve some of this real pressure and, through that relief, stimulate business and further enhance the economic outcomes for our nation.
I now wish to clarify some important points about our tax reform proposals. Firstly, the Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill is not a tax on production; rather, it is a tax on profit. This is absolutely in line with the recommendations made by the Australia's Future Tax System review. These are recommendations our government takes very seriously. They are recommendations from experts, ignored by those opposite, who always seem to know better than everybody else in every situation—or so they would have us believe. The recommendations we follow are taken very seriously, and we seek to implement viable tax systems for Australia—that is, tax systems that do not destroy, but rather build, the Australian economy. This profits-based tax is a much more efficient way of taxing than state royalties, and it will certainly ensure a much better return for Australia. The opposition will tell you that the introduction of the minerals resource rent tax will derail the mining boom and probably break every worst record they can conjure up. But this is simply not supported by the facts. Consistently we see the real facts getting in the way of the myth making, the negativity and the mischief of those opposite who would tell Australians that all our good days are behind us and none in front of us. The reality is very different to what we hear from the other side—'no, no, no' and the carping negativity—and the leadership this country needs is embodied in this legislation.
The latest survey of business investment plans shows that mining companies invested $34 billion last year. They are going to invest $55 billion this year and—wait for it—the amount is growing. They are going to invest $76 billion next year, hardly a sign of an industry in decay. To put that into perspective: that is more than five times the amount of mining investment undertaken six years ago, before the boom took off. However, it is not just an increase in raw dollar investments happening in the mining sector. Since Labor announced its intention to introduce this tax, mining employment has increased by 34.3 per cent. That is 44,200 mining jobs. And as much as those opposite do not like it, this is no indicator of a mining slump.
The second clarification I wish to make about the minerals resource rent tax is that we were only willing to announce it after significant consultations with major players in the industry. These consultations were facilitated by the Policy Transition Group, chaired by none other than Don Argus—the former Chairman of BHP Billiton—and comprised of numerous representatives, including those from peak industry organisations such as APPEA, MCA and a wide range of mining companies both large and small covering iron ore, petroleum, magnetite and coal seam gas operations across the country.
Our government has not only met with and listened to these representatives, we have also accepted every single one of the 98 recommendations made to us by this group. This is an indication of our commitment to work closely with those in industry. The Labor government cares about industry and highly values the opinions of those who are engaged in the mining boom. We have met with the key players in the mining industry, we have listened to them, we have talked with them and we have made our way forward together for the short- and the long-term future, for the sector as well as the nation. This is unlike those opposite who this week in the Qantas debate sided only with big business. They showed no regard for workers and little regard for the ordinary travelling public. Labor listens and Labor leads with a proper regard for business leaders, for union leaders and ordinary working Australians. We get that we are all in it together.
We have listened to all parties and we have brought the best plans into being in the national interest in this legislation before the House today. We are now seeking to implement all those things which have been recommended to us by stakeholders. Suffice it to say, these bills are none other than a collaborative effort with all at the coalface of the mining industry. But more than this, these tax reforms are our attempt to spread the wealth of the mining boom to all of those struggling to make ends meet in our patchwork economy.
The Leader of the Opposition is against these reforms. As we have seen time and time again, the opposition is much more interested in supporting big business than in addressing the needs of those who are doing it tough. With these tax reforms, small businesses within my electorate, such as the scrumptious Terrigal Bakery, the well-patronised Sushi Circle in downtown Gosford, and hard-working tradies like Paul Palmer, a local plumber, and John Owens, a local painter, will be able to reap some of the benefits of the Australian mining boom. This is a very significant tax reform for small business and they will be able to have multiple items written off immediately.
Labor will provide a boost in the super guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent for around 8.4 million workers, increasing the pool of retirement savings by $500 billion by 2035. What more can I say, aside from the fact that we are the party who introduced super and now we are the ones increasing it. As a woman with two daughters, I am keenly aware that women really need this legislation to pass through this parliament to practically improve their lives in retirement. Women retire with 40 per cent less than men in their super, despite the fact that, happily, we live longer. But through the introduction of these bills, implementation of the mineral resource rent tax and the petroleum resource rent tax, Labor is giving all Australians a fair share of the mining boom—a boost to retirement savings, tax breaks for small business, company tax cuts—and at the same time supporting growth of the Australian economy. I commend these bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:02): Madam Deputy Speaker, these bills—the 11 bills you just read out—were introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday by the government. This happened after the failure of the government to get consensus on the draft bills that were distributed around the community over the last few weeks. The government now are asking us to speak on 11 bills—525 pages of complicated tax legislation—after giving us notice last night at eight o'clock and then to have a considered debate in the people's house. They talked about the new paradigm—a whole new approach—but every time I raise with the Leader of the House the changes that are being made he says, 'The sins of the father should be visited on the son'—that is, 'You did it to us; therefore we're doing it to you.' I will move to adjourn the debate, and I will do so because now is the time, in the wake of the fact that the matter has gone to committee, to have a proper debate about the tax bills. I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question put.
The House divided [11:08]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Ayes 71
Noes 72
Majority 1
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Katter, RC |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Somlyay, AM |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Roxon, NL |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:13): That represents the death blow for the new paradigm—and good on you, let it be noted. The House of Representatives Economics Committee reports on 21 November on these 11 bills of 525 pages. So now, following the carbon tax, the government has yet again confirmed that in this new paradigm—this new parliament that the Independents so obviously talked about—here we go again. I remember that it was the member for Lyne who was urging in committee meetings that in fact the parliament should not have a rushed government agenda and that it should go to committee before the parliament actually makes a decision. But that is okay—hypocrisy be thy name.
The bills have clearly been rushed, and I say so because even this morning the government was downloading parts of the bills on the internet. It still had not actually—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! If we can have members take their seats or leave the chamber—
Mr HOCKEY: Just ignore him, as his electorate will, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government was still downloading parts of the bills and the explanatory memorandums this morning, and now it wants us to have a properly informed debate. Well, let's give it a good shot.
The first two of the 11 bills implement the new minerals resource rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore. The next two bills—the Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011—implement changes to the personal income tax provisions and superannuation. The remaining seven bills deal with administrative and technical issues, which this House will not have the opportunity to properly consider.
The new taxation arrangements for the mining sector will apply from 1 July next year, and there are two elements. The minerals resource rent tax regime will apply to the mining of iron ore and coal in Australia, and the petroleum resource rent tax regime will be extended to all Australian onshore and offshore oil and gas projects, including the North West Shelf. This will capture emerging projects such as converting coal seam gas to LNG. The new taxes will apply to Australia's most important commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas. The government has struggled with a number of variations of this tax to get it right—one of the reasons why we wanted to have a properly informed debate and a proper opportunity to have a look at the 11 bills. But no: this government, with typical undue haste, gets the details wrong. The big, sweeping statements it comes out with are not backed up with attention to detail. This tax in particular has been a salutary lesson in how not to introduce a new tax.
The original proposal for a resource super profits tax emerged from the Henry tax review in May of 2010. Dr Henry recommended a uniform resource rent tax on non-renewable resources, replacing existing state government royalty systems. The government's original RSPT—resource super profits tax—effectively nationalised 40 per cent of the revenue stream from the mining industry. This government nationalised Telstra again, so why would they stop now? They wanted to nationalise 40 per cent of the Australian mining industry. They would take 40 per cent of the superprofits—profits which in their view exceeded the 10-year government bond rate—and wear 40 per cent of the losses. Of particular concern for business was that the tax applied retrospectively in that it applied to existing business operations which had been developed in an environment with no Commonwealth mining tax. The RSPT was estimated to raise $12 billion over the forward estimates. Of course, there were various changes to that during the course of discussions.
There was, as we know, furious opposition, and it proved the last straw for the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. Less than two short months later, he was stabbed in the back by the current Prime Minister, Ms Gillard. The new PM offered the mining industry a truce and fresh negotiations. As it turned out, although we did not know this at the time, this was an olive branch to three major miners in the lead-up to the last election. There were no Treasury officials present. The new minerals resource rent tax was announced just two weeks later, in early July. The announcement was long on rhetoric and actually quite short on detail. In fact, the two-page memo which is the heads of agreement on the minerals resource rent tax is signed by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, the head of BHP, the head of Rio Tinto and the head of Xstrata—no other mining companies and no other agreements. It is unprecedented in the Australian taxation system that there is not even a cabinet decision on this but that a government negotiated an agreement for a multibillion-dollar tax with three players when the tax would apply to the industry. I seek leave to table the heads of agreement.
Leave granted.
Mr HOCKEY: The MRRT applies to fewer minerals and at a lower rate, but it still has retrospective implications. It was estimated to raise $7.7 billion over the same forward estimates as the RSPT, a revenue reduction of $4.3 billion. The smaller miners—the rest of the industry other than the big three—were unhappy, understandably, at not being consulted and believed they were unfairly hit while the big three got off relatively lightly. The government eventually conceded the new tax had not been thought through properly, with the announcement in early September 2010 of a policy transition group to be headed by Don Argus, the former chairman of BHP, to refine the details. The group reported in December 2010, so this is version No. 3 of the mining tax—in fact, version No.4. The first one was what Ken Henry recommended, the second one was what the government announced, the third one was the deal with the mining companies and now we have version No. 4, which the former chairman of BHP is actually engaged in consulting on.
The group reported in December 2010. It made 94 recommendations on the technical design of the new resource tax arrangements. In March this year the government accepted all the recommendations of the group, just showing that the various iterations before were totally flawed as well. In March this year, when the government accepted all the recommendations, they could not get the job done even then, and the government then had to appoint a resource tax implementation group to help with the drafting of the legislation. So there have now been two versions of the draft legislation for the MRRT. One was released in June this year. That version was followed by a revised exposure draft, which was released for comment on 18 September. The government, without notice, then introduced the 11 bills yesterday and expects everyone to sign off on them today. This is a tax that is extraordinarily complicated and fundamentally flawed. The industry, from the big companies to those that can least afford it, is being burdened with considerable costs in having to implement new internal systems to identify and record expenditure in order to ensure compliance. Planning for this new tax—whether with the assistance of external consultants or the redeployment of existing personnel—will be immensely expensive.
Let us deal with the bills before the House. After all this time we would have expected that the design of the tax would be settled and the industry would understand it. But there remains furious opposition. Taxpayers with amounts of MRRT assessable profits—that is, $50 million per annum—will be excluded from the MRRT. The MRRT will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. New investment will be allowed to be written off immediately rather than depreciated over a number of years. A project will not pay any MRRT until it has made enough profit to pay off its up-front investment. The MRRT will carry forward unutilised losses at the government long-term bond rate plus seven per cent. It will provide transferability of deductions. This supports mine development, arguably, because it means the taxpayer can use the deductions that flow from investments in the construction phase of a project to offset the MRRT liability from another of its projects that is in the production phase.
The MRRT will provide a full credit for state mining royalties. That was a point of disagreement after the heads of agreement, which was signed by the three ministers together with the three heads of the mining companies. There was a dispute about whether state mining royalties would be credited in full. Western Australia was the first to move, removing the discount for iron ore fines and therefore increasing their royalties. In its last budget New South Wales also moved to increase royalties. The net cost of that is $3 billion over the forward estimates. That is $3 billion that immediately comes off the bottom line of the MRRT.
The MRRT will provide recognition of past investments through a credit that recognises the market value of that investment. It is written down over up to 25 years. It will recognise the particular characteristics of different commodities by applying a taxing point close to the point of extraction and using appropriate pricing arrangements. It will provide a 25 per cent extraction allowance to recognise the value add and capital that mining companies bring to mineral extraction.
As you can see, it is a complicated tax. It is quite unlike other taxes such as income tax or GST. Those taxes are based on the activities of the company as a whole. The accounts of the company form the starting basis for working out the particular tax liability. Contrast that with the MRRT. It taxes profits from a part of the entity's operations, from mining projects that the entity carries on. There will be increased accounting administration, therefore increased costs to businesses, in measuring results at the project level. Resources put to use more productively will have to be deployed in dealing with this complexity. It will add to the cost of mining in Australia.
The Assistant Treasurer's second reading speech stated that the package of bills was 'developed in partnership with the resources sector', that being just three miners. It went on to say the package 'is a direct result of the strong cooperation of industry in the legislative process'. Fair dinkum—this is just spin and gross exaggeration. Take one example. Since the first material was released by the government, the mining industry has been concerned that the complex tax—which requires the application of novel concepts and principles in working out the liability—will mean the miner is faced with uncertainty in calculating the liability. So, when the government appointed the policy transition group chaired by Don Argus, it recommended that in developing the explanatory memorandum to the MRRT bill—which by the way was still being downloaded on the internet this morning—the drafters should provide clear explanations and examples.
The Minerals Council of Australia felt strongly about the need for certainty. In their submissions on both the first and second exposure drafts, the MCA asked that it be made clear in the bill that the explanatory materials and examples should be taken into account to confirm the meaning and interpretation of the legislation. They also wanted the minister's second reading speech to highlight the importance of the explanatory material to the interpretive process. So, despite the Assistant Treasurer's lofty claims about a partnership, the industry itself—even those that signed the heads of agreement—obviously has concerns about the process.
We also now have details of the petroleum resource rent tax changes for the first time, even though the tax has been in place from 1 July 1987. It will be extended to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore, at a tax rate of 40 per cent. There is a range of uplift allowances for unutilised losses and capital write-offs and immediate expensing is available for all expenditure. All state and federal resource taxes will be creditable against current and future PRRT liabilities from a project. You do not win a game by hampering your best performing player with a bad and complicated tax like this. The mining sector is important for Australia's prosperity. It is an industry in which Australia has an international comparative advantage. It employs directly 224,000 Australians, and most of these are in regional areas. In 2010 it accounted for 40 per cent of all business investment in Australia, and that is rising dramatically. The sector is a major driver of growth.
The rules of the game have been changed by the government, and Australia is competing for scarce capital and jobs in a world market. There are plenty of countries seeking to develop their mining sectors—from Brazil, Chile and Canada right through to a number of very poor countries in Africa and Asia—so there is an additional element of sovereign risk associated with these bills. But, more importantly, this illustrates the government's incompetence in making a decision.
We have had numerous versions and numerous drafts and then, when the legislation finally gets to the House, we have less than 24 hours to consider 11 new bills. No wonder the chief executive of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti said on 26 October at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth that Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
He said that about our country.
The constant changes and confusion on this tax have made international investors more wary of investing in Australia. Of course, the biggest driver of investment in Australia, the biggest pipeline of investment in Australia, is the mining sector, and the head of one of the biggest mining companies in the world identifies inconsistency in demonstrated behaviour in terms of tax policy as one of the reasons there is sovereign risk in investing in Australia.
This is a bad tax. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth and retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia in global competition for scarce capital and jobs. And at a time of heightened global uncertainty this is precisely the wrong time to introduce a complicated tax. There have now been four different sets of projections of revenue from the mining tax. The offsetting expenditures as identified in a Senate report are going to create a black hole. This tax will not raise the money that the government is claiming. It will not raise the money! And yet the government claim to have offsetting expenditure. The offsetting expenditure will grow when this tax fails to deliver the revenue that they claim.
The bottom line for Australia is that this tax not only creates a black hole for the Australian mining industry but is going to create a black hole in the budget—and it is all going to be the responsibility of the Labor Party and the Independents. (Time expired)
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (11:32): I have known the member for North Sydney for a long time. We were both elected to this place in 1996. He is a nice guy. I have never seen him so angry. I ask myself, 'Why is the member for North Sydney so angry?' It is simply because he knows that this tax is right, he knows that this is a good tax and he knows that this is a well-designed tax. But, more importantly, he knows that this is a tax which enjoys the support of the Australian community. That is his concern.
He talks about sovereign risk, yet never has the investment pipeline for the mining industry in this country been so strong. In my own electorate of Hunter the debate is not about how we attract more mining investment, it is about how we put a brake on mining investment. There are many in my communities who are concerned that we have too much mining in the Hunter Valley, with all the implications that has for air and water quality and many other issues.
This is the right thing to do. This represents a set of bills which has been agreed between the government and the mining industry after months and months of consultation and, after that, agreement. The member for North Sydney would have the House—and anyone listening to this debate—believe that we are rushing bills into this place that have not been duly considered and which have not been considered properly by the opposition. That is not true. They need no more time on this issue. They have had plenty of time on this issue, and it is time we got on with the debate. Forget about the stunts, like the one we got from the member for North Sydney. It is time we got this important legislation through both this place and the Senate.
These bills not only enjoy my support, I am very confident that they are supported by the people who make up the communities in my electorate. My communities are welcoming of the mining industry. The mining industry has brought great wealth to the Hunter Valley. It has raised average incomes and it has spawned many mining support industries around it. Many of my constituents have enjoyed standards of living they could only have dreamed of were it not for the mining industry. Many of my constituents know that their children have a bright future because of the existence of the mining industry in my electorate, and they are not going to be conned by people like the member for North Sydney. They are never going to be persuaded, because they live with it. Many of them work in the industry. They understand the industry. They are not going to be persuaded that this tax is going to be the ruin of the mining industry.
They believe—and I have consulted widely—it is only fair and right when companies are enjoying super profits as a result of higher coal prices and commodity prices more generally that, given that they are a community owned resource, a greater dividend of that production comes back to the broader Australian community, including, of course, mining communities.
As I said, the mining industry is welcome in the Hunter but it does bring some negatives. I mentioned air and water quality. By definition I should also mention that flowing from that are potential threats to industries that have sustained us for a couple of hundred years and, hopefully, will sustain us for thousands of years into the future if we protect them properly. Mining brings road congestion. It brings an inability to find child care. It brings capacity constraints in housing. If you go to Woolworths in the town of Singleton in my electorate, you will find that you will pay maybe 10 per cent more—I am making the figure up; I must admit I forget exactly what it is—on average for your goods than you would pay in Cessnock, for example, which is half an hour down the road. Why? Because of the existence of the mining industry. The supermarket chains move to the price signal. They will charge for their goods what they believe the market can sustain.
The mining boom is not all good news. While that price difference does not cause a lot of pain for those working in the mining industry, who can afford it, it does cause pain for people who do not work in the mining industry and do not enjoy the high salaries which flow from it. It does not help pensioners, for example, on fixed incomes—as much as this government has done to help them in recent years. They do not enjoy the benefits of the mining industry but they still suffer the congestion, the implications for air and water quality, and the high prices that companies are able to charge for retail goods as a result of the high average wages in that industry.
So it is not all good. My communities say, 'Well, if these guys are making superprofits from resources which, at the end of the day, we own, some of that dividend should come back to us.' Not too many of my constituents will understand the complexities of the tax, but I do not think they have any doubt whatsoever in their minds that the government is sensible enough to make sure this initiative is not going to have severe adverse impacts on the industry. They know, and they read about it all the time, how many mining companies are currently knocking on the doors of the Hunter shire councils, the state government and others looking to either establish new mines or to expand existing mines—notwithstanding the fact that the mining companies, at least some of whom, after all, have been involved in these negotiations, are fully cognisant of the fact that the supertax on mining is coming.
How are we going to use this tax to spread the bounty amongst the broader community? It is very simple, and it has been spoken of already this morning. We are going to use it as an opportunity to finally increase superannuation contributions, from nine per cent to 12 per cent—something which is absolutely necessary. This is not just part of a wish list. We know the Australian demographics, we are familiar with the ageing of the population and we know the constraints and pressures that are going to be put on the transfer system in the future. We need to reassure ourselves that, in the future, people will have a proper level of retirement income saved. It is a very important and necessary initiative.
We will of course provide significant tax cuts for small business, the primary employer of people in this country. As a former shadow minister for small business and a former small business person myself, I know all the challenges small businesses face, but I also know how important they are to the Australian economy. This is a very important and good initiative for small business.
Very importantly for me—and I know for you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird—is the way in which this tax will return some of that bounty to mining communities themselves by way of community and economic infrastructure, so critical for all the reasons I have just articulated. When you have a mining boom in your community, despite all the benefits, there are some adverse effects. Road congestion is one of them and the ever-increasing rate of coal rail traffic is another. In my electorate, we have a very long list—as I am sure you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—of infrastructure projects which in reality could never hope to receive the sort of investment from government that is needed to knock them over.
In my electorate, we have projects like the Muswellbrook bypass, the Singleton bypass and a number of black spots along the New England Highway. In Scone we have the ridiculous situation where people are having to wait up to eight minutes to continue their drive through the main street because of the level railway crossing there. Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a town being cut in half for eight minutes because of the passage of a coal train? That is unacceptable in convenience terms and unacceptable in economic transport terms, but it is also unacceptable in safety terms. We need between $20 million and $30 million for an overpass on that site so that the vehicle traffic is not disrupted. There could be no more perfect an example of an infrastructure problem being created by the mining boom than that. The coal trains are getting more regular and much longer, and cutting off that road for a much greater period of time.
This is a problem directly caused by the coal boom in the Hunter. So it makes absolute sense to take this new tax initiative and use that money to invest in that rail overpass, and there are many similar examples in my electorate. Broke Road, which runs through Hunter wine country—the jewel in the tourism crown of the Hunter Valley—is the worst road in the Hunter Valley. It is frequented by miners travelling to work each day. Undoubtedly, the mining traffic on the road is even heavier than the tourism traffic, given it is a seven-day thing. No doubt that mining traffic is largely responsible for the state of that road. No-one seems to have the money to fix the problem. That is another example of a problem directly created by the mining boom, by the traffic caused by the mining boom, a good example of an infrastructure project which now will stand a much greater chance of being funded as a result of our decision to ensure that, when the mining companies are making huge superprofits because of high coal prices, the local communities—who, yes, benefit, but also have to put up with the negatives which flow—get some relief by sharing in the bounty of those high coal prices. This is not rocket science and that is why people in my communities support this tax. The opposition has a bit of explaining to do. The opposition has to explain to the Australian community why they should not be receiving these benefits. I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions and I have had guarantees from the responsible ministers that, like your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, my electorate will receive its proportionate share of the dividends which flow from this tax. At the next election, the coalition—no doubt represented by the National Party in my electorate—will have to explain to my communities why that money should not be returned to the communities from which it comes. That is the explanation they will need to have ready for my constituents and, no doubt, constituents in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to say one last thing. I want to talk about other threats to this initiative. There is the big threat on the other side from those who are going to deny this, cosy up to the coalmining companies, let them make their super profits and deny the Australian community their share, but there is another threat and it is called the New South Wales government. Critical to this arrangement is an agreement that the states will be rebated on the royalties they would have received as a result of their old system and that they would not seek to further increase those royalties. Surprise, surprise—and I think the same is the case in Western Australia—New South Wales has reneged on that deal, which means that we will have to rebate them more money for the increase in royalties they would have received as a result of the decision to increase their royalties. What does that mean? That means that we are giving more back to the state government and we have less money to share the wealth with communities, including mine and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. This can become very complex but it is also very simple.
People who live in my electorate can do two things: they can give more and more royalties from their resource to Barry O'Farrell so he can spend the funds on roads in western Sydney or they can pay less in royalties to Barry O'Farrell and let us retain more of the tax which flows from this initiative so that we can spend the money on infrastructure in the Hunter Valley. It is a really simple thing, as complex as the arrangements are. Barry O'Farrell can collect more royalties so he can spend the funds in Sydney or he can keep his royalties where they are and get rebated that amount from us and we will have what we should have, having collected the wealth from the Hunter community—more money to spend in Hunter communities. That is another thing that those who sit opposite will have to explain. I have no doubt that those who sit opposite are talking to Barry O'Farrell because they do not want this to happen. You have seen it today. They will run interference on this at every opportunity, which takes me back to where I began: why? Because they know this is a good initiative which is supported by the Australian community. (Time expired)
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (11:48): Unfortunately, 15 minutes is not enough time to go into all of the flaws in these bills, but I will do my best. I will just comment on some of the misguided statements of the member for Hunter where he thinks that this tax is going to deliver the infrastructure that he needs in his area. I can assure him that, regarding his share of this tax on a proportional basis—and there is a fix to this, which I will come to—he would be lucky to see a couple of hundred thousand dollars going to infrastructure in his area. The last time I looked, they were suggesting only a couple of billion dollars to states like Queensland and Western Australia. You need to consider that the most needed piece of infrastructure in Australia is the Toowoomba range crossing. He talks about eight minutes to get through a level crossing. I have trucks that wait twice that time trying to get across the main street of Toowoomba because the Labor government continues to defy the need for that range crossing. That range crossing alone would cost $2 billion. So do not try and create the impression that the MRRT is just going to be like some magic pudding that will spray money for infrastructure across Australia.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The way to fund infrastructure in Australia is to stop spending money on stuff that is completely wasted, like pink batts.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Like your schools.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The member for Hunter knows—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms S Bird ): The member for Groom has the call. The member for Hunter will cease interjecting. The member for Hunter will recognise that he was not interrupted.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: I will leave the member for Hunter to contemplate on all of that. As I said, I rise to speak on a package of bills that must have the distinction of being one of the most poorly designed and economically destroying policies that this government has ever put forward. I know that is an extraordinary statement and I know we have considered a range of policy missteps, clunkers, absolute disasters and complete wastes of money by this government, whether we are talking about the school hall program, where a couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether in overcharging by contractors, never to be challenged by the government, or the pink batts program, where another couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether. As one of my constituents found out this week, she will have her insulation removed but, of course, nothing will be put in its place. What are they going to do with it? They are going to take it down to the dump and bury it—along with all the money it cost to put it in. There is complete loss of control of the Green Loans program and the photovoltaic program. If we talk about losing control, the issue of the country's borders goes to the top of the list.
I said earlier this week that the Labor government, under its current leader and under its former leader the member for Griffith—perhaps its future leader—has an appalling record on energy and resources policies, and there is no better example of that than the MRRT. It is not something we should be flippant about, given the significance of the energy and resources sector to the Australian economy. I was looking forward to hearing the Treasurer explain in here today his rationale for introducing this highly destructive and deeply flawed minerals resource rent tax. I particularly wanted to hear his justification for using the resource sector as a cash cow to cover the reckless spending that has characterised the Labor government for the entire time the member for Lilley has been in the Treasurer's seat. I also wanted to hear how the government would justify putting forward a package that is little more than a pre-election quick-fix from a government that is desperate to cling to power regardless of the consequences for small and medium sized resource miners.
Alas, circumstances intervened and the Treasurer had to pass the job to someone else because, we are told, he has lost his voice. I too would lose my voice if I were presenting this sort of rubbish as the Treasurer of Australia. In a Freudian set of circumstances if ever there was, perhaps the Treasurer just could not face the thought of coming before this place and presenting, with a straight face, such a disastrous policy. Not to worry: as we know, the Assistant Treasurer is up for any job that gets his hands dirty or his face on television, and he has been publicly proving that since the middle of last year. The MRRT is not the fine piece of fiscal policy that the government would have us believe. It is rushed, reckless, incomplete and an unworthy successor to what was easily the worst piece of policy ever put forward by this government, the resource super profits tax. In its original version—as so passionately argued by the Treasurer and the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Griffith, when he was Prime Minister—the RSPT was a truly destructive version of this tax. It would have undermined Australia's sovereign risk profile and discouraged investment even more than this tax—and that is really saying something. The biggest flaws in the MRRT are a result of the fact that it was hastily slapped together in the days after the current Prime Minister ousted the member for Griffith with the single objective of scoring a quick political fix with no consideration of the economic or sovereign risk issues associated with it. As a result, the bigger mining companies, particularly BHP Billiton, Rio and Xstrata, were able to press their advantage to get a result that suited them but did not necessarily suit the mid-cap and smaller miners who had absolutely no say in the formation of this legislation. Those junior miners have been left out altogether and, from the feedback I have received and what I have observed of the Policy Transition Group, the government has not even come close to addressing those problems. That is not to denigrate the work of the Policy Transition Group or to question their sincerity, but the fact remains that more than a year after the first resources tax was proposed the wider resource industry is still facing uncertainty and the threat of being disadvantaged relative to international competitors. That position is reaffirmed by the meetings I have had in recent days.
That is not the worst flaw—and there are so many. As I say, I feel like moving for an extension of time, but I shall not. The biggest problem with the MRRT is that it builds a structural deficit into the budget of Australia. I know that those who sit opposite are promising a surplus; I know those opposite who have never delivered a surplus are saying that they can manage the risk. The best brains in the resources industry cannot tell you what the value of the dollar and the value of iron ore will be in two years time, let alone four years time, which has to be calculated so that the government can calculate the return that it is going to get from the MRRT. If you want to know whether that is backed up by the government's own actions, you need look no further than the fact that originally the government said that this tax would return around $12 billion. The Treasurer pulled out all stops to convince us in his pre-election backflip on the MRRT that it shaved off only $1.5 billion before conceding that it was slashed by $7.5 billion. But, of course, as we all know, it later emerged that his change of position on the original super profits tax cost $100 billion. I know when I speak in this House in billions those on the other side wave it away, because a billion dollars to them is nothing. It is the sort of money they can waste in a week on one of their programs, but this is serious money. Moving closer to the here and now, we were told after the election that revenue could be less than $5 billion and then Treasury revealed in February that revenue from the MRRT would be $17 billion over a three-year period, but now we know it is estimated to be only $11.1 billion.
The impact on the budget will be devastating because not only can the government not produce a surplus budget under current circumstances but with the sort of volatility that we are seeing in the market at the moment we are going to see the budget surpluses not taken seriously. The predictions of budget surpluses by the current Treasurer are not taken seriously, but no financial house will have any confidence in their predictions. What we are seeing is Magic Pudding economics. There is no better example of that than a budget set on the iron ore price of three or four weeks ago, which was about US$180 a tonne. That price today is US$120 a tonne. No-one knows whether it is going to $150, which would be its natural balance point, or whether it will drop further. When you consider that when the price of iron ore drops from $180 to $120 the profit a company is making is cut in half—and probably more for some companies—it is impossible to use the MRRT in the calculations associated with it with any degree of certainty.
The other issue is our sovereign risk profile, and the international investment community looks in sheer wonder and amazement at what this government is doing to our country. We first had a complete reversal of a set policy position that had stood for 20 years on condensate tax, agreed to by the Labor Party, but it was so desperate for money it changed that. Then we had a decision to introduce a carbon trading scheme and then it changed its mind on that. Then we had the pledge that there would never be a carbon tax under a government led by the current Prime Minister and, of course, she changed her mind on that. We had the introduction in May last year of the RSPT, and all the reasons for that, and then it changed its mind again in July.
The end result is that the view overseas is that this government does not know what it is doing and it does not know how to position the resource industry to make sure it is internationally competitive. And guess what—we agree with them, and so does Australia. We think this government is a complete joke, an absolute shambles. It cannot put a position in place which it can actually hold for more than six months and where it can give the investment community any sort of confidence at all that it knows what it is doing. Then we get this rubbish that the member for Hunter comes up with about how this money is going to be returned to the community. Complete rubbish!
Western Australia, if the Treasurer's figures are right, will contribute about $8 billion to this tax and, if they are really lucky and they behave themselves and they do not put up their royalties and they do not do this and they do not do that, they may get back about 10 per cent of that for their infrastructure—$1 billion, maybe $2 billion, if they are really lucky. What a joke. This is a con.
This government are pretending that by introducing a new tax people are going to be better off. They are a tax-and-spend government who have never been able to manage money, who do not understand how the basic principles of commercialism work and who want to think that they can introduce a tax and pretend that they are going to return it all to the people, when we know that this money is not going to go into superannuation. The employers have to pay that. The government have to pay some superannuation for their Commonwealth employees, but it is certainly not going to be $11 billion.
What we know is that this bad tax, this tax which is going to affect so severely Australia's competitiveness in the resources sector, its place in the investment community in the world and the view that investors take in Australia is simply that—a tax. It is not a superprofits tax, because they have not applied it to all industry, and it is not just coal and iron ore that make superprofits, if that is the way they want to term making a profit in a good year. I remember when the industry did not make a cracker. What are they going to do then—call it a superloss tax? Probably.
The government do not apply it to other sectors of the economic community. They do not have the guts to try and use this rationale on a few of the other sectors. I am not going to start rabbit racing by suggesting that they are considering other areas, but we know that they are considering other commodities. They know the people who actually have control of this government, the Greens, are suggesting that there be a change in the MRRT even before it is introduced and that they expand the commodity grab. If I can be sure of one thing, it is that this government will find more ways to tax more parts of the resources sector because they need more money to plug their black holes.
In the last few days, of course, we have seen the bewildering prospect of each of the Independents—and good luck to them; they have to take their opportunities when they come—going in for their pound of flesh. It is $100 million, $200 million, $300 million and $400 million here and there. It is this research station and that concept. What do we have? No-one in the industry now knows where this is going to finish up. Are the government going to move amendments to this legislation before it passes the House? We do not know. Are they going to support amendments put forward by the Independents? We do not know. Australia does not know what is doing and, as I said earlier, this tax not only is poorly thought through but is giving Australia an international reputation of being run by a shambles of a government.
In conclusion, can I just say that the resources sector has been forced to wait too long for any degree of certainty, remembering that it is now a year since this tax was originally proposed, firstly by former Prime Minister Rudd and then amended by Prime Minister Gillard. This level of uncertainty has unacceptable impacts on Australia's sovereign risk profile and our international competitiveness. This is a bad tax. We will oppose it in opposition and we will rescind it in government.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:03): I thought that the member for Groom would have been tempted to apply for an extension of time so that he could concentrate on speaking on the minerals resource rent tax legislation before us. That was probably the only thing he did not concentrate on. I hope I can assist his contribution, and I firstly indicate that I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is legislation clearly designed to address Australia's current patchwork economy. I know that phrase rolls off the tongues of all of those opposite. They talk about a patchwork economy and a two-speed economy et cetera. That is fine as rhetoric, but sooner or later it falls to us to do something to address this issue.
These bills are designed to encourage industry, investment and development, to assist small business and to promote national savings by locking in the benefits of the mining boom and also paving the way for increases in the superannuation guarantee. Superannuation can be increased, thereby providing a more realistic retirement income for Australians. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, the benefits of the mining boom, as you would appreciate in your own electorate, are not evenly spread throughout the economy and are certainly not evenly spread throughout our respective communities.
In what could be seen as a once-in-a-lifetime mining boom, which we are now experiencing, resources companies are competing for skilled labour across the globe at a time when in this country we have very low unemployment. That in itself is creating significant pressures. Clearly these companies are in a position to provide generous wages and conditions well beyond the capacity of most other sectors in the economy. I know that firsthand. My youngest son, Nicholas, has spent some time working both in Blackwater in Queensland and in Port Hedland. I am certainly aware of what he was paid there, having helped him to do his tax returns, and I can assure members that, compared to what a 25-year-old earns in the mining industry—and no doubt they work very hard there—a politician's salary pales into insignificance.
As I said, they do work hard and good luck to them. My son is there as an electrician. He works cheek to jowl with other electricians not only from Sydney and where we live but from Launceston and South Australia. All of those young people are up there. That is why you would probably struggle—and people in the gallery would probably know this—to get someone to put an electric light pole or a power point in. It is because under this patchwork economy we are competing for those skills throughout our economy. That is the patchwork nature of the economy that we are now operating under. As a consequence, there are many businesses outside the resources sector that are struggling to attract and retain skilled labour.
I also note that there are many households across the country that do not see the benefits from the mining boom and which are struggling to keep their heads above water given the cost of housing, paying a mortgage and raising and providing for a family in today's environment. The government does not want to slow the mining industry, but the challenge is to ensure that the benefits of this boom do not simply leave our shores as excess profit for the benefit of foreign owners of our largest companies. Clearly the challenge is to ensure that there is an overall collective benefit for all Australians from Australia's mineral wealth. I do emphasise that this is wealth that is owned by all Australians.
The minerals resource rent tax is an opportunity to deliver tax breaks for small business and to provide them with the assistance and incentive they need to develop their enterprises. We know that through their diverse small businesses there will be sustainable employment, because they are the driving force for employment in this country, and it is through small business that we will see sustainable employment—not, quite frankly, through the ebbs and flows of the mining and resources industry.
This tax will also help us to fund the critical infrastructure development that the member for Hunter was talking about. That in itself will assist in enhancing the economic productivity of our nation, particularly through streamlining structures such as port facilities, export facilities and those things which will go to enhance the nation's productive capacity not only now but into the future.
This tax also paves the way to build on the superannuation guarantee by increasing superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent, which will be transitioned over the next decade, enabling more Australians to better enjoy a retirement income in their senior years and increasing the pool of national savings in superannuation by $500 billion by the year 2035, from $1.3 trillion as it stands at the moment. This money can be invested in capital and social infrastructure to benefit all Australians.
We on this side of the House are very proud to be further enhancing superannuation; after all, it was a Labor government back in 1984 that took the first steps and allowed award based superannuation to be developed. Those members of the House who, like me, have grey hair, might recall that the union movement forwent wage increases at that stage to productivity increases to enhance superannuation development through award based superannuation and then in 1988 the superannuation guarantee came into effect and applied to all Australians. This is something that we on this side of the House are proud of.
For those Australians on low incomes or working part time, many of whom are below the tax-free threshold, this will enable their superannuation contributions to be made effectively on a tax-free basis, not providing the 15 per cent entry fee for superannuation contributions and therefore providing a much fairer taxation and superannuation benefit for them.
The MRRT is a tax on profit. It is not a tax based on commodity price, size of a mine, or the actual extraction of ore. It is a tax on the profit that is made by a particular mining project. And it is important to note that the MRRT is not a tax on operating costs but one that applies to the net profit from mines that have an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million. It seems to me that we are talking about major companies if we are talking about after-tax profit, to be divided amongst shareholders, of $50 million. Further, the MRRT will not apply to the mining industry in general. It will be levied only on the major iron ore and coal projects that enjoy an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million.
It is important also to note the objective and independent assessments of the value of the MRRT to the Australian people. For instance, the OECD in its 2010 economic survey of Australia said:
The proposed Mining Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) on coal and iron ore operations, along with the extension of the Petroleum Rent Resource Tax, are justified on both equity and efficiency grounds.
It goes on to say:
This Resource Rent Tax is more efficient than the current royalties system, as it raises taxation on finite and immobile resources.
It concludes by saying:
This will improve the efficiency in the resource sector.
Economic commentator Saul Eslake, who I understand is these days at the Grattan Institute, said in relation to the principles of resource rent tax:
The return to Australian people from the exploitation of mineral and energy resources should be based on the profits derived from the extraction and sale of those resources, rather than on the volume of resource production—is one that I and most other Economists strongly support.
The minerals resource rent tax was developed in consultation with the industry. Those major companies that will be paying the tax were engaged in the discussion and have acknowledged their capacity to make a greater contribution to this country.
Despite the objective and authoritative positions and assessments of the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and most mainstream economic commentators, the Leader of the Opposition's position is that he will oppose this legislation and, if given the opportunity to occupy the treasury bench, will get rid of it. He will turn it over.
Mr Champion: Give the miners a tax cut.
Mr HAYES: Yes, give the miners a tax cut. Give it back. In doing so, the Leader of the Opposition and his party will be not only squandering the potential benefits to the Australian people of this once in a lifetime boom but also turning their backs on small businesses and destroying the hopes of 8.4 million Australians who are seeking to have better opportunities in their retirement. Once again he is happy to put politics ahead of the community, and he maintains his rhetoric that the MRRT would force the likes of BHP Billiton and Rio to close their projects in Australia, to vacate to South America or other places, despite the enormous investment programs currently underway by those very companies. Despite making all that rhetoric and playing it out in the popular media, you might recall that it was not all that long ago that a Western Australian Liberal government decided without notice to unilaterally increase the mining royalties on the iron ore industry. You would expect at least some protestation about that. There was not even a peep. There was not one line of criticism from Mr Abbott and his supporters. It was okay to raise revenues over there but not to raise revenues on the basis of doing something for the Australian people. That is a different issue.
In contrast to the Liberal Party, the Gillard government will be locking in the benefits of the mining boom for all Australians, including the less economically fortunate Australians. They will see that they have a government that is prepared to invest not only in this nation but in this nation's people. The Leader of the Opposition and those at the table have the opportunity to explain why it is that the Liberal Party is lining up with some of the richest companies in the world instead of the Australian people, who see that their resources are being dug up and shipped overseas for foreign companies' enhanced profit. This is about doing something to ensure that those excess profits are redistributed through our economy to make sure that we do address the issue of the patchwork economy.
This is not for people to come into this place and simply wax on about a two-speed patchwork economy and multispeed drivers in the economy. This is a matter of people coming in here with an ability to do something about it. This Labor government is standing up and doing something about it. I commend this legislation to the House.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): As a proud Western Australian I am an avowed supporter of the mining industry in Australia because of the enormous benefits that flow through our economy and the boost that it gives to our overall prosperity. But those in the government cannot make that claim, as they seek to impose an unfair, complex, divisive, fiscally irresponsible and distorting tax that will reduce our international competitiveness and cost jobs and which has been developed through a deeply flawed and improper process.
Government members are talking of the success of the mining industry but in terms of the problem that it is causing for Australia in creating a patchwork economy. The government appears blind to the obvious threat of a recession in the Australian economy were it not for the mining industry. Our mining industry is critical for our nation's success but only if it can remain competitive against other great mining nations.
The story of mining in Australia is the story of achievement, rising national prosperity, development, opportunity and jobs. That is why I am opposed to any measures that would cripple our mining industry. The talk from the government is all doom and gloom, lamenting the impact of the mining sector on other areas of the economy, particularly manufacturing, and acting as if we have previously lived in a one-speed economy. With the unions and the government's coalition partner the Greens reverting to protectionist rhetoric, I fear that the old socialist mindset is creeping back into the national debate as Labor seeks ways to soak money out of the most productive part of the economy.
The coalition are opposed to the mining tax. Rather than adding cost burdens to the mining sector, we believe that it should be as internationally competitive as possible because we recognise that in a global economy capital can easily move to countries where the rate of return is the greatest. The buyers of our commodities have alternatives. Other countries have or are developing mining sectors that could well rival ours. The development of Asia's great economies explains the level of investment we are currently witnessing in the sector. The strong growth in mining investment over the last decade has reached its highest level in history. The huge demand for Australia's mineral commodities in 2009 increased mining investment to above four per cent of GDP, around eight times its share just 50 years ago.
Australia is currently enjoying the best terms of trade in 140 years on the back of high commodity prices and strong levels of demand, yet still this government cannot manage the budget. They have an appalling fiscal record of a cumulative total of $150 billion in budget deficits over the past four years; in other words, they have spent $150 billion more than they have raised in revenue at a time of record terms of trade. That means that they are entirely dependent upon the strength of the Asian economies, particularly China and India, to continue to drive Australia's economic growth. That cannot be taken for granted. As the dark clouds continue to gather on the global economic horizon, this government is putting in place one of the most burdensome tax regimes in the world on our most productive sector.
The government likes to take credit for Australia's enviable position in the world economy, but it fails to acknowledge that it is derived in large part from our reputation as a safe, reliable exporter of mineral resources and energy. We are a world leader in the export of black coal and iron ore. In 2009 Australia's mineral resources sector contributed close to $160 billion to export earnings. This is compared to around $36 billion for the rural sector and $38 billion for manufacturing. During that period the sector accounted for eight per cent of Australia's gross national product. According to the Minerals Council of Australia, mining companies contributed more than $7 billion in royalties as part of $21 billion paid in state and federal taxes in that year alone.
Mining companies have invested more than $125 billion in Australia over the last decade, including in new capital, exploration, and research and development. Today the mining sector is responsible for the direct employment of over 180,000 people and almost 600,000 people benefit through indirect employment in support industries. As Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens recently highlighted, there is positive spillover from the mining sector to other parts of the Australian economy. He said:
… beyond the benefits being experienced by equipment hire, engineering, surveying and consulting firms, businesses as diverse as those supplying modular housing, laboratory services and the training of semi-skilled, trade and other workers are seeing effects of the expansion.
There are also thousands of additional jobs in broader sections of the service economy, including retail. Since 2007, many of the challenges facing Australia and the mining sector have come from the federal government, first under Prime Minister Rudd and now under Prime Minister Gillard. The superprofits tax announced last year would have had a massive impact on Australia's international competitiveness, and it hit hard our reputation as a safe investment haven. The way the tax was announced and the way it was allegedly sold to the public made it clear that this government just does not get mining; it just does not get the Australian economy. From publicly deriding mining companies as being foreign owned and ripping off taxpayers, to claiming that mining companies only pay minimal tax—and they relied on a student paper from an American university to make that claim rather than the actual tax paid according to the Australian tax office—this was evidence of a government with absolutely no understanding of a vital element of the Australian economy.
On 23 June last year—and the member for Mackellar, who is at the table, will remember that date well—I referred in question time to the comments of the Chief Executive Officer of the Mining Association of Canada, who had called Prime Minister Rudd the mining man of the year in Canada because he would bring a lot of investment their way, and I asked the then Prime Minister if he intended picking up his award when he was in Toronto the following week for the G20 meeting. Well, that was the very last question that I ever got to ask Prime Minister Rudd, for that very night the forces of darkness moved against him—the faceless men of the Labor Party staged a midnight coup. But it does appear as if history is about to repeat itself.
Having unceremoniously removed Prime Minister Rudd from office because of his failures over the superprofits tax, amongst other things, the Gillard government is now seeking to implement an even worse tax, based on the deeply flawed agreement that she reached with the big three mining companies over 12 months ago. This version of the tax is extraordinarily complex, and it introduces a new federal tax on top of corporate tax, payroll tax and the existing state royalties.
There are serious questions as to how much tax will actually be raised and upon which companies the burden will fall. But, due to the extraordinarily clumsy negotiations with the three mining companies—to the exclusion of the 3½ thousand other mining companies in this country—the federal budget is now hostage to decisions by state governments, who are perfectly entitled and constitutionally enabled to raise their royalty rates. The federal government now has to repay all of the royalties that the state governments, whether Liberal or Labor, around the country impose on the mining companies. What an extraordinarily inept negotiating performance by this Prime Minister.
There are serious questions about the constitutional validity of the proposed tax. And, after the government's humiliating loss in the High Court over the legality of its Malaysia asylum-seeker swap deal, we have every reason to be sceptical in the face of the government's assurances that it could win a High Court challenge to its mining tax laws.
Following recent mining tax profit announcements, the Prime Minister is now under renewed pressure from her coalition partner the Greens to claw back an even greater tax take from the mining companies. Senator Bob Brown has labelled the new arrangements 'a perverse outcome' and has called on the government to revive its original tax of 40 per cent on mining profits, although Senator Brown muses that '50 per cent would be more like it'. So watch this space.
I did not ever think that I would see the day when 'Australia' and 'sovereign risk' would be uttered in the same sentence. But reports of investor concern continue as the government continues its assault on our mining sector. A couple of months ago I attended an Australia-central Africa trade forum in Sydney. Ministers and representatives from central African governments—Cameroon, Chad, the Congo and Gabon—were present. I was somewhat taken aback when they announced that they were in Australia to promote investment in their countries because, as Australia was now a sovereign risk, central Africa was a more attractive option. And they knew the details of this mining tax debacle chapter and verse.
There were similar discussions at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth last week as part of CHOGM, as delegates from African nations promoted the fact that investment in mining in Africa would be a better bet than investing in Australia under this government's burdensome tax regime. As the chief executive officer of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, said, Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
Having introduced the mining tax measures to increase the government's share of iron ore and coal companies' profits, the Gillard government is now set to increase the cost of a mining company's overheads as well.
Despite having solemnly promised at the last election that she would not introduce a carbon tax, the Gillard government has introduced legislation to implement a carbon tax, which is essentially a tax on energy. So the dangers posed to Australia's economy by this mining tax policy—as well as those posed by the carbon tax policy, which will cascade throughout the economy—are well documented. Yet the Australian mining sector will be amongst the hardest hit. In a statement to the ASX in July, Rio Tinto expressed the widespread concern of the mining sector, and said that the company was:
… deeply concerned the proposed carbon tax fails to shield Australia’s export sector and leaves it at a disadvantage compared to international competitors.
This sentiment has been echoed by others. Marius Kloppers of BHP Billiton has described the government's carbon tax as an economic deadweight cost and a tax on exports.
For small to medium sized companies with lesser profit margins to absorb these additional costs, this new tax will be hard felt. This is likely to be the case with Australia's goldmining industry, and I mention the goldmining industry because, while it is currently not included in this mining tax, we should be very well aware that the Greens are calling for its inclusion. So it is only a matter of time before the mining tax will be expanded to include every conceivable mining activity, including quarries, as their superprofits tax did last year. That was included in their resource superprofits tax—an absolute disgrace. So the Greens are calling for its inclusion; the government will fold.
Earlier this year the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency released data which showed that a typical size goldmining company will be hit hard by the carbon tax, which will directly increase operating costs by more than 13 per cent, putting pressure on contractors and their ability to employ people. Currently the goldmining industry employs 7½ thousand people nationwide—but clearly that is of no concern or no interest to this government. Other participants in the mining industry supply chain—such as transport companies, cleaning companies and accommodation providers—will also be affected by increased operating costs.
There has been discussion in Australia recently about the desirability of a sovereign wealth fund to capture the benefits of our mining boom, but it is a fact that the Howard government established such a fund with the Future Fund. However, virtually no money has been added to that fund since Labor took office. We also established the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which was designed to be a fund in perpetuity to receive surplus moneys and, with income earned, to help make our higher education sector world class. That fund has been gutted by Labor.
The point is, of course, that we ran successive budget surpluses and paid down the $96 billion debt we inherited from the last Labor government. But it can only be hypothetical to talk about establishing a sovereign wealth fund any time soon while the government is billions and billions of dollars in debt. The first priority must be to repay the government's debt, which today stands at around $110 billion to $120 billion. The sooner we pay off that debt, the sooner we can recoup the billions in dead money being paid in interest each year.
The coalition's priorities are to get the budget back into surplus, pay down debt and ensure that Australia is in the best possible position to withstand further external economic shocks. But this government just does not understand mining, whether it is imposing a $2 billion condensate tax on Woodside without notice, announcing a superprofits tax that destroyed our international reputation, announcing an economy-wide carbon tax that no other country in the world is implementing, unleashing the militant unions or placing a blanket heritage listing the size of the state of Victoria over Kimberley and Western Australia.
The Gillard-Greens government is no friend of mining, no friend of the Australian people and no friend of this economy. As a nation we should be playing to our strengths. We are world leaders in mining, yet this government wants to drag our mining sector down to the back of the pack with taxes that our competitors will not be paying. We oppose this mining tax and so should all members of this House.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:31): Listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who never misses a chance to talk Australia and our economic performance down, you would think things were pretty grim. But in my state of South Australia we have just announced progress on a new mine opening with $1.2 billion set aside to expand Olympic Dam into the biggest copper and uranium mine in the world. I am a bit perplexed by some of her rhetoric on how grim it is, given that mining is expanding at a rate of knots in my state—not just exploration and the development of Olympic Dam but many other mineral developments in that area.
This is self-serving rhetoric which covers the fact that the Liberal Party and the coalition have always opposed taxation measures on resources. They opposed the petroleum resource rent tax when it came through in the 1980s. They said that would bring an end to investment and the sky was going to fall. They made the same speeches on the PRRT then as they are doing now—it was going to be the end of the world and it would end economic growth. Instead, we know the PRRT provided valuable revenue which the Howard government later relied on to fund its great budget surpluses.
Labor in government have always been concerned with both the growth of the economy and the distribution of wealth. We have always endeavoured to marry those two things in a manner that is consistent with ongoing prosperity and fairness in the economy. It is important that when we have economic growth not only a small group of people gain the benefits of that growth. It is important to spread that growth throughout the middle-class and working families all over this country. The economic reforms of the 1980s—the floating of the dollar and the reduction in tariffs—were underpinned by social reforms. These included reforms in Medicare, superannuation and family payments which were all about supporting families and making sure middle-class and working-class families had a good standard of living and that health care, retirement incomes and family payments were not left to the market. These payments are needed when kids are growing up.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill and related legislation represent a continuation of that tradition. We are endeavouring to marry great growth in our resources sector—which is ever present and ongoing despite the claims of the opposition—with the need to properly share that wealth with the majority of Australians. Most importantly, it will be shared not just with this generation but with future generations. For that to happen, we need to have something left when all of this is done.
I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Curtin, talking about how the Howard government had put money away in the Future Fund, and indeed they did. But I remember reading in Peter Hartcher's book that the Howard government in the 2004-07 budget cycle received some $320-odd billion in extra revenue during that period. A portion of that was put away in the Future Fund, but a great amount of it was spent—and we all know spending in the later years of the Howard government galloped out of control.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: We left you a surplus—something you'll never do!
Mr CHAMPION: You might have run a surplus, but spending was also growing. Any mug can run a surplus in a growing economy.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Really! Why don't you?
Mr CHAMPION: That's not true, we ran the first budget surplus in 1988. The Liberal Party never ran one when John Howard was Treasurer. But history is history and we will let the economic historians argue over it. The point is that what we want from this extra resource revenue and what we want from this tax is to be able to hand future generations something of the national providence that we have today. Mining profits over the last decade have skyrocketed by 262 per cent. Normal Australians marvel at the profits of BHP and Rio Tinto, and they marvel at the extraordinary individual wealth that is being generated by some of the mining magnates, who like to offer their opinion from time to time about matters such as this tax. There is no doubt this is a gilded age for some. Some people give rather generous gifts away—good luck to them—but they have vast profits, vast executive remuneration and vast personal wealth, and that is what is being generated. Profits are being repatriated out of this country.
We know that mining workforces and ancillary industries also are deriving gain from mining. Some of the previous speakers talked about the young workers up in the Pilbara region and the great wealth that is derived from mining jobs and from the jobs associated with mining. But it is all derived from the Australian nation. The nation owns the minerals and so it is all derived from the providence we have been bequeathed by having this continent to ourselves.
These mining companies and individuals are allowed to extract these minerals by agreement with the states and by agreement, ultimately, with the nation. The nation has a legitimate right and expectation in the public interest to derive revenue from these minerals that does not just come in the form of royalties but also in the form of a profits based tax. Much has been said about what the mining industry has said about this, but the more sensible voices accept that a profits based tax is a sensible way to go. Although we hear talk about sovereign risk and all the rest of it, much of it is self-serving talk by the minerals industry because it wants to prevent profit taxes in other jurisdictions. It wants to prevent the spread of good ideas, so it is running a scare campaign. It wants to maintain the current arrangement. But, as I said, many Australians have looked upon this gilded age and wondered what it means for them.
Too many communities and too many individuals have been locked out of this great wealth, this wealth that is produced, ultimately, by the nation. Too many people have been adversely affected and we see that as the currency has risen dramatically. We see the impact of that on other sectors, other jobs and the like. We see the rising costs of labour, the rising costs of living in remote mining communities and the effects of booming regional economies. We know that for everybody who is doing well there is a business that is struggling to find a worker or a tradesman. We know that pensioners and people on fixed incomes are struggling with the cost of living. We know from this experience that it is a problem and it has to be dealt with. We know from international experience there are threats to nations' economies that are excessively dependent on resource extraction. We all know about Dutch disease. It has being talked about many times, about how success in resources lifts the currency and that has a correspondingly negative effect on the rest of the economy. We know that excessive disparities in wealth also can occur and that is not desirable. Australia has had a fine tradition of equality and of sharing our wealth. I think that is important to a country.
This bill overcomes these threats. It overcomes those challenges to the country and it ensures the growth in mining profits benefits the whole of the community and ensures that it benefits business. It ensures it adds to national savings and it ensures that regional infrastructure is not left behind. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the coalition on business, but one of the aims of this bill is to share some of the proceeds of this wealth to make sure we have a company tax cut to 29 per cent on 1 July 2013. That is to make sure that companies can compete.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: I hear my friend opposite interjecting and talking about one per cent. If it was such a small increase, why were you trying to match it during the last election? That is the question.
This bill will provide a new tax break for 2.7 million small businesses. Up to 13,000 businesses in my electorate will benefit from the small business $6,500 instant asset right off. It is important to support business during this time because they are the engine room of employment. It is important also that national savings are lifted. National savings have made a significant contribution to protecting this economy from some of the international ups and downs during the global financial crisis. Our national savings are a huge benefit to this country.
Where would we be without superannuation? This bill increases superannuation contributions from nine per cent to 12 per cent, a very important increase. It also expands the superannuation concessions for 3.5 million low-income earners, so it is not just the top end of town that gets a tax benefit from superannuation. It is a very important equity measure and very important for our national savings and our confidence in the long-term benefits of superannuation. We know that 8.4 million working Australians will benefit and we know it will increase national savings by $500 billion by 2035. This measure will simplify personal tax arrangements. It will allow a $500 standard deduction from 2012 and $1,000 standard deduction from 2013 and will also reward personal savings for five million Australians. The whole gist of this is to put money away for a rainy day—into national savings, into individual accounts. People talk about sovereign wealth funds; but there is no greater sovereign wealth fund in this country than superannuation, and it has been operating since Bob Hawke set it up and Paul Keating expanded it. The tragedy, of course, is that while the coalition fight like blazes before these things get in and say 'the sky is going to fall', once they have been brought in they are happy to benefit from them and happy to have them in place but never, ever to expand them. That is the great tragedy of the opposition's approach.
We know that infrastructure, which has been a great problem area, will benefit. The Howard government only built one piece of infrastructure: the Alice to Darwin rail link. It is a good bit of infrastructure and the nation had waited a long time for it, but it is not much to hang your hat on. We would hope to do better than that and build infrastructure in the regions, particularly to expand resource projects and our capacity for economic development, so that mining communities can expand and those regions can prosper. So there is quite a bit in this for regions and quite a bit for building the national project and for building the north of Australia—these great aims and projects.
This bill is in the national interest. It would be a great act of vandalism to block it or repeal it. That is why, when it is implemented, the coalition will not repeal it. That is just talk—beating their chests and acting like they are going to repeal something when they will not. They will adopt the same approach as they always do: fight it right up to the point that it is successful and then take the benefits this bill will yield for the Australian people and leave it in place. To remove it would be a great act of national vandalism and, I think, a great folly.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:46): I rise to speak today on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and associated bills. I think the comments by the most recent speaker, the member for Wakefield, say it all. He mentioned early in his speech that 'any mug can deliver a surplus in a growing economy'. I remind the member for Wakefield that the government he is a part of have proudly talked about keeping the economy growing and yet at the same time have presided over the three biggest deficits in this country's history—by a country mile.
This is the level of economic incompetence that is running this country. This is what we have to deal with. This is what industry has to deal with. This is why we have seen such enormous frustration from industry, not just the mining industry but also so many other areas of industry, who are just gobsmacked by the economic illiteracy of those opposite—and it was characterised today by the member for Wakefield. He said it all, and he said it on behalf of all his colleagues. They do not understand business. They do not understand economics. They are all about politics and spin.
We heard recently from the CEO of the New South Wales Minerals Council, Dr Nikki Williams—and, again, I think this says it all:
"We are the darlings of the business pages, yet we painted as demons in the early general news.
"We help treasurers keep budgets healthy and give Australia the strength to stave off the threat of recession, yet our industry is a lightning rod for the most adversarial of political debates."
The report goes on:
Dr Williams said Australia was in the middle of one of the longest mining booms in the nation's history.
"Yet we face multiple policy, regulatory and legislative challenges that might collectively render our sector a less attractive destination for international investment than countries such as Indonesia, Colombia or even Mongolia," she warned.
This is at the heart of the problem that we have with this stupid tax, this dangerous tax, this tax born of envy and paraded as a subject of envy when in fact it is ensuring that Australia, in a policy sense, once again under this government shoots itself in the foot.
The attempted implementation of this mining tax over the last 18 months has been one of the most shambolic policy episodes this country has ever seen. This legislation comes 18 months after the Treasurer announced his half-baked so-called resources super profits tax. The first version brought down one Prime Minister, who had not even seen out a term. This second version is contributing significantly to the imminent demise of another, if we are to believe the private talk of those opposite—and are they talking! And are they worried! The member for Wakefield should be in one of the safest seats around, but even he has problems.
Mr Champion: I'm not worried about you!
Mr ROBB: This tax is yet another symbol of the gross incompetence of this government. Firstly they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector—
Mr Champion: What are you going to do with your taxing measures?
Mr ROBB: Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have to put up with this ignorance from the other side?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! I ask the honourable member for Goldstein to keep to his speech and not take any notice of interjections.
Mr ROBB: It is very difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! And I ask for the interjections to cease or I will have to deal with people.
Mr ROBB: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. First they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector. This is unprecedented, and it spooked investors around the world. Now this tax targets the mid-tier miners. It is a highly discriminatory tax. It is still in a very dysfunctional form as a tax. It has not received any favourable treatment except from the three big miners. It is seen as a bungled proposal and it reinforces that the government's core instinct is to tax, spend and borrow.
If you are responsible in any organisation—whether you are in business, sport or government—the first thing you do is identify your strengths. Once you have identified the two or three major strengths of your business or your country, you then seek to nurture, develop and protect those strengths, because they underpin your success. You do not see a football team send their champion player out onto the ground with a lead weight around his neck. You nurture your best players. They are the ones that give you the premiership. They are the ones who do something magical in the last half of the last quarter.
Clearly the mining and resources sector is one of our nation's great strengths. But what do we see? We see a government that has sought to introduce not just a carbon tax but also a mining tax into the environment of a mining boom when our mining and resources sector, perhaps our greatest strength, has contributed so importantly to the quality of life that we have enjoyed in Australia for well over 100 years. This government is imposing in the middle of a mining boom two new taxes. It is ignorance and it is envy, but, most importantly of all, it is dangerous. It is dangerous in terms of the lost job opportunities and the lost investment opportunities—and we are seeing sovereign risk manifest itself as a consequence.
Not only did they bungle the proposal in terms of its design—it has taken 18 months—but it is now being rushed in as a symbolic attempt at achievement by a Prime Minister who is hanging by her fingernails onto the leadership. That is what this is about. The way this thing has been designed and the way it is being introduced is all about politics.
Agriculture is another of our great strengths, but look at the way they handled the live cattle job. The incompetence with which they handled that has added to sovereign risk. Our international education effort is another of our great strengths, but they introduced a visa requirement where families have to have three years of the education cost and accommodation to get a visa. Then they wonder why 20,000 Chinese students have stopped coming here. That is ignorance and incompetence. They are obsessed with taxing, spending and borrowing. That drives every policy of this government. They are an old-style socialist government—under pressure all they know how to do is tax, spend and borrow. This mining tax is nothing but a tax grab, pure and simple. It is a tax that will discourage investment. It is a discriminatory tax.
Let's look at where it falls. In research released today by BDO, a major research group, the mining tax liability on Rio Tinto was calculated for the first five years, and it was zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. They calculated the mining tax liability on BHP, and you will not be surprised to learn that, for the first five years, it is another five zeros. They have taken the real-life numbers of a small emerging miner who is making revenue in the order of $600 million to $700 million and calculated its mining tax revenue: first year—2012—zero; second year, $49 million; third year, $107 million; fourth year, $96 million; fifth year, $68 million; and the following year, $63 million. So we are seeing a total effective tax rate of 40.18 per cent in the first year in which they pay the tax, 45.68 per cent in the second year; 45.76 per cent in the third year, 46.12 per cent in the fourth year, and 46.20 per cent in the fifth year.
This is a scandal. We are putting a lead weight around the neck of our greatest strength in this economy. When you look at our competitors around the world—and they are significant, they are large and they are coming at us as they invest in infrastructure to move a mountain of resources that exist around the world—the highest effective rate of tax including royalties is 40 per cent in Canada. We are talking about mid-tier companies paying a 46 per cent effective rate of tax with this new tax. In other countries, such as Brazil and Mongolia and other major future competitors, they are paying in some cases as low as 30 per cent and less. This tax is a lazy and short-sighted attempt by an incompetent government to prop up its budget. That is all it is.
Let's for a minute examine the myth that the minerals sector is somehow not paying its way. They paid very little in 1999, but by 2002-03—when the mining boom was just taking off—they paid around $6 billion in taxes including royalties and corporate taxes. In 2010-11, that figure exceeded $23 billion, a fourfold increase. The profits-based company tax was in the order of $4 billion in 2002-03. That grew to nearly $15 billion. A massive new investment over the next four or five years and the reduction in costs offsetting profits will mean that revenue will continue in a very strong way, depending on the price of the product. So with the existing taxes we have a fourfold increase which is likely to get much higher in the next three or four years, yet the government wants to come in with a carbon tax and a mining tax which will add billions and billions to the tax that these companies are paying, and the effective rate of tax will head towards 50 per cent. This is nonsense. At a time when we should be locking in all of the potential investment that this great resources sector can produce, we are inviting competitors around the world as we see a supply response coming down the line. We think we are awash with resources, and we are. Our iron ore is 13 per cent of the world's supply, and our coal is 15 or 16 per cent of the world's supply. But there are mountains of it elsewhere, and this government is oblivious to that. They are inviting competition, they are ensuring that we will not be competitive and they are taking great risks. They have spent this money before they have earned it.
Then there is the prospect of China. Global reports came from Paul Wiseman yesterday that China's comedown is being engineered by its policy makers. They want to slow expansion just enough to cool inflation. If they get down to six or seven per cent growth—which will cool inflation—China will still have strong growth, but there will be a 15, 25 or 30 per cent reduction in prices. This government is vulnerable: our structural deficit at the last budget was twice Germany's and was 30 per cent higher than even Italy.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr ROBB: The member for Wakefield smiles. He does not understand what a structural deficit is.
Mr Champion: I understand it.
Mr ROBB: It means we are highly vulnerable. With this mining tax and the carbon tax, the government are spending money they do not have. This means we are being put in a highly vulnerable position with deficits potentially for another 10 years.
This bill should never have come before this House. It is the result of the politics of envy. It means that, as a country, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Under this appalling government it will turn away job creating investment, it will make our economy more vulnerable, it is antigrowth and it is just another piece of stupidity. If we get the privilege of government, we will remove this tax.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:02): I proudly rise to voice my strong support for the economy-building, future-proofing Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills before the House. It is always good to hear from the member for Goldstein. He has certainly had a tough time lately. I remember the budget reply speech from the Leader of the Opposition, who said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually do the budget reply speech. I'm going to give that to the shadow Treasurer.' The shadow Treasurer then came out and said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually get around to doing my budget reply speech. I'll ask the shadow finance minister.' It was amazing. As a teacher, I have heard a lot of excuses about why homework was not done, but that was the first time I ever heard anyone say, 'The dog did my homework.' I have never heard that before. It was amazing.
Some Australians are getting very rich from the mining boom, especially very profitable mining companies. Obviously the Labor Party is not concerned about profits—we support profits—but we are concerned when many Australians are left out. While some Australian small businesses are happy just to break even, our biggest miners are generating phenomenal profits. Mining profits for the year ending 30 June 2011 were a massive $93 billion with $430 billion of further investment in the pipeline, so to speak. So much for the member for Goldstein saying that investment in mining is about to dry up. That is ridiculous.
I say again that there is nothing wrong with big profits. Profits are good for shareholders, they reward workers, they help fund future investment and they stimulate our economy. But where we are seeing such enormous profits from the mining of our coal and our iron ore—Australians' coal and Australians' iron ore—much of this money goes overseas. A responsible government, a sensible government, must ensure that Australians are getting a fair return for our resources, which can only be mined once.
The minerals resource rent tax will apply to all new and existing iron ore and coal projects, and it will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. Only coal and iron ore producers generating an annual profit of more than $50 million will pay the tax. I repeat this for those opposite—you must be making an annual profit of more than $50 million before you have to pay this tax. State mining royalties will be fully credited back to the company, whether that state government is a Labor government or a Liberal government. The tax is expected to raise about $3.7 billion in 2012-13, $4 billion in 2013-14 and $3.4 billion in 2014-15, subject obviously to the variability of long-term international commodity prices. Over 10 years the mining tax, it is expected, will deliver an extra $38.5 billion to Australians.
The Gillard Labor government is determined to share these benefits with all Australians. How will we do this? Firstly, employer superannuation contributions will rise from nine per cent to 12 per cent, giving a 30-year-old worker on average earnings an extra $100,000 of savings.
Secondly, we will also give small business a take in the cut. They will be able to write off every asset worth up to $6,500. Who in this chamber would not support small business receiving such a benefit? You would have to be crazy not to support such a cut.
Thirdly, we will slash company tax to 29 per cent from 1 July 2013. All Australian companies—small, medium and large—will go from 30 per cent down to 29 per cent. In contrast, those opposite plan to effectively increase company taxes with their clumsy two per cent paid parental leave tax.
Fourthly, we will simplify personal tax by introducing a $500 standard deduction from 1 July 2012 and a $1,000 deduction from 1 July 2013.
Fifthly, we will reward personal saving for more than five million Australians with a 50 per cent tax discount on up to $500 of interest income from 1 July 2012.
Sixthly, the government will direct more investment back into mining communities through a regional infrastructure fund.
How could a wise man vote against such a tax? Well, I have heard that the honourable Leader of the Opposition does intend to change his name by deed poll to Joseph Wiseman because, as all film buffs would know, that is the actor who played Dr No in the James Bond movie. That is the only way we would be able to have a Wiseman voting against this incredibly sensible policy.
These projects will boost productivity, they will support jobs and they will look after our hard-working mining communities. I do find the opposition's position on this completely perplexing. The opposition climate change spokesperson told Sky Agenda on Tuesday:
… let me say that the mining tax is a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because capital is mobile in this world, that companies and investors have a choice as to where they set up their mining activities.
Obviously, he is half right: capital is mobile and companies do compete in the global mining market. But mining companies do not easily take their capital and just go to any other country to mine immobile resources. They come to Australia not just because of the present tax arrangements but also—wait for it—obviously because we have some of the best minerals in the world. We are blessed geologically. The competitive edge of Australian mining is not only our lean tax regime but also the abundance of these high-quality minerals and natural gas deposits beneath the ground.
Australia has 10 per cent of the world's coal resources, and most of this is top quality black coal like we have in Queensland—with no disrespect at all to the Victorians who are here. We have some of the top coal in the world, with higher energy burns and lower emissions. Australia has 47 per cent of the world's uranium. So this idea that miners will easily just move their capital around the world and mine somewhere else is quite ridiculous.
Let us have a look at the proposed projects. I will go through some which are on the horizon or have already been announced for new investment or CAPEX. Fortescue has a US$8.4 billion expansion in the Pilbara. Xstrata, to name just a couple of their announced projects, has $270 million in the McArthur River lead/zinc expansion, $1.4 billion in the Ravensworth North open cut coking coal project in New South Wales, $234 million in the George Fisher zinc mine expansion at Mt Isa, US$1.1 billion in the Ulan West underground thermal coal mine in New South Wales and $6 billion in the Wandoan coal mine in Queensland. Rio Tinto has US$6 billion in the Pilbara, $803 million in the Argyle open pit transition and $1.78 billion in the Hope Downs iron ore project. BHP Billiton has US$7.4 billion in the Jimblebar mine development in the Pilbara and US$5 billion in the Bowen Basin. These sums are all in US dollars, which I suppose is at approximate parity at the moment. Woodside has $14 billion in the Pluto project. The Woodside Energy joint venture with BP, BHP Billiton, Chevron and Shell has $30 billion in the Browse Basin LNG project. The Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil joint venture has $43 billion in the Gorgon LNG project. Santos has $16 billion in the coal seam gas in Gladstone and Curtis Island. BG Group has a $15 billion LNG plant on Curtis Island and in the Surat Basin, Queensland. Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips have a $35 billion LNG project at Gladstone. Royal Dutch Shell has a $11 billion LNG project.
These are just a few of these mining projects that are supposed to be drying up! It is ridiculous that those opposite can actually stand up and seriously argue that we are threatening the mining industry in Australia with this tax. Australia's resources are finite and precious. Australians own them, and the Gillard Labor government understands the responsibility we have to future generations to ensure that all Australians get a fair return—everyone today, everyone tomorrow and those who are not even a twinkle in the eye today. They all need to have a share in the finite resources that we own.
Speaker after speaker from the opposition got on the protest bandwagon and claimed that this tax would all but bring mining to its knees. I remember the member for Warringah wearing his Mitch Hooke-provided white T-shirt. The jeremiad went like this: 'Investment would end, jobs would go and mines would close.' That was only a year ago. That is what the Henny Penny on steroids, aka the Leader of the Opposition, would have us believe. But the reality looks nothing like this. Since we announced the MRRT, mining investment has soared and stronger growth is coming over the horizon, as I detailed. It has grown from $35 billion in 2009-10 to $47 billion in 2010-11 and will nearly double to $82 billion this financial year. Employment in the mining industry has also advanced rapidly. Just go to regional Queensland and you will see that. Go to Western Australia and you will see that. More than 44,000 new jobs have been created, an increase of nearly 25 per cent. The towns in these areas know that. There is absolutely no sign that the mining tax will damage mining investment.
The Labor government has built a strong economy. We have created 700,000 new jobs—140,000 of them in the last year alone. We have more Australians than ever before in traineeships or apprenticeships. Unemployment is at 5.2 per cent. We abolished Work Choices and restored unfair dismissal protections for 2.8 million workers, and we have slashed income taxes for everyone.
The Labor government is standing between the future prosperity of Australia and the road that the Liberal Party want to take us down, which is a US style economy where one per cent of the population controls 42 per cent of the wealth; where the latest data shows that instead of there being 13 per cent of the population living in poverty it has gone up to 15 per cent; where there are more unemployed people than there are union members. That is the sort of economy those opposite would like here.
Australians have confidence that the Labor government will make the tough and necessary decisions to protect jobs and to manage our economy sensibly. The mining tax will deliver for all Australians and help keep our economy strong into the future. I commend the bill, proudly, to the House.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:13): I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011. I, like the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Curtin—who spoke here before—am a proud West Australian and see that this tax will affect my home state more than it will affect any of the other states. It was clear from the results of the 2010 election in Western Australia that this mining tax and the carbon tax were overwhelmingly rejected by the West Australian population.
I started my career as an apprentice electrician and eventually ran a small business, which is how I earned my living before entering parliament. Unlike many on the other side of the House who had careers working for the trade union movement before entering this place, I know what it is like to run a business and to have to deal with burdensome taxes and government regulations. I know how prohibitive to running a successful business those taxes and regulations can become. That is why I always take great caution when it comes to these sorts of bills and look at why new taxes are being introduced. If this great country of ours is to stay strong and if our industries are to create wealth and provide jobs to Australians, we need to be creating and maintaining economic conditions for those industries to prosper. To maintain strong economic conditions we need investment, and those investors need a return on investment. This bill will suffocate investment, as it will be suffocating return on investment. It is as simple as that. We just heard the member for Moreton talk about what they are doing for small business, but this is just the misunderstanding of the Labor Party—they just don't get business and they just don't get taxes. As an example, he said they were going to reduce small business tax from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, a total of one per cent. The only small business that will benefit from that at all is the small business that is making a profit; if it is not making a profit this will be of no help at all. The other example is that they have just increased the superannuation levy, which wipes out the one per cent straightaway. If a small business man is making a profit, he will get an extra dollar for every $100 that he makes in profit. Big deal. That is no assistance to small business at all. But the Labor Party people think that it is a great bonus for small businesses.
To maintain strong economic conditions, we need investment, and investors need a return on investment. This bill will not maintain strong economic conditions; it will do exactly the opposite. The flawed process with which those opposite announced this mining tax to the public remains one of the most embarrassing performances of the government's time in office. It led to chaos across the country, which led to the ending of the prime ministership of the member for Griffith by the current Prime Minister and left an industry with an uncertain future.
No consultation was done with any stakeholders when the initial mining tax was announced. There was no consultation with industry or with state or territory governments despite serious implications for their own-source revenue. The Henry recommendation that a national profit based resource rent tax should replace state and territory royalties and that the federal government should negotiate the federal-state implications of such a move has been ignored by the federal government. The government's decision to provide no consultation on the implications of the mining tax is worrisome, given that resource royalties are 20 per cent of Western Australian state government revenues, nine per cent of Queensland state government revenues and six per cent of Northern Territory government revenues—and despite major implications for GST sharing arrangements around Australia.
This bill will damage Australia's ability to attract foreign investment. The increased sovereign risk brought on by the retrospective nature of the tax, and the large rise in taxation in comparison to overseas investment destinations, will no doubt cause foreign investors to think twice before entering the Australian market. The mineral resource rent tax is divisive. The government has created a situation where we have three big miners—and the rest. It is turning different parts of the industry and the economy against each other.
The WA state Treasurer, Christian Porter, has informed the government that 65 per cent of the revenue will come from iron ore production in Western Australia alone. It is extraordinary that one new national tax would raise 65 per cent of its revenue from one single state economy. This is about $25 billion coming from WA, out of the $38.5 billion total predicted revenue over the next decade.
This tax is deeply unpopular within my electorate of Swan, and obviously all of Western Australia, judging by the 2010 election results. I see the member for Hasluck in the chamber, and I am sure it is just as unpopular in his electorate. That is why it is disturbing that the federal government is trying to link infrastructure projects that would normally be funded out of consolidated revenue to the passage of the mining tax. The government is trying to hold a gun to the head of the Australian people, saying: support this tax, or else.
Of course, the government has shamelessly tried to use this strategy in my own electorate of Swan, when prior to the last election the government tried to link the future of the mining tax with the Gateway WA project for the roads around Perth. This was a very poor strategy. The government said to the people of Swan, many of whose livelihoods depend on the mining sector, 'Your roads are not going to be upgraded by the government unless you support the world's biggest mining tax, which will impact on the economy, your livelihood and your future.' We in the coalition made it clear that we would be funding these road projects, including the airport roads upgrade and the Great Eastern Highway upgrade, without the mining tax. Gateway WA has been identified by the WA government as critical to relieving state transport bottlenecks. Local people in my electorate know only too well of these bottlenecks, which they have to face during their everyday activities on roads which they share with industrial traffic coming to and from Kewdale and the transport hub in Welshpool. That is why on behalf of the community I campaigned hard for the upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway, which I am pleased to say is now underway, after some worrying times, including when there were concerns about the federal government not meeting a shortfall, which would have seen the upgrade cease at Hardey Road.
Gateway WA is a very important project. The federal contribution to the $600 million project is $480 million. The future of such a project should not be linked to what the Premier of Western Australia has described as a tax on WA. The project should also not have been thrown into the realms of uncertainty as it has been by the government's shaky and unreliable negotiations with the Independents. Today in the Australian we saw a big spread on how the member for New England plans to 'hold a gun to the government's head' on the mining tax legislation over issues in his electorate. The message coming out of Canberra is chaotic and the result may well be delays in this project.
We know the real reason why the federal government is introducing this mining tax legislation: it cannot fund any more of the nation's vital infrastructure projects through usual channels because of the massive national debt it has built up. It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton talking about a figure of $94 billion—it just rolled off his tongue. That is close to the national debt that the government has now built up. Kevin Rudd told all Australians he was an economic conservative but misled the Australian people. This country has never in its history been in more debt than it is now. The government cannot meet its obligations to the Australian people to continue to invest in infrastructure, and that is why it has to introduce this mining tax.
If the mining industry is threatened, so will be Western Australia and also the nation. That is why this was such a serious issue in WA before the last election, not only because of a threat to the jobs of the many people who work directly or indirectly in the mining sector but because the people of Western Australia understand the threat to the health of the local and national economy. There are many fly in, fly out workers in Perth and I know that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia is conducting an inquiry into fly in, fly out work practices at the moment, which I know do place strain on many families across WA. It might also be worth consulting with these workers over this legislation and how they feel it will affect them.
It is well known that Western Australia's GST intake is the lowest in the country, at 68c in the dollar. However, projections from the WA government suggest this could reduce to 50c within three years and be on its way down to the 30c mark. Given this, the Premier's recent decision on iron ore royalties was understandable. With no guarantee of WA's future GST return, the Premier was forced to act to secure some royalties. However the impact of this decision on the federal government's budget shows how the mish-mash deal hammered out before the election by the government with only three of the mining companies was just a short-term political fix. Under this deal the government promised to underwrite any rises in state royalties. State governments in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have increased royalties on iron ore and coal, and the result has been a massive hit on the federal budget bottom line.
I heard members on the other side of the chamber complaining about this, but that was the deal the government set up. It was their deal, so they have nothing to complain about. Other states such as Queensland have reserved the right to raise royalties in the future. None of the states were party to the Prime Minister's pre-election quick political deal and now the government is paying the price. As the shadow Treasurer said in his contribution, you cannot have serious and genuine reform of resource taxation and royalty arrangements without active and constructive engagement between the Commonwealth and state or territory governments.
Perhaps most significantly, there are serious question marks over the constitutional validity of the mining tax. We know that Ken Henry said that the federal government never sought advice on the constitutional validity of the tax before its announcement, and there is now the prospect that this legislation may not be lawful under the existing Constitution. As a tax on a resource at the point of extraction, this could constitute a tax on state property as prohibited by section 114 of the Constitution. Following the Malaysia people-swap decision from the High Court, the government is once again introducing legislation that one would think will inevitably result in a High Court challenge.
I would also say that, based on the outcome of the last election, it is particularly unclear whether the parliament has a mandate to introduce this legislation. I will be listening carefully to the speeches from the Independent members but, as I have already mentioned, the member for New England has announced that he will not support the legislation in its current form. Should these Independents have changed their minds since the last election campaign, it would indeed be another sad day for democracy if this legislation is passed in the House—following on from the carbon tax legislation, which only one or two members out of the 150 went to the last election in support of.
The government should start from scratch and pursue genuine tax reform to give Australians lower, fairer and simpler taxes through an open and transparent process. The parliament should stop the MRRT from going ahead and force the government to start again. The Gillard government needs to get its spending under control so it can focus on delivering lower, simpler, fairer taxes and genuine tax reform based on a proper process that gives everyone a fair opportunity to have their say. Instead of doing this, another 287 pages of tax law will now be added, increasing complexity and compliance costs.
It is concerning that the big three miners have been able to gain benefits for themselves that smaller miners do not have access to. For example, the introduction of a market valuation system to calculate applicable deductions gives the big three miners a significant tax shield that the smaller and mid-tier miners cannot access. Smaller companies will suffer under increased compliance burdens. The Henry tax review recommended a lower tax burden for smaller mining ventures, to help start-ups grow and prosper and to keep mining ventures in their decline phase alive longer. Instead, smaller and mid-tier mining ventures will pay a higher effective tax rate under the Gillard MRRT than the big three who were given exclusive access to the negotiations with the government.
One of the most concerning outcomes of this legislation is that it will worsen our structural deficit. The MRRT will help the government create the illusion of an early surplus in 2012-13 but it will leave the budget worse off from 2013-14 onwards. Treasury projections of MRRT revenue to 2020, released under FOI, indicate that Treasury expects revenue to reduce over time. The revenue not only will be downward trending but also will be volatile. Over the first year since the MRRT was announced revenue estimates fluctuated from between $7.7 billion to $24 billion.
While the revenue will diminish, the cost of the measures the government has attached to the MRRT will continue to grow strongly. For example, the cost of the proposed increase in compulsory super to 12 per cent is expected to rise to $3.6 billion in 2019-20, which is when it would be fully implemented. That same year, Treasury projections show MRRT revenue at $3 billion. The Senate inquiry into the mining tax has conservatively estimated that over the next decade the net cost to the budget will be $20 billion.
The MRRT remains a tax based on a deal negotiated exclusively with the three biggest miners who were given privileged access. Instead of making our tax system simpler and fairer, as we were promised, Labor's mining tax will make it less fair and more complex. This tax is divisive to the country, it distorts the national economy and it diminishes our international competitiveness. It is another example of a bad government getting worse. I will not vote for a bill that will reduce the standard of living for Western Australians and drive investment offshore to other countries that are now offering our miners incentives not taxes.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:27): I rise to speak on a series of bills which implement the mineral resources rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax. I would like to acknowledge the assistance in preparing this speech of Chelsea Pietsch, who is participating in a Lachlan Macquarie Internship and spending her week with me here in parliament. I think it is very apt that it is Lachlan Macquarie that is figuring here in this consideration and that Chelsea is from that internship group, because Lachlan Macquarie was a man who had a vision for this country, and we see his vision for the country still evident today in many of the buildings along Macquarie Street in Sydney—and there is no doubt that this is nation-building legislation that is before us today.
Labor is and always has been committed to achieving fairness within the Australian community. As our national platform and constitution state, fairness is one of our key priorities in government. It is our commitment to fairness that shapes our policies and what sets them apart from policies formulated by the opposition. The bills we are debating here today are yet another example of Labor's commitment to achieving fair outcomes for all Australians. And I will repeat that phrase many times throughout this speech, because Labor is for all Australians, not just for some.
Australia has been blessed with incredible natural resources and minerals, which fuel the heart of the Australian economy through the mining industry. Labor fully appreciates the central role of the mining industry in our Australian economy. However, we are also conscious that these natural, wealth-producing resources are finite. We can only dig up our resources once. For this reason, the Gillard government is committed to ensuring that we spread the benefits of the mining boom so that all Australians receive a fair return from the use of our valuable mineral and petroleum resources on the one occasion on which they can be extracted to the benefit of the entire nation. We believe it is not just the very profitable mining companies who should benefit from these natural resources but also the Australian community at large.
More than just achieving fairness with our country's non-renewable resources, however, these bills support growth across the entire economy. This is particularly important to me for the seat of Robertson and the Central Coast region that I represent here in this parliament. I represent an area that has grown at an astronomical rate in the last 30 years. We have many small businesses that are great employers there. We also have incredible pressure on infrastructure. We need to have our economy growing, and the type of legislation that we have before this parliament and the outcomes for Australians are exactly the recipe for success for people from the Central Coast who want to work hard and build this great nation. I can assure the people of the Central Coast that we, the Labor government, will keep delivering for them.
Our government's priority is to lay down the foundations for the long-term prosperity of this nation by ensuring a strong and broad economy. How, you may ask, can we bring about a more equitable share in the profits of natural resources and, at the same time, strengthen the Australian economy? We can achieve these objectives through two critical tools: firstly, by providing an efficient, internationally competitive and sustainable taxation framework on Australia's most significant bulk commodities; and, secondly, by using these taxes to fund important personal and company tax and superannuation reforms that benefit small business and individuals within our Australian community. This is precisely what these bills do.
The Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill 2011 provides for the taxation of the above-normal profits from mining iron ore and coal. This is a tax on Australia's most significant bulk commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas, commodities that very few Australians have access to in their backyard—but they do have them in our nation. We share in them as a nation. They are commodities that make a significant profit—profits that can help create a fairer Australia. The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to extend an already existing tax on gas and coal projects to onshore and offshore projects. Applying the tax to both onshore and offshore contexts will not only provide certainty to the industry but also ensure broadly equitable tax treatment between competing projects.
Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, the revenue derived from both of these taxes will be used for the benefit of the entire community. Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, we will use the revenue to implement significant tax and superannuation reforms for all Australians, including a cut in the company tax rate to 29 per cent; a new tax break for up to 2.4 million small businesses; reinvestment in Australia's regions through a $6 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund; a boost to superannuation and expanded superannuation concessions for low-income earners; simplification of the personal tax system; and personal tax discounts. That has to be a good recipe for Australia in anyone's book, at least on this side of the chamber. These much-needed reforms represent this government's attempt to make sure all Australians in our patchwork economy get our fair share of the mining boom. We know that many households and small businesses are doing it tough, and we believe that these tax reforms will provide them with the assistance they need to keep managing these challenges as we move together to a better economic and social future—again, for all Australians.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a recent study published by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, entitled Australian small business key statistics. As the Minister for Small Business, Senator Nick Sherry, revealed during the launch of the study, small businesses accounted for nearly half of total Australian industry employment and a third of industry value-added in 2009-10. In fact, at June 2009, small businesses accounted for nearly 98 per cent of all businesses in the agriculture sector, about 96 per cent in the services sector, about 91 per cent in the mining sector and just over 88 per cent in the manufacturing sector. What these figures indicate is that small business is indeed the backbone of the Australian economy. By implementing the mineral and petroleum resource rent tax bills, the Gillard government is keen to ensure that these critical small businesses receive the support they need to continue providing the essential economic activity they provide to this nation. Labor understands the pressures on small business, and this is why, as of 1 July 2012, the government is offering up to 2.4 million small businesses a new tax break.
As I have already indicated, it is not just small business that will benefit from this new tax. The proceeds of the MRRT will also flow through to regional parts of Australia by means of a Regional Infrastructure Fund. This fund will help communities with much-needed infrastructure support. I have seen this need in my own electorate, the electorate of Robertson. As I said, the growth of our electorate in the last 30 years has been really significant. It has led to ever-growing pressure on our infrastructure. Most evident is the pressure on our roads, our rail, our schools and our health services. Parts of many electorates around the country are bursting at the seams. The tax reforms will help relieve some of this real pressure and, through that relief, stimulate business and further enhance the economic outcomes for our nation.
I now wish to clarify some important points about our tax reform proposals. Firstly, the Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill is not a tax on production; rather, it is a tax on profit. This is absolutely in line with the recommendations made by the Australia's Future Tax System review. These are recommendations our government takes very seriously. They are recommendations from experts, ignored by those opposite, who always seem to know better than everybody else in every situation—or so they would have us believe. The recommendations we follow are taken very seriously, and we seek to implement viable tax systems for Australia—that is, tax systems that do not destroy, but rather build, the Australian economy. This profits-based tax is a much more efficient way of taxing than state royalties, and it will certainly ensure a much better return for Australia. The opposition will tell you that the introduction of the minerals resource rent tax will derail the mining boom and probably break every worst record they can conjure up. But this is simply not supported by the facts. Consistently we see the real facts getting in the way of the myth making, the negativity and the mischief of those opposite who would tell Australians that all our good days are behind us and none in front of us. The reality is very different to what we hear from the other side—'no, no, no' and the carping negativity—and the leadership this country needs is embodied in this legislation.
The latest survey of business investment plans shows that mining companies invested $34 billion last year. They are going to invest $55 billion this year and—wait for it—the amount is growing. They are going to invest $76 billion next year, hardly a sign of an industry in decay. To put that into perspective: that is more than five times the amount of mining investment undertaken six years ago, before the boom took off. However, it is not just an increase in raw dollar investments happening in the mining sector. Since Labor announced its intention to introduce this tax, mining employment has increased by 34.3 per cent. That is 44,200 mining jobs. And as much as those opposite do not like it, this is no indicator of a mining slump.
The second clarification I wish to make about the minerals resource rent tax is that we were only willing to announce it after significant consultations with major players in the industry. These consultations were facilitated by the Policy Transition Group, chaired by none other than Don Argus—the former Chairman of BHP Billiton—and comprised of numerous representatives, including those from peak industry organisations such as APPEA, MCA and a wide range of mining companies both large and small covering iron ore, petroleum, magnetite and coal seam gas operations across the country.
Our government has not only met with and listened to these representatives, we have also accepted every single one of the 98 recommendations made to us by this group. This is an indication of our commitment to work closely with those in industry. The Labor government cares about industry and highly values the opinions of those who are engaged in the mining boom. We have met with the key players in the mining industry, we have listened to them, we have talked with them and we have made our way forward together for the short- and the long-term future, for the sector as well as the nation. This is unlike those opposite who this week in the Qantas debate sided only with big business. They showed no regard for workers and little regard for the ordinary travelling public. Labor listens and Labor leads with a proper regard for business leaders, for union leaders and ordinary working Australians. We get that we are all in it together.
We have listened to all parties and we have brought the best plans into being in the national interest in this legislation before the House today. We are now seeking to implement all those things which have been recommended to us by stakeholders. Suffice it to say, these bills are none other than a collaborative effort with all at the coalface of the mining industry. But more than this, these tax reforms are our attempt to spread the wealth of the mining boom to all of those struggling to make ends meet in our patchwork economy.
The Leader of the Opposition is against these reforms. As we have seen time and time again, the opposition is much more interested in supporting big business than in addressing the needs of those who are doing it tough. With these tax reforms, small businesses within my electorate, such as the scrumptious Terrigal Bakery, the well-patronised Sushi Circle in downtown Gosford, and hard-working tradies like Paul Palmer, a local plumber, and John Owens, a local painter, will be able to reap some of the benefits of the Australian mining boom. This is a very significant tax reform for small business and they will be able to have multiple items written off immediately.
Labor will provide a boost in the super guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent for around 8.4 million workers, increasing the pool of retirement savings by $500 billion by 2035. What more can I say, aside from the fact that we are the party who introduced super and now we are the ones increasing it. As a woman with two daughters, I am keenly aware that women really need this legislation to pass through this parliament to practically improve their lives in retirement. Women retire with 40 per cent less than men in their super, despite the fact that, happily, we live longer. But through the introduction of these bills, implementation of the mineral resource rent tax and the petroleum resource rent tax, Labor is giving all Australians a fair share of the mining boom—a boost to retirement savings, tax breaks for small business, company tax cuts—and at the same time supporting growth of the Australian economy. I commend these bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:02): Madam Deputy Speaker, these bills—the 11 bills you just read out—were introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday by the government. This happened after the failure of the government to get consensus on the draft bills that were distributed around the community over the last few weeks. The government now are asking us to speak on 11 bills—525 pages of complicated tax legislation—after giving us notice last night at eight o'clock and then to have a considered debate in the people's house. They talked about the new paradigm—a whole new approach—but every time I raise with the Leader of the House the changes that are being made he says, 'The sins of the father should be visited on the son'—that is, 'You did it to us; therefore we're doing it to you.' I will move to adjourn the debate, and I will do so because now is the time, in the wake of the fact that the matter has gone to committee, to have a proper debate about the tax bills. I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question put.
The House divided [11:08]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Ayes 71
Noes 72
Majority 1
AYES |
|
Alexander, JG |
Andrews, KJ |
Andrews, KL |
Baldwin, RC |
Billson, BF |
Bishop, BK |
Bishop, JI |
Briggs, JE |
Broadbent, RE |
Buchholz, S |
Chester, D |
Christensen, GR |
Cobb, JK |
Coulton, M (teller) |
Crook, AJ |
Dutton, PC |
Entsch, WG |
Fletcher, PW |
Forrest, JA |
Frydenberg, JA |
Gambaro, T |
Gash, J |
Griggs, NL |
Haase, BW |
Hartsuyker, L |
Hawke, AG |
Hockey, JB |
Hunt, GA |
Irons, SJ |
Jensen, DG |
Jones, ET |
Katter, RC |
Keenan, M |
Kelly, C |
Laming, A |
Ley, SP |
Macfarlane, IE |
Marino, NB |
Markus, LE |
Matheson, RG |
McCormack, MF |
Mirabella, S |
Morrison, SJ |
Moylan, JE |
Neville, PC |
O'Dowd, KD |
O'Dwyer, KM |
Prentice, J |
Pyne, CM |
Ramsey, RE |
Randall, DJ |
Robb, AJ |
Robert, SR |
Roy, WB |
Ruddock, PM |
Schultz, AJ |
Scott, BC |
Secker, PD (teller) |
Simpkins, LXL |
Slipper, PN |
Smith, ADH |
Somlyay, AM |
Stone, SN |
Tehan, DT |
Truss, WE |
Tudge, AE |
Turnbull, MB |
Van Manen, AJ |
Vasta, RX |
Washer, MJ |
Wyatt, KG |
|
NOES |
|
Adams, DGH |
Albanese, AN |
Bandt, AP |
Bird, SL |
Bowen, CE |
Bradbury, DJ |
Brodtmann, G |
Burke, AE |
Burke, AS |
Butler, MC |
Byrne, AM |
Champion, ND |
Cheeseman, DL |
Clare, JD |
Collins, JM |
Combet, GI |
Crean, SF |
Danby, M |
D'Ath, YM |
Dreyfus, MA |
Elliot, MJ |
Ellis, KM |
Emerson, CA |
Ferguson, LDT |
Ferguson, MJ |
Fitzgibbon, JA |
Garrett, PR |
Georganas, S |
Gibbons, SW |
Gray, G |
Grierson, SJ |
Griffin, AP |
Hall, JG (teller) |
Hayes, CP |
Husic, EN (teller) |
Jones, SP |
Kelly, MJ |
King, CF |
Leigh, AK |
Livermore, KF |
Lyons, GR |
Macklin, JL |
Marles, RD |
McClelland, RB |
Melham, D |
Mitchell, RG |
Murphy, JP |
Neumann, SK |
Oakeshott, RJM |
O'Connor, BPJ |
O'Neill, DM |
Owens, J |
Parke, M |
Perrett, GD |
Plibersek, TJ |
Ripoll, BF |
Rishworth, AL |
Rowland, MA |
Roxon, NL |
Rudd, KM |
Saffin, JA |
Shorten, WR |
Sidebottom, PS |
Smith, SF |
Smyth, L |
Snowdon, WE |
Swan, WM |
Symon, MS |
Vamvakinou, M |
Wilkie, AD |
Windsor, AHC |
Zappia, A |
PAIRS |
|
Abbott, AJ |
Gillard, JE |
Ciobo, SM |
Thomson, KJ |
Southcott, AJ |
Thomson, CR |
Question negatived.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:13): That represents the death blow for the new paradigm—and good on you, let it be noted. The House of Representatives Economics Committee reports on 21 November on these 11 bills of 525 pages. So now, following the carbon tax, the government has yet again confirmed that in this new paradigm—this new parliament that the Independents so obviously talked about—here we go again. I remember that it was the member for Lyne who was urging in committee meetings that in fact the parliament should not have a rushed government agenda and that it should go to committee before the parliament actually makes a decision. But that is okay—hypocrisy be thy name.
The bills have clearly been rushed, and I say so because even this morning the government was downloading parts of the bills on the internet. It still had not actually—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! If we can have members take their seats or leave the chamber—
Mr HOCKEY: Just ignore him, as his electorate will, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government was still downloading parts of the bills and the explanatory memorandums this morning, and now it wants us to have a properly informed debate. Well, let's give it a good shot.
The first two of the 11 bills implement the new minerals resource rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore. The next two bills—the Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011—implement changes to the personal income tax provisions and superannuation. The remaining seven bills deal with administrative and technical issues, which this House will not have the opportunity to properly consider.
The new taxation arrangements for the mining sector will apply from 1 July next year, and there are two elements. The minerals resource rent tax regime will apply to the mining of iron ore and coal in Australia, and the petroleum resource rent tax regime will be extended to all Australian onshore and offshore oil and gas projects, including the North West Shelf. This will capture emerging projects such as converting coal seam gas to LNG. The new taxes will apply to Australia's most important commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas. The government has struggled with a number of variations of this tax to get it right—one of the reasons why we wanted to have a properly informed debate and a proper opportunity to have a look at the 11 bills. But no: this government, with typical undue haste, gets the details wrong. The big, sweeping statements it comes out with are not backed up with attention to detail. This tax in particular has been a salutary lesson in how not to introduce a new tax.
The original proposal for a resource super profits tax emerged from the Henry tax review in May of 2010. Dr Henry recommended a uniform resource rent tax on non-renewable resources, replacing existing state government royalty systems. The government's original RSPT—resource super profits tax—effectively nationalised 40 per cent of the revenue stream from the mining industry. This government nationalised Telstra again, so why would they stop now? They wanted to nationalise 40 per cent of the Australian mining industry. They would take 40 per cent of the superprofits—profits which in their view exceeded the 10-year government bond rate—and wear 40 per cent of the losses. Of particular concern for business was that the tax applied retrospectively in that it applied to existing business operations which had been developed in an environment with no Commonwealth mining tax. The RSPT was estimated to raise $12 billion over the forward estimates. Of course, there were various changes to that during the course of discussions.
There was, as we know, furious opposition, and it proved the last straw for the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. Less than two short months later, he was stabbed in the back by the current Prime Minister, Ms Gillard. The new PM offered the mining industry a truce and fresh negotiations. As it turned out, although we did not know this at the time, this was an olive branch to three major miners in the lead-up to the last election. There were no Treasury officials present. The new minerals resource rent tax was announced just two weeks later, in early July. The announcement was long on rhetoric and actually quite short on detail. In fact, the two-page memo which is the heads of agreement on the minerals resource rent tax is signed by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, the head of BHP, the head of Rio Tinto and the head of Xstrata—no other mining companies and no other agreements. It is unprecedented in the Australian taxation system that there is not even a cabinet decision on this but that a government negotiated an agreement for a multibillion-dollar tax with three players when the tax would apply to the industry. I seek leave to table the heads of agreement.
Leave granted.
Mr HOCKEY: The MRRT applies to fewer minerals and at a lower rate, but it still has retrospective implications. It was estimated to raise $7.7 billion over the same forward estimates as the RSPT, a revenue reduction of $4.3 billion. The smaller miners—the rest of the industry other than the big three—were unhappy, understandably, at not being consulted and believed they were unfairly hit while the big three got off relatively lightly. The government eventually conceded the new tax had not been thought through properly, with the announcement in early September 2010 of a policy transition group to be headed by Don Argus, the former chairman of BHP, to refine the details. The group reported in December 2010, so this is version No. 3 of the mining tax—in fact, version No.4. The first one was what Ken Henry recommended, the second one was what the government announced, the third one was the deal with the mining companies and now we have version No. 4, which the former chairman of BHP is actually engaged in consulting on.
The group reported in December 2010. It made 94 recommendations on the technical design of the new resource tax arrangements. In March this year the government accepted all the recommendations of the group, just showing that the various iterations before were totally flawed as well. In March this year, when the government accepted all the recommendations, they could not get the job done even then, and the government then had to appoint a resource tax implementation group to help with the drafting of the legislation. So there have now been two versions of the draft legislation for the MRRT. One was released in June this year. That version was followed by a revised exposure draft, which was released for comment on 18 September. The government, without notice, then introduced the 11 bills yesterday and expects everyone to sign off on them today. This is a tax that is extraordinarily complicated and fundamentally flawed. The industry, from the big companies to those that can least afford it, is being burdened with considerable costs in having to implement new internal systems to identify and record expenditure in order to ensure compliance. Planning for this new tax—whether with the assistance of external consultants or the redeployment of existing personnel—will be immensely expensive.
Let us deal with the bills before the House. After all this time we would have expected that the design of the tax would be settled and the industry would understand it. But there remains furious opposition. Taxpayers with amounts of MRRT assessable profits—that is, $50 million per annum—will be excluded from the MRRT. The MRRT will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. New investment will be allowed to be written off immediately rather than depreciated over a number of years. A project will not pay any MRRT until it has made enough profit to pay off its up-front investment. The MRRT will carry forward unutilised losses at the government long-term bond rate plus seven per cent. It will provide transferability of deductions. This supports mine development, arguably, because it means the taxpayer can use the deductions that flow from investments in the construction phase of a project to offset the MRRT liability from another of its projects that is in the production phase.
The MRRT will provide a full credit for state mining royalties. That was a point of disagreement after the heads of agreement, which was signed by the three ministers together with the three heads of the mining companies. There was a dispute about whether state mining royalties would be credited in full. Western Australia was the first to move, removing the discount for iron ore fines and therefore increasing their royalties. In its last budget New South Wales also moved to increase royalties. The net cost of that is $3 billion over the forward estimates. That is $3 billion that immediately comes off the bottom line of the MRRT.
The MRRT will provide recognition of past investments through a credit that recognises the market value of that investment. It is written down over up to 25 years. It will recognise the particular characteristics of different commodities by applying a taxing point close to the point of extraction and using appropriate pricing arrangements. It will provide a 25 per cent extraction allowance to recognise the value add and capital that mining companies bring to mineral extraction.
As you can see, it is a complicated tax. It is quite unlike other taxes such as income tax or GST. Those taxes are based on the activities of the company as a whole. The accounts of the company form the starting basis for working out the particular tax liability. Contrast that with the MRRT. It taxes profits from a part of the entity's operations, from mining projects that the entity carries on. There will be increased accounting administration, therefore increased costs to businesses, in measuring results at the project level. Resources put to use more productively will have to be deployed in dealing with this complexity. It will add to the cost of mining in Australia.
The Assistant Treasurer's second reading speech stated that the package of bills was 'developed in partnership with the resources sector', that being just three miners. It went on to say the package 'is a direct result of the strong cooperation of industry in the legislative process'. Fair dinkum—this is just spin and gross exaggeration. Take one example. Since the first material was released by the government, the mining industry has been concerned that the complex tax—which requires the application of novel concepts and principles in working out the liability—will mean the miner is faced with uncertainty in calculating the liability. So, when the government appointed the policy transition group chaired by Don Argus, it recommended that in developing the explanatory memorandum to the MRRT bill—which by the way was still being downloaded on the internet this morning—the drafters should provide clear explanations and examples.
The Minerals Council of Australia felt strongly about the need for certainty. In their submissions on both the first and second exposure drafts, the MCA asked that it be made clear in the bill that the explanatory materials and examples should be taken into account to confirm the meaning and interpretation of the legislation. They also wanted the minister's second reading speech to highlight the importance of the explanatory material to the interpretive process. So, despite the Assistant Treasurer's lofty claims about a partnership, the industry itself—even those that signed the heads of agreement—obviously has concerns about the process.
We also now have details of the petroleum resource rent tax changes for the first time, even though the tax has been in place from 1 July 1987. It will be extended to cover all Australian oil and gas projects, whether they are onshore or offshore, at a tax rate of 40 per cent. There is a range of uplift allowances for unutilised losses and capital write-offs and immediate expensing is available for all expenditure. All state and federal resource taxes will be creditable against current and future PRRT liabilities from a project. You do not win a game by hampering your best performing player with a bad and complicated tax like this. The mining sector is important for Australia's prosperity. It is an industry in which Australia has an international comparative advantage. It employs directly 224,000 Australians, and most of these are in regional areas. In 2010 it accounted for 40 per cent of all business investment in Australia, and that is rising dramatically. The sector is a major driver of growth.
The rules of the game have been changed by the government, and Australia is competing for scarce capital and jobs in a world market. There are plenty of countries seeking to develop their mining sectors—from Brazil, Chile and Canada right through to a number of very poor countries in Africa and Asia—so there is an additional element of sovereign risk associated with these bills. But, more importantly, this illustrates the government's incompetence in making a decision.
We have had numerous versions and numerous drafts and then, when the legislation finally gets to the House, we have less than 24 hours to consider 11 new bills. No wonder the chief executive of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti said on 26 October at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth that Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
He said that about our country.
The constant changes and confusion on this tax have made international investors more wary of investing in Australia. Of course, the biggest driver of investment in Australia, the biggest pipeline of investment in Australia, is the mining sector, and the head of one of the biggest mining companies in the world identifies inconsistency in demonstrated behaviour in terms of tax policy as one of the reasons there is sovereign risk in investing in Australia.
This is a bad tax. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth and retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia in global competition for scarce capital and jobs. And at a time of heightened global uncertainty this is precisely the wrong time to introduce a complicated tax. There have now been four different sets of projections of revenue from the mining tax. The offsetting expenditures as identified in a Senate report are going to create a black hole. This tax will not raise the money that the government is claiming. It will not raise the money! And yet the government claim to have offsetting expenditure. The offsetting expenditure will grow when this tax fails to deliver the revenue that they claim.
The bottom line for Australia is that this tax not only creates a black hole for the Australian mining industry but is going to create a black hole in the budget—and it is all going to be the responsibility of the Labor Party and the Independents. (Time expired)
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (11:32): I have known the member for North Sydney for a long time. We were both elected to this place in 1996. He is a nice guy. I have never seen him so angry. I ask myself, 'Why is the member for North Sydney so angry?' It is simply because he knows that this tax is right, he knows that this is a good tax and he knows that this is a well-designed tax. But, more importantly, he knows that this is a tax which enjoys the support of the Australian community. That is his concern.
He talks about sovereign risk, yet never has the investment pipeline for the mining industry in this country been so strong. In my own electorate of Hunter the debate is not about how we attract more mining investment, it is about how we put a brake on mining investment. There are many in my communities who are concerned that we have too much mining in the Hunter Valley, with all the implications that has for air and water quality and many other issues.
This is the right thing to do. This represents a set of bills which has been agreed between the government and the mining industry after months and months of consultation and, after that, agreement. The member for North Sydney would have the House—and anyone listening to this debate—believe that we are rushing bills into this place that have not been duly considered and which have not been considered properly by the opposition. That is not true. They need no more time on this issue. They have had plenty of time on this issue, and it is time we got on with the debate. Forget about the stunts, like the one we got from the member for North Sydney. It is time we got this important legislation through both this place and the Senate.
These bills not only enjoy my support, I am very confident that they are supported by the people who make up the communities in my electorate. My communities are welcoming of the mining industry. The mining industry has brought great wealth to the Hunter Valley. It has raised average incomes and it has spawned many mining support industries around it. Many of my constituents have enjoyed standards of living they could only have dreamed of were it not for the mining industry. Many of my constituents know that their children have a bright future because of the existence of the mining industry in my electorate, and they are not going to be conned by people like the member for North Sydney. They are never going to be persuaded, because they live with it. Many of them work in the industry. They understand the industry. They are not going to be persuaded that this tax is going to be the ruin of the mining industry.
They believe—and I have consulted widely—it is only fair and right when companies are enjoying super profits as a result of higher coal prices and commodity prices more generally that, given that they are a community owned resource, a greater dividend of that production comes back to the broader Australian community, including, of course, mining communities.
As I said, the mining industry is welcome in the Hunter but it does bring some negatives. I mentioned air and water quality. By definition I should also mention that flowing from that are potential threats to industries that have sustained us for a couple of hundred years and, hopefully, will sustain us for thousands of years into the future if we protect them properly. Mining brings road congestion. It brings an inability to find child care. It brings capacity constraints in housing. If you go to Woolworths in the town of Singleton in my electorate, you will find that you will pay maybe 10 per cent more—I am making the figure up; I must admit I forget exactly what it is—on average for your goods than you would pay in Cessnock, for example, which is half an hour down the road. Why? Because of the existence of the mining industry. The supermarket chains move to the price signal. They will charge for their goods what they believe the market can sustain.
The mining boom is not all good news. While that price difference does not cause a lot of pain for those working in the mining industry, who can afford it, it does cause pain for people who do not work in the mining industry and do not enjoy the high salaries which flow from it. It does not help pensioners, for example, on fixed incomes—as much as this government has done to help them in recent years. They do not enjoy the benefits of the mining industry but they still suffer the congestion, the implications for air and water quality, and the high prices that companies are able to charge for retail goods as a result of the high average wages in that industry.
So it is not all good. My communities say, 'Well, if these guys are making superprofits from resources which, at the end of the day, we own, some of that dividend should come back to us.' Not too many of my constituents will understand the complexities of the tax, but I do not think they have any doubt whatsoever in their minds that the government is sensible enough to make sure this initiative is not going to have severe adverse impacts on the industry. They know, and they read about it all the time, how many mining companies are currently knocking on the doors of the Hunter shire councils, the state government and others looking to either establish new mines or to expand existing mines—notwithstanding the fact that the mining companies, at least some of whom, after all, have been involved in these negotiations, are fully cognisant of the fact that the supertax on mining is coming.
How are we going to use this tax to spread the bounty amongst the broader community? It is very simple, and it has been spoken of already this morning. We are going to use it as an opportunity to finally increase superannuation contributions, from nine per cent to 12 per cent—something which is absolutely necessary. This is not just part of a wish list. We know the Australian demographics, we are familiar with the ageing of the population and we know the constraints and pressures that are going to be put on the transfer system in the future. We need to reassure ourselves that, in the future, people will have a proper level of retirement income saved. It is a very important and necessary initiative.
We will of course provide significant tax cuts for small business, the primary employer of people in this country. As a former shadow minister for small business and a former small business person myself, I know all the challenges small businesses face, but I also know how important they are to the Australian economy. This is a very important and good initiative for small business.
Very importantly for me—and I know for you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird—is the way in which this tax will return some of that bounty to mining communities themselves by way of community and economic infrastructure, so critical for all the reasons I have just articulated. When you have a mining boom in your community, despite all the benefits, there are some adverse effects. Road congestion is one of them and the ever-increasing rate of coal rail traffic is another. In my electorate, we have a very long list—as I am sure you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—of infrastructure projects which in reality could never hope to receive the sort of investment from government that is needed to knock them over.
In my electorate, we have projects like the Muswellbrook bypass, the Singleton bypass and a number of black spots along the New England Highway. In Scone we have the ridiculous situation where people are having to wait up to eight minutes to continue their drive through the main street because of the level railway crossing there. Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a town being cut in half for eight minutes because of the passage of a coal train? That is unacceptable in convenience terms and unacceptable in economic transport terms, but it is also unacceptable in safety terms. We need between $20 million and $30 million for an overpass on that site so that the vehicle traffic is not disrupted. There could be no more perfect an example of an infrastructure problem being created by the mining boom than that. The coal trains are getting more regular and much longer, and cutting off that road for a much greater period of time.
This is a problem directly caused by the coal boom in the Hunter. So it makes absolute sense to take this new tax initiative and use that money to invest in that rail overpass, and there are many similar examples in my electorate. Broke Road, which runs through Hunter wine country—the jewel in the tourism crown of the Hunter Valley—is the worst road in the Hunter Valley. It is frequented by miners travelling to work each day. Undoubtedly, the mining traffic on the road is even heavier than the tourism traffic, given it is a seven-day thing. No doubt that mining traffic is largely responsible for the state of that road. No-one seems to have the money to fix the problem. That is another example of a problem directly created by the mining boom, by the traffic caused by the mining boom, a good example of an infrastructure project which now will stand a much greater chance of being funded as a result of our decision to ensure that, when the mining companies are making huge superprofits because of high coal prices, the local communities—who, yes, benefit, but also have to put up with the negatives which flow—get some relief by sharing in the bounty of those high coal prices. This is not rocket science and that is why people in my communities support this tax. The opposition has a bit of explaining to do. The opposition has to explain to the Australian community why they should not be receiving these benefits. I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions and I have had guarantees from the responsible ministers that, like your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, my electorate will receive its proportionate share of the dividends which flow from this tax. At the next election, the coalition—no doubt represented by the National Party in my electorate—will have to explain to my communities why that money should not be returned to the communities from which it comes. That is the explanation they will need to have ready for my constituents and, no doubt, constituents in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to say one last thing. I want to talk about other threats to this initiative. There is the big threat on the other side from those who are going to deny this, cosy up to the coalmining companies, let them make their super profits and deny the Australian community their share, but there is another threat and it is called the New South Wales government. Critical to this arrangement is an agreement that the states will be rebated on the royalties they would have received as a result of their old system and that they would not seek to further increase those royalties. Surprise, surprise—and I think the same is the case in Western Australia—New South Wales has reneged on that deal, which means that we will have to rebate them more money for the increase in royalties they would have received as a result of the decision to increase their royalties. What does that mean? That means that we are giving more back to the state government and we have less money to share the wealth with communities, including mine and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. This can become very complex but it is also very simple.
People who live in my electorate can do two things: they can give more and more royalties from their resource to Barry O'Farrell so he can spend the funds on roads in western Sydney or they can pay less in royalties to Barry O'Farrell and let us retain more of the tax which flows from this initiative so that we can spend the money on infrastructure in the Hunter Valley. It is a really simple thing, as complex as the arrangements are. Barry O'Farrell can collect more royalties so he can spend the funds in Sydney or he can keep his royalties where they are and get rebated that amount from us and we will have what we should have, having collected the wealth from the Hunter community—more money to spend in Hunter communities. That is another thing that those who sit opposite will have to explain. I have no doubt that those who sit opposite are talking to Barry O'Farrell because they do not want this to happen. You have seen it today. They will run interference on this at every opportunity, which takes me back to where I began: why? Because they know this is a good initiative which is supported by the Australian community. (Time expired)
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (11:48): Unfortunately, 15 minutes is not enough time to go into all of the flaws in these bills, but I will do my best. I will just comment on some of the misguided statements of the member for Hunter where he thinks that this tax is going to deliver the infrastructure that he needs in his area. I can assure him that, regarding his share of this tax on a proportional basis—and there is a fix to this, which I will come to—he would be lucky to see a couple of hundred thousand dollars going to infrastructure in his area. The last time I looked, they were suggesting only a couple of billion dollars to states like Queensland and Western Australia. You need to consider that the most needed piece of infrastructure in Australia is the Toowoomba range crossing. He talks about eight minutes to get through a level crossing. I have trucks that wait twice that time trying to get across the main street of Toowoomba because the Labor government continues to defy the need for that range crossing. That range crossing alone would cost $2 billion. So do not try and create the impression that the MRRT is just going to be like some magic pudding that will spray money for infrastructure across Australia.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The way to fund infrastructure in Australia is to stop spending money on stuff that is completely wasted, like pink batts.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Like your schools.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The member for Hunter knows—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms S Bird ): The member for Groom has the call. The member for Hunter will cease interjecting. The member for Hunter will recognise that he was not interrupted.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: I will leave the member for Hunter to contemplate on all of that. As I said, I rise to speak on a package of bills that must have the distinction of being one of the most poorly designed and economically destroying policies that this government has ever put forward. I know that is an extraordinary statement and I know we have considered a range of policy missteps, clunkers, absolute disasters and complete wastes of money by this government, whether we are talking about the school hall program, where a couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether in overcharging by contractors, never to be challenged by the government, or the pink batts program, where another couple of billion dollars just disappeared into the ether. As one of my constituents found out this week, she will have her insulation removed but, of course, nothing will be put in its place. What are they going to do with it? They are going to take it down to the dump and bury it—along with all the money it cost to put it in. There is complete loss of control of the Green Loans program and the photovoltaic program. If we talk about losing control, the issue of the country's borders goes to the top of the list.
I said earlier this week that the Labor government, under its current leader and under its former leader the member for Griffith—perhaps its future leader—has an appalling record on energy and resources policies, and there is no better example of that than the MRRT. It is not something we should be flippant about, given the significance of the energy and resources sector to the Australian economy. I was looking forward to hearing the Treasurer explain in here today his rationale for introducing this highly destructive and deeply flawed minerals resource rent tax. I particularly wanted to hear his justification for using the resource sector as a cash cow to cover the reckless spending that has characterised the Labor government for the entire time the member for Lilley has been in the Treasurer's seat. I also wanted to hear how the government would justify putting forward a package that is little more than a pre-election quick-fix from a government that is desperate to cling to power regardless of the consequences for small and medium sized resource miners.
Alas, circumstances intervened and the Treasurer had to pass the job to someone else because, we are told, he has lost his voice. I too would lose my voice if I were presenting this sort of rubbish as the Treasurer of Australia. In a Freudian set of circumstances if ever there was, perhaps the Treasurer just could not face the thought of coming before this place and presenting, with a straight face, such a disastrous policy. Not to worry: as we know, the Assistant Treasurer is up for any job that gets his hands dirty or his face on television, and he has been publicly proving that since the middle of last year. The MRRT is not the fine piece of fiscal policy that the government would have us believe. It is rushed, reckless, incomplete and an unworthy successor to what was easily the worst piece of policy ever put forward by this government, the resource super profits tax. In its original version—as so passionately argued by the Treasurer and the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Griffith, when he was Prime Minister—the RSPT was a truly destructive version of this tax. It would have undermined Australia's sovereign risk profile and discouraged investment even more than this tax—and that is really saying something. The biggest flaws in the MRRT are a result of the fact that it was hastily slapped together in the days after the current Prime Minister ousted the member for Griffith with the single objective of scoring a quick political fix with no consideration of the economic or sovereign risk issues associated with it. As a result, the bigger mining companies, particularly BHP Billiton, Rio and Xstrata, were able to press their advantage to get a result that suited them but did not necessarily suit the mid-cap and smaller miners who had absolutely no say in the formation of this legislation. Those junior miners have been left out altogether and, from the feedback I have received and what I have observed of the Policy Transition Group, the government has not even come close to addressing those problems. That is not to denigrate the work of the Policy Transition Group or to question their sincerity, but the fact remains that more than a year after the first resources tax was proposed the wider resource industry is still facing uncertainty and the threat of being disadvantaged relative to international competitors. That position is reaffirmed by the meetings I have had in recent days.
That is not the worst flaw—and there are so many. As I say, I feel like moving for an extension of time, but I shall not. The biggest problem with the MRRT is that it builds a structural deficit into the budget of Australia. I know that those who sit opposite are promising a surplus; I know those opposite who have never delivered a surplus are saying that they can manage the risk. The best brains in the resources industry cannot tell you what the value of the dollar and the value of iron ore will be in two years time, let alone four years time, which has to be calculated so that the government can calculate the return that it is going to get from the MRRT. If you want to know whether that is backed up by the government's own actions, you need look no further than the fact that originally the government said that this tax would return around $12 billion. The Treasurer pulled out all stops to convince us in his pre-election backflip on the MRRT that it shaved off only $1.5 billion before conceding that it was slashed by $7.5 billion. But, of course, as we all know, it later emerged that his change of position on the original super profits tax cost $100 billion. I know when I speak in this House in billions those on the other side wave it away, because a billion dollars to them is nothing. It is the sort of money they can waste in a week on one of their programs, but this is serious money. Moving closer to the here and now, we were told after the election that revenue could be less than $5 billion and then Treasury revealed in February that revenue from the MRRT would be $17 billion over a three-year period, but now we know it is estimated to be only $11.1 billion.
The impact on the budget will be devastating because not only can the government not produce a surplus budget under current circumstances but with the sort of volatility that we are seeing in the market at the moment we are going to see the budget surpluses not taken seriously. The predictions of budget surpluses by the current Treasurer are not taken seriously, but no financial house will have any confidence in their predictions. What we are seeing is Magic Pudding economics. There is no better example of that than a budget set on the iron ore price of three or four weeks ago, which was about US$180 a tonne. That price today is US$120 a tonne. No-one knows whether it is going to $150, which would be its natural balance point, or whether it will drop further. When you consider that when the price of iron ore drops from $180 to $120 the profit a company is making is cut in half—and probably more for some companies—it is impossible to use the MRRT in the calculations associated with it with any degree of certainty.
The other issue is our sovereign risk profile, and the international investment community looks in sheer wonder and amazement at what this government is doing to our country. We first had a complete reversal of a set policy position that had stood for 20 years on condensate tax, agreed to by the Labor Party, but it was so desperate for money it changed that. Then we had a decision to introduce a carbon trading scheme and then it changed its mind on that. Then we had the pledge that there would never be a carbon tax under a government led by the current Prime Minister and, of course, she changed her mind on that. We had the introduction in May last year of the RSPT, and all the reasons for that, and then it changed its mind again in July.
The end result is that the view overseas is that this government does not know what it is doing and it does not know how to position the resource industry to make sure it is internationally competitive. And guess what—we agree with them, and so does Australia. We think this government is a complete joke, an absolute shambles. It cannot put a position in place which it can actually hold for more than six months and where it can give the investment community any sort of confidence at all that it knows what it is doing. Then we get this rubbish that the member for Hunter comes up with about how this money is going to be returned to the community. Complete rubbish!
Western Australia, if the Treasurer's figures are right, will contribute about $8 billion to this tax and, if they are really lucky and they behave themselves and they do not put up their royalties and they do not do this and they do not do that, they may get back about 10 per cent of that for their infrastructure—$1 billion, maybe $2 billion, if they are really lucky. What a joke. This is a con.
This government are pretending that by introducing a new tax people are going to be better off. They are a tax-and-spend government who have never been able to manage money, who do not understand how the basic principles of commercialism work and who want to think that they can introduce a tax and pretend that they are going to return it all to the people, when we know that this money is not going to go into superannuation. The employers have to pay that. The government have to pay some superannuation for their Commonwealth employees, but it is certainly not going to be $11 billion.
What we know is that this bad tax, this tax which is going to affect so severely Australia's competitiveness in the resources sector, its place in the investment community in the world and the view that investors take in Australia is simply that—a tax. It is not a superprofits tax, because they have not applied it to all industry, and it is not just coal and iron ore that make superprofits, if that is the way they want to term making a profit in a good year. I remember when the industry did not make a cracker. What are they going to do then—call it a superloss tax? Probably.
The government do not apply it to other sectors of the economic community. They do not have the guts to try and use this rationale on a few of the other sectors. I am not going to start rabbit racing by suggesting that they are considering other areas, but we know that they are considering other commodities. They know the people who actually have control of this government, the Greens, are suggesting that there be a change in the MRRT even before it is introduced and that they expand the commodity grab. If I can be sure of one thing, it is that this government will find more ways to tax more parts of the resources sector because they need more money to plug their black holes.
In the last few days, of course, we have seen the bewildering prospect of each of the Independents—and good luck to them; they have to take their opportunities when they come—going in for their pound of flesh. It is $100 million, $200 million, $300 million and $400 million here and there. It is this research station and that concept. What do we have? No-one in the industry now knows where this is going to finish up. Are the government going to move amendments to this legislation before it passes the House? We do not know. Are they going to support amendments put forward by the Independents? We do not know. Australia does not know what is doing and, as I said earlier, this tax not only is poorly thought through but is giving Australia an international reputation of being run by a shambles of a government.
In conclusion, can I just say that the resources sector has been forced to wait too long for any degree of certainty, remembering that it is now a year since this tax was originally proposed, firstly by former Prime Minister Rudd and then amended by Prime Minister Gillard. This level of uncertainty has unacceptable impacts on Australia's sovereign risk profile and our international competitiveness. This is a bad tax. We will oppose it in opposition and we will rescind it in government.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:03): I thought that the member for Groom would have been tempted to apply for an extension of time so that he could concentrate on speaking on the minerals resource rent tax legislation before us. That was probably the only thing he did not concentrate on. I hope I can assist his contribution, and I firstly indicate that I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is legislation clearly designed to address Australia's current patchwork economy. I know that phrase rolls off the tongues of all of those opposite. They talk about a patchwork economy and a two-speed economy et cetera. That is fine as rhetoric, but sooner or later it falls to us to do something to address this issue.
These bills are designed to encourage industry, investment and development, to assist small business and to promote national savings by locking in the benefits of the mining boom and also paving the way for increases in the superannuation guarantee. Superannuation can be increased, thereby providing a more realistic retirement income for Australians. Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, the benefits of the mining boom, as you would appreciate in your own electorate, are not evenly spread throughout the economy and are certainly not evenly spread throughout our respective communities.
In what could be seen as a once-in-a-lifetime mining boom, which we are now experiencing, resources companies are competing for skilled labour across the globe at a time when in this country we have very low unemployment. That in itself is creating significant pressures. Clearly these companies are in a position to provide generous wages and conditions well beyond the capacity of most other sectors in the economy. I know that firsthand. My youngest son, Nicholas, has spent some time working both in Blackwater in Queensland and in Port Hedland. I am certainly aware of what he was paid there, having helped him to do his tax returns, and I can assure members that, compared to what a 25-year-old earns in the mining industry—and no doubt they work very hard there—a politician's salary pales into insignificance.
As I said, they do work hard and good luck to them. My son is there as an electrician. He works cheek to jowl with other electricians not only from Sydney and where we live but from Launceston and South Australia. All of those young people are up there. That is why you would probably struggle—and people in the gallery would probably know this—to get someone to put an electric light pole or a power point in. It is because under this patchwork economy we are competing for those skills throughout our economy. That is the patchwork nature of the economy that we are now operating under. As a consequence, there are many businesses outside the resources sector that are struggling to attract and retain skilled labour.
I also note that there are many households across the country that do not see the benefits from the mining boom and which are struggling to keep their heads above water given the cost of housing, paying a mortgage and raising and providing for a family in today's environment. The government does not want to slow the mining industry, but the challenge is to ensure that the benefits of this boom do not simply leave our shores as excess profit for the benefit of foreign owners of our largest companies. Clearly the challenge is to ensure that there is an overall collective benefit for all Australians from Australia's mineral wealth. I do emphasise that this is wealth that is owned by all Australians.
The minerals resource rent tax is an opportunity to deliver tax breaks for small business and to provide them with the assistance and incentive they need to develop their enterprises. We know that through their diverse small businesses there will be sustainable employment, because they are the driving force for employment in this country, and it is through small business that we will see sustainable employment—not, quite frankly, through the ebbs and flows of the mining and resources industry.
This tax will also help us to fund the critical infrastructure development that the member for Hunter was talking about. That in itself will assist in enhancing the economic productivity of our nation, particularly through streamlining structures such as port facilities, export facilities and those things which will go to enhance the nation's productive capacity not only now but into the future.
This tax also paves the way to build on the superannuation guarantee by increasing superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent, which will be transitioned over the next decade, enabling more Australians to better enjoy a retirement income in their senior years and increasing the pool of national savings in superannuation by $500 billion by the year 2035, from $1.3 trillion as it stands at the moment. This money can be invested in capital and social infrastructure to benefit all Australians.
We on this side of the House are very proud to be further enhancing superannuation; after all, it was a Labor government back in 1984 that took the first steps and allowed award based superannuation to be developed. Those members of the House who, like me, have grey hair, might recall that the union movement forwent wage increases at that stage to productivity increases to enhance superannuation development through award based superannuation and then in 1988 the superannuation guarantee came into effect and applied to all Australians. This is something that we on this side of the House are proud of.
For those Australians on low incomes or working part time, many of whom are below the tax-free threshold, this will enable their superannuation contributions to be made effectively on a tax-free basis, not providing the 15 per cent entry fee for superannuation contributions and therefore providing a much fairer taxation and superannuation benefit for them.
The MRRT is a tax on profit. It is not a tax based on commodity price, size of a mine, or the actual extraction of ore. It is a tax on the profit that is made by a particular mining project. And it is important to note that the MRRT is not a tax on operating costs but one that applies to the net profit from mines that have an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million. It seems to me that we are talking about major companies if we are talking about after-tax profit, to be divided amongst shareholders, of $50 million. Further, the MRRT will not apply to the mining industry in general. It will be levied only on the major iron ore and coal projects that enjoy an after-tax profit in excess of $50 million.
It is important also to note the objective and independent assessments of the value of the MRRT to the Australian people. For instance, the OECD in its 2010 economic survey of Australia said:
The proposed Mining Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) on coal and iron ore operations, along with the extension of the Petroleum Rent Resource Tax, are justified on both equity and efficiency grounds.
It goes on to say:
This Resource Rent Tax is more efficient than the current royalties system, as it raises taxation on finite and immobile resources.
It concludes by saying:
This will improve the efficiency in the resource sector.
Economic commentator Saul Eslake, who I understand is these days at the Grattan Institute, said in relation to the principles of resource rent tax:
The return to Australian people from the exploitation of mineral and energy resources should be based on the profits derived from the extraction and sale of those resources, rather than on the volume of resource production—is one that I and most other Economists strongly support.
The minerals resource rent tax was developed in consultation with the industry. Those major companies that will be paying the tax were engaged in the discussion and have acknowledged their capacity to make a greater contribution to this country.
Despite the objective and authoritative positions and assessments of the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and most mainstream economic commentators, the Leader of the Opposition's position is that he will oppose this legislation and, if given the opportunity to occupy the treasury bench, will get rid of it. He will turn it over.
Mr Champion: Give the miners a tax cut.
Mr HAYES: Yes, give the miners a tax cut. Give it back. In doing so, the Leader of the Opposition and his party will be not only squandering the potential benefits to the Australian people of this once in a lifetime boom but also turning their backs on small businesses and destroying the hopes of 8.4 million Australians who are seeking to have better opportunities in their retirement. Once again he is happy to put politics ahead of the community, and he maintains his rhetoric that the MRRT would force the likes of BHP Billiton and Rio to close their projects in Australia, to vacate to South America or other places, despite the enormous investment programs currently underway by those very companies. Despite making all that rhetoric and playing it out in the popular media, you might recall that it was not all that long ago that a Western Australian Liberal government decided without notice to unilaterally increase the mining royalties on the iron ore industry. You would expect at least some protestation about that. There was not even a peep. There was not one line of criticism from Mr Abbott and his supporters. It was okay to raise revenues over there but not to raise revenues on the basis of doing something for the Australian people. That is a different issue.
In contrast to the Liberal Party, the Gillard government will be locking in the benefits of the mining boom for all Australians, including the less economically fortunate Australians. They will see that they have a government that is prepared to invest not only in this nation but in this nation's people. The Leader of the Opposition and those at the table have the opportunity to explain why it is that the Liberal Party is lining up with some of the richest companies in the world instead of the Australian people, who see that their resources are being dug up and shipped overseas for foreign companies' enhanced profit. This is about doing something to ensure that those excess profits are redistributed through our economy to make sure that we do address the issue of the patchwork economy.
This is not for people to come into this place and simply wax on about a two-speed patchwork economy and multispeed drivers in the economy. This is a matter of people coming in here with an ability to do something about it. This Labor government is standing up and doing something about it. I commend this legislation to the House.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): As a proud Western Australian I am an avowed supporter of the mining industry in Australia because of the enormous benefits that flow through our economy and the boost that it gives to our overall prosperity. But those in the government cannot make that claim, as they seek to impose an unfair, complex, divisive, fiscally irresponsible and distorting tax that will reduce our international competitiveness and cost jobs and which has been developed through a deeply flawed and improper process.
Government members are talking of the success of the mining industry but in terms of the problem that it is causing for Australia in creating a patchwork economy. The government appears blind to the obvious threat of a recession in the Australian economy were it not for the mining industry. Our mining industry is critical for our nation's success but only if it can remain competitive against other great mining nations.
The story of mining in Australia is the story of achievement, rising national prosperity, development, opportunity and jobs. That is why I am opposed to any measures that would cripple our mining industry. The talk from the government is all doom and gloom, lamenting the impact of the mining sector on other areas of the economy, particularly manufacturing, and acting as if we have previously lived in a one-speed economy. With the unions and the government's coalition partner the Greens reverting to protectionist rhetoric, I fear that the old socialist mindset is creeping back into the national debate as Labor seeks ways to soak money out of the most productive part of the economy.
The coalition are opposed to the mining tax. Rather than adding cost burdens to the mining sector, we believe that it should be as internationally competitive as possible because we recognise that in a global economy capital can easily move to countries where the rate of return is the greatest. The buyers of our commodities have alternatives. Other countries have or are developing mining sectors that could well rival ours. The development of Asia's great economies explains the level of investment we are currently witnessing in the sector. The strong growth in mining investment over the last decade has reached its highest level in history. The huge demand for Australia's mineral commodities in 2009 increased mining investment to above four per cent of GDP, around eight times its share just 50 years ago.
Australia is currently enjoying the best terms of trade in 140 years on the back of high commodity prices and strong levels of demand, yet still this government cannot manage the budget. They have an appalling fiscal record of a cumulative total of $150 billion in budget deficits over the past four years; in other words, they have spent $150 billion more than they have raised in revenue at a time of record terms of trade. That means that they are entirely dependent upon the strength of the Asian economies, particularly China and India, to continue to drive Australia's economic growth. That cannot be taken for granted. As the dark clouds continue to gather on the global economic horizon, this government is putting in place one of the most burdensome tax regimes in the world on our most productive sector.
The government likes to take credit for Australia's enviable position in the world economy, but it fails to acknowledge that it is derived in large part from our reputation as a safe, reliable exporter of mineral resources and energy. We are a world leader in the export of black coal and iron ore. In 2009 Australia's mineral resources sector contributed close to $160 billion to export earnings. This is compared to around $36 billion for the rural sector and $38 billion for manufacturing. During that period the sector accounted for eight per cent of Australia's gross national product. According to the Minerals Council of Australia, mining companies contributed more than $7 billion in royalties as part of $21 billion paid in state and federal taxes in that year alone.
Mining companies have invested more than $125 billion in Australia over the last decade, including in new capital, exploration, and research and development. Today the mining sector is responsible for the direct employment of over 180,000 people and almost 600,000 people benefit through indirect employment in support industries. As Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens recently highlighted, there is positive spillover from the mining sector to other parts of the Australian economy. He said:
… beyond the benefits being experienced by equipment hire, engineering, surveying and consulting firms, businesses as diverse as those supplying modular housing, laboratory services and the training of semi-skilled, trade and other workers are seeing effects of the expansion.
There are also thousands of additional jobs in broader sections of the service economy, including retail. Since 2007, many of the challenges facing Australia and the mining sector have come from the federal government, first under Prime Minister Rudd and now under Prime Minister Gillard. The superprofits tax announced last year would have had a massive impact on Australia's international competitiveness, and it hit hard our reputation as a safe investment haven. The way the tax was announced and the way it was allegedly sold to the public made it clear that this government just does not get mining; it just does not get the Australian economy. From publicly deriding mining companies as being foreign owned and ripping off taxpayers, to claiming that mining companies only pay minimal tax—and they relied on a student paper from an American university to make that claim rather than the actual tax paid according to the Australian tax office—this was evidence of a government with absolutely no understanding of a vital element of the Australian economy.
On 23 June last year—and the member for Mackellar, who is at the table, will remember that date well—I referred in question time to the comments of the Chief Executive Officer of the Mining Association of Canada, who had called Prime Minister Rudd the mining man of the year in Canada because he would bring a lot of investment their way, and I asked the then Prime Minister if he intended picking up his award when he was in Toronto the following week for the G20 meeting. Well, that was the very last question that I ever got to ask Prime Minister Rudd, for that very night the forces of darkness moved against him—the faceless men of the Labor Party staged a midnight coup. But it does appear as if history is about to repeat itself.
Having unceremoniously removed Prime Minister Rudd from office because of his failures over the superprofits tax, amongst other things, the Gillard government is now seeking to implement an even worse tax, based on the deeply flawed agreement that she reached with the big three mining companies over 12 months ago. This version of the tax is extraordinarily complex, and it introduces a new federal tax on top of corporate tax, payroll tax and the existing state royalties.
There are serious questions as to how much tax will actually be raised and upon which companies the burden will fall. But, due to the extraordinarily clumsy negotiations with the three mining companies—to the exclusion of the 3½ thousand other mining companies in this country—the federal budget is now hostage to decisions by state governments, who are perfectly entitled and constitutionally enabled to raise their royalty rates. The federal government now has to repay all of the royalties that the state governments, whether Liberal or Labor, around the country impose on the mining companies. What an extraordinarily inept negotiating performance by this Prime Minister.
There are serious questions about the constitutional validity of the proposed tax. And, after the government's humiliating loss in the High Court over the legality of its Malaysia asylum-seeker swap deal, we have every reason to be sceptical in the face of the government's assurances that it could win a High Court challenge to its mining tax laws.
Following recent mining tax profit announcements, the Prime Minister is now under renewed pressure from her coalition partner the Greens to claw back an even greater tax take from the mining companies. Senator Bob Brown has labelled the new arrangements 'a perverse outcome' and has called on the government to revive its original tax of 40 per cent on mining profits, although Senator Brown muses that '50 per cent would be more like it'. So watch this space.
I did not ever think that I would see the day when 'Australia' and 'sovereign risk' would be uttered in the same sentence. But reports of investor concern continue as the government continues its assault on our mining sector. A couple of months ago I attended an Australia-central Africa trade forum in Sydney. Ministers and representatives from central African governments—Cameroon, Chad, the Congo and Gabon—were present. I was somewhat taken aback when they announced that they were in Australia to promote investment in their countries because, as Australia was now a sovereign risk, central Africa was a more attractive option. And they knew the details of this mining tax debacle chapter and verse.
There were similar discussions at the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth last week as part of CHOGM, as delegates from African nations promoted the fact that investment in mining in Africa would be a better bet than investing in Australia under this government's burdensome tax regime. As the chief executive officer of South African gold miner AngloGold Ashanti, Mark Cutifani, said, Australia is:
… one of the top sovereign-risk countries in the world on the basis of government policy and its demonstrated behaviour in terms of taxation policy and its inconsistency in policy.
Having introduced the mining tax measures to increase the government's share of iron ore and coal companies' profits, the Gillard government is now set to increase the cost of a mining company's overheads as well.
Despite having solemnly promised at the last election that she would not introduce a carbon tax, the Gillard government has introduced legislation to implement a carbon tax, which is essentially a tax on energy. So the dangers posed to Australia's economy by this mining tax policy—as well as those posed by the carbon tax policy, which will cascade throughout the economy—are well documented. Yet the Australian mining sector will be amongst the hardest hit. In a statement to the ASX in July, Rio Tinto expressed the widespread concern of the mining sector, and said that the company was:
… deeply concerned the proposed carbon tax fails to shield Australia’s export sector and leaves it at a disadvantage compared to international competitors.
This sentiment has been echoed by others. Marius Kloppers of BHP Billiton has described the government's carbon tax as an economic deadweight cost and a tax on exports.
For small to medium sized companies with lesser profit margins to absorb these additional costs, this new tax will be hard felt. This is likely to be the case with Australia's goldmining industry, and I mention the goldmining industry because, while it is currently not included in this mining tax, we should be very well aware that the Greens are calling for its inclusion. So it is only a matter of time before the mining tax will be expanded to include every conceivable mining activity, including quarries, as their superprofits tax did last year. That was included in their resource superprofits tax—an absolute disgrace. So the Greens are calling for its inclusion; the government will fold.
Earlier this year the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency released data which showed that a typical size goldmining company will be hit hard by the carbon tax, which will directly increase operating costs by more than 13 per cent, putting pressure on contractors and their ability to employ people. Currently the goldmining industry employs 7½ thousand people nationwide—but clearly that is of no concern or no interest to this government. Other participants in the mining industry supply chain—such as transport companies, cleaning companies and accommodation providers—will also be affected by increased operating costs.
There has been discussion in Australia recently about the desirability of a sovereign wealth fund to capture the benefits of our mining boom, but it is a fact that the Howard government established such a fund with the Future Fund. However, virtually no money has been added to that fund since Labor took office. We also established the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which was designed to be a fund in perpetuity to receive surplus moneys and, with income earned, to help make our higher education sector world class. That fund has been gutted by Labor.
The point is, of course, that we ran successive budget surpluses and paid down the $96 billion debt we inherited from the last Labor government. But it can only be hypothetical to talk about establishing a sovereign wealth fund any time soon while the government is billions and billions of dollars in debt. The first priority must be to repay the government's debt, which today stands at around $110 billion to $120 billion. The sooner we pay off that debt, the sooner we can recoup the billions in dead money being paid in interest each year.
The coalition's priorities are to get the budget back into surplus, pay down debt and ensure that Australia is in the best possible position to withstand further external economic shocks. But this government just does not understand mining, whether it is imposing a $2 billion condensate tax on Woodside without notice, announcing a superprofits tax that destroyed our international reputation, announcing an economy-wide carbon tax that no other country in the world is implementing, unleashing the militant unions or placing a blanket heritage listing the size of the state of Victoria over Kimberley and Western Australia.
The Gillard-Greens government is no friend of mining, no friend of the Australian people and no friend of this economy. As a nation we should be playing to our strengths. We are world leaders in mining, yet this government wants to drag our mining sector down to the back of the pack with taxes that our competitors will not be paying. We oppose this mining tax and so should all members of this House.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:31): Listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who never misses a chance to talk Australia and our economic performance down, you would think things were pretty grim. But in my state of South Australia we have just announced progress on a new mine opening with $1.2 billion set aside to expand Olympic Dam into the biggest copper and uranium mine in the world. I am a bit perplexed by some of her rhetoric on how grim it is, given that mining is expanding at a rate of knots in my state—not just exploration and the development of Olympic Dam but many other mineral developments in that area.
This is self-serving rhetoric which covers the fact that the Liberal Party and the coalition have always opposed taxation measures on resources. They opposed the petroleum resource rent tax when it came through in the 1980s. They said that would bring an end to investment and the sky was going to fall. They made the same speeches on the PRRT then as they are doing now—it was going to be the end of the world and it would end economic growth. Instead, we know the PRRT provided valuable revenue which the Howard government later relied on to fund its great budget surpluses.
Labor in government have always been concerned with both the growth of the economy and the distribution of wealth. We have always endeavoured to marry those two things in a manner that is consistent with ongoing prosperity and fairness in the economy. It is important that when we have economic growth not only a small group of people gain the benefits of that growth. It is important to spread that growth throughout the middle-class and working families all over this country. The economic reforms of the 1980s—the floating of the dollar and the reduction in tariffs—were underpinned by social reforms. These included reforms in Medicare, superannuation and family payments which were all about supporting families and making sure middle-class and working-class families had a good standard of living and that health care, retirement incomes and family payments were not left to the market. These payments are needed when kids are growing up.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill and related legislation represent a continuation of that tradition. We are endeavouring to marry great growth in our resources sector—which is ever present and ongoing despite the claims of the opposition—with the need to properly share that wealth with the majority of Australians. Most importantly, it will be shared not just with this generation but with future generations. For that to happen, we need to have something left when all of this is done.
I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Curtin, talking about how the Howard government had put money away in the Future Fund, and indeed they did. But I remember reading in Peter Hartcher's book that the Howard government in the 2004-07 budget cycle received some $320-odd billion in extra revenue during that period. A portion of that was put away in the Future Fund, but a great amount of it was spent—and we all know spending in the later years of the Howard government galloped out of control.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: We left you a surplus—something you'll never do!
Mr CHAMPION: You might have run a surplus, but spending was also growing. Any mug can run a surplus in a growing economy.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Really! Why don't you?
Mr CHAMPION: That's not true, we ran the first budget surplus in 1988. The Liberal Party never ran one when John Howard was Treasurer. But history is history and we will let the economic historians argue over it. The point is that what we want from this extra resource revenue and what we want from this tax is to be able to hand future generations something of the national providence that we have today. Mining profits over the last decade have skyrocketed by 262 per cent. Normal Australians marvel at the profits of BHP and Rio Tinto, and they marvel at the extraordinary individual wealth that is being generated by some of the mining magnates, who like to offer their opinion from time to time about matters such as this tax. There is no doubt this is a gilded age for some. Some people give rather generous gifts away—good luck to them—but they have vast profits, vast executive remuneration and vast personal wealth, and that is what is being generated. Profits are being repatriated out of this country.
We know that mining workforces and ancillary industries also are deriving gain from mining. Some of the previous speakers talked about the young workers up in the Pilbara region and the great wealth that is derived from mining jobs and from the jobs associated with mining. But it is all derived from the Australian nation. The nation owns the minerals and so it is all derived from the providence we have been bequeathed by having this continent to ourselves.
These mining companies and individuals are allowed to extract these minerals by agreement with the states and by agreement, ultimately, with the nation. The nation has a legitimate right and expectation in the public interest to derive revenue from these minerals that does not just come in the form of royalties but also in the form of a profits based tax. Much has been said about what the mining industry has said about this, but the more sensible voices accept that a profits based tax is a sensible way to go. Although we hear talk about sovereign risk and all the rest of it, much of it is self-serving talk by the minerals industry because it wants to prevent profit taxes in other jurisdictions. It wants to prevent the spread of good ideas, so it is running a scare campaign. It wants to maintain the current arrangement. But, as I said, many Australians have looked upon this gilded age and wondered what it means for them.
Too many communities and too many individuals have been locked out of this great wealth, this wealth that is produced, ultimately, by the nation. Too many people have been adversely affected and we see that as the currency has risen dramatically. We see the impact of that on other sectors, other jobs and the like. We see the rising costs of labour, the rising costs of living in remote mining communities and the effects of booming regional economies. We know that for everybody who is doing well there is a business that is struggling to find a worker or a tradesman. We know that pensioners and people on fixed incomes are struggling with the cost of living. We know from this experience that it is a problem and it has to be dealt with. We know from international experience there are threats to nations' economies that are excessively dependent on resource extraction. We all know about Dutch disease. It has being talked about many times, about how success in resources lifts the currency and that has a correspondingly negative effect on the rest of the economy. We know that excessive disparities in wealth also can occur and that is not desirable. Australia has had a fine tradition of equality and of sharing our wealth. I think that is important to a country.
This bill overcomes these threats. It overcomes those challenges to the country and it ensures the growth in mining profits benefits the whole of the community and ensures that it benefits business. It ensures it adds to national savings and it ensures that regional infrastructure is not left behind. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the coalition on business, but one of the aims of this bill is to share some of the proceeds of this wealth to make sure we have a company tax cut to 29 per cent on 1 July 2013. That is to make sure that companies can compete.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: I hear my friend opposite interjecting and talking about one per cent. If it was such a small increase, why were you trying to match it during the last election? That is the question.
This bill will provide a new tax break for 2.7 million small businesses. Up to 13,000 businesses in my electorate will benefit from the small business $6,500 instant asset right off. It is important to support business during this time because they are the engine room of employment. It is important also that national savings are lifted. National savings have made a significant contribution to protecting this economy from some of the international ups and downs during the global financial crisis. Our national savings are a huge benefit to this country.
Where would we be without superannuation? This bill increases superannuation contributions from nine per cent to 12 per cent, a very important increase. It also expands the superannuation concessions for 3.5 million low-income earners, so it is not just the top end of town that gets a tax benefit from superannuation. It is a very important equity measure and very important for our national savings and our confidence in the long-term benefits of superannuation. We know that 8.4 million working Australians will benefit and we know it will increase national savings by $500 billion by 2035. This measure will simplify personal tax arrangements. It will allow a $500 standard deduction from 2012 and $1,000 standard deduction from 2013 and will also reward personal savings for five million Australians. The whole gist of this is to put money away for a rainy day—into national savings, into individual accounts. People talk about sovereign wealth funds; but there is no greater sovereign wealth fund in this country than superannuation, and it has been operating since Bob Hawke set it up and Paul Keating expanded it. The tragedy, of course, is that while the coalition fight like blazes before these things get in and say 'the sky is going to fall', once they have been brought in they are happy to benefit from them and happy to have them in place but never, ever to expand them. That is the great tragedy of the opposition's approach.
We know that infrastructure, which has been a great problem area, will benefit. The Howard government only built one piece of infrastructure: the Alice to Darwin rail link. It is a good bit of infrastructure and the nation had waited a long time for it, but it is not much to hang your hat on. We would hope to do better than that and build infrastructure in the regions, particularly to expand resource projects and our capacity for economic development, so that mining communities can expand and those regions can prosper. So there is quite a bit in this for regions and quite a bit for building the national project and for building the north of Australia—these great aims and projects.
This bill is in the national interest. It would be a great act of vandalism to block it or repeal it. That is why, when it is implemented, the coalition will not repeal it. That is just talk—beating their chests and acting like they are going to repeal something when they will not. They will adopt the same approach as they always do: fight it right up to the point that it is successful and then take the benefits this bill will yield for the Australian people and leave it in place. To remove it would be a great act of national vandalism and, I think, a great folly.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:46): I rise to speak today on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and associated bills. I think the comments by the most recent speaker, the member for Wakefield, say it all. He mentioned early in his speech that 'any mug can deliver a surplus in a growing economy'. I remind the member for Wakefield that the government he is a part of have proudly talked about keeping the economy growing and yet at the same time have presided over the three biggest deficits in this country's history—by a country mile.
This is the level of economic incompetence that is running this country. This is what we have to deal with. This is what industry has to deal with. This is why we have seen such enormous frustration from industry, not just the mining industry but also so many other areas of industry, who are just gobsmacked by the economic illiteracy of those opposite—and it was characterised today by the member for Wakefield. He said it all, and he said it on behalf of all his colleagues. They do not understand business. They do not understand economics. They are all about politics and spin.
We heard recently from the CEO of the New South Wales Minerals Council, Dr Nikki Williams—and, again, I think this says it all:
"We are the darlings of the business pages, yet we painted as demons in the early general news.
"We help treasurers keep budgets healthy and give Australia the strength to stave off the threat of recession, yet our industry is a lightning rod for the most adversarial of political debates."
The report goes on:
Dr Williams said Australia was in the middle of one of the longest mining booms in the nation's history.
"Yet we face multiple policy, regulatory and legislative challenges that might collectively render our sector a less attractive destination for international investment than countries such as Indonesia, Colombia or even Mongolia," she warned.
This is at the heart of the problem that we have with this stupid tax, this dangerous tax, this tax born of envy and paraded as a subject of envy when in fact it is ensuring that Australia, in a policy sense, once again under this government shoots itself in the foot.
The attempted implementation of this mining tax over the last 18 months has been one of the most shambolic policy episodes this country has ever seen. This legislation comes 18 months after the Treasurer announced his half-baked so-called resources super profits tax. The first version brought down one Prime Minister, who had not even seen out a term. This second version is contributing significantly to the imminent demise of another, if we are to believe the private talk of those opposite—and are they talking! And are they worried! The member for Wakefield should be in one of the safest seats around, but even he has problems.
Mr Champion: I'm not worried about you!
Mr ROBB: This tax is yet another symbol of the gross incompetence of this government. Firstly they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector—
Mr Champion: What are you going to do with your taxing measures?
Mr ROBB: Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have to put up with this ignorance from the other side?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! I ask the honourable member for Goldstein to keep to his speech and not take any notice of interjections.
Mr ROBB: It is very difficult, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! And I ask for the interjections to cease or I will have to deal with people.
Mr ROBB: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. First they tried to nationalise 40 per cent of the resources sector. This is unprecedented, and it spooked investors around the world. Now this tax targets the mid-tier miners. It is a highly discriminatory tax. It is still in a very dysfunctional form as a tax. It has not received any favourable treatment except from the three big miners. It is seen as a bungled proposal and it reinforces that the government's core instinct is to tax, spend and borrow.
If you are responsible in any organisation—whether you are in business, sport or government—the first thing you do is identify your strengths. Once you have identified the two or three major strengths of your business or your country, you then seek to nurture, develop and protect those strengths, because they underpin your success. You do not see a football team send their champion player out onto the ground with a lead weight around his neck. You nurture your best players. They are the ones that give you the premiership. They are the ones who do something magical in the last half of the last quarter.
Clearly the mining and resources sector is one of our nation's great strengths. But what do we see? We see a government that has sought to introduce not just a carbon tax but also a mining tax into the environment of a mining boom when our mining and resources sector, perhaps our greatest strength, has contributed so importantly to the quality of life that we have enjoyed in Australia for well over 100 years. This government is imposing in the middle of a mining boom two new taxes. It is ignorance and it is envy, but, most importantly of all, it is dangerous. It is dangerous in terms of the lost job opportunities and the lost investment opportunities—and we are seeing sovereign risk manifest itself as a consequence.
Not only did they bungle the proposal in terms of its design—it has taken 18 months—but it is now being rushed in as a symbolic attempt at achievement by a Prime Minister who is hanging by her fingernails onto the leadership. That is what this is about. The way this thing has been designed and the way it is being introduced is all about politics.
Agriculture is another of our great strengths, but look at the way they handled the live cattle job. The incompetence with which they handled that has added to sovereign risk. Our international education effort is another of our great strengths, but they introduced a visa requirement where families have to have three years of the education cost and accommodation to get a visa. Then they wonder why 20,000 Chinese students have stopped coming here. That is ignorance and incompetence. They are obsessed with taxing, spending and borrowing. That drives every policy of this government. They are an old-style socialist government—under pressure all they know how to do is tax, spend and borrow. This mining tax is nothing but a tax grab, pure and simple. It is a tax that will discourage investment. It is a discriminatory tax.
Let's look at where it falls. In research released today by BDO, a major research group, the mining tax liability on Rio Tinto was calculated for the first five years, and it was zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. They calculated the mining tax liability on BHP, and you will not be surprised to learn that, for the first five years, it is another five zeros. They have taken the real-life numbers of a small emerging miner who is making revenue in the order of $600 million to $700 million and calculated its mining tax revenue: first year—2012—zero; second year, $49 million; third year, $107 million; fourth year, $96 million; fifth year, $68 million; and the following year, $63 million. So we are seeing a total effective tax rate of 40.18 per cent in the first year in which they pay the tax, 45.68 per cent in the second year; 45.76 per cent in the third year, 46.12 per cent in the fourth year, and 46.20 per cent in the fifth year.
This is a scandal. We are putting a lead weight around the neck of our greatest strength in this economy. When you look at our competitors around the world—and they are significant, they are large and they are coming at us as they invest in infrastructure to move a mountain of resources that exist around the world—the highest effective rate of tax including royalties is 40 per cent in Canada. We are talking about mid-tier companies paying a 46 per cent effective rate of tax with this new tax. In other countries, such as Brazil and Mongolia and other major future competitors, they are paying in some cases as low as 30 per cent and less. This tax is a lazy and short-sighted attempt by an incompetent government to prop up its budget. That is all it is.
Let's for a minute examine the myth that the minerals sector is somehow not paying its way. They paid very little in 1999, but by 2002-03—when the mining boom was just taking off—they paid around $6 billion in taxes including royalties and corporate taxes. In 2010-11, that figure exceeded $23 billion, a fourfold increase. The profits-based company tax was in the order of $4 billion in 2002-03. That grew to nearly $15 billion. A massive new investment over the next four or five years and the reduction in costs offsetting profits will mean that revenue will continue in a very strong way, depending on the price of the product. So with the existing taxes we have a fourfold increase which is likely to get much higher in the next three or four years, yet the government wants to come in with a carbon tax and a mining tax which will add billions and billions to the tax that these companies are paying, and the effective rate of tax will head towards 50 per cent. This is nonsense. At a time when we should be locking in all of the potential investment that this great resources sector can produce, we are inviting competitors around the world as we see a supply response coming down the line. We think we are awash with resources, and we are. Our iron ore is 13 per cent of the world's supply, and our coal is 15 or 16 per cent of the world's supply. But there are mountains of it elsewhere, and this government is oblivious to that. They are inviting competition, they are ensuring that we will not be competitive and they are taking great risks. They have spent this money before they have earned it.
Then there is the prospect of China. Global reports came from Paul Wiseman yesterday that China's comedown is being engineered by its policy makers. They want to slow expansion just enough to cool inflation. If they get down to six or seven per cent growth—which will cool inflation—China will still have strong growth, but there will be a 15, 25 or 30 per cent reduction in prices. This government is vulnerable: our structural deficit at the last budget was twice Germany's and was 30 per cent higher than even Italy.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr ROBB: The member for Wakefield smiles. He does not understand what a structural deficit is.
Mr Champion: I understand it.
Mr ROBB: It means we are highly vulnerable. With this mining tax and the carbon tax, the government are spending money they do not have. This means we are being put in a highly vulnerable position with deficits potentially for another 10 years.
This bill should never have come before this House. It is the result of the politics of envy. It means that, as a country, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Under this appalling government it will turn away job creating investment, it will make our economy more vulnerable, it is antigrowth and it is just another piece of stupidity. If we get the privilege of government, we will remove this tax.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:02): I proudly rise to voice my strong support for the economy-building, future-proofing Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills before the House. It is always good to hear from the member for Goldstein. He has certainly had a tough time lately. I remember the budget reply speech from the Leader of the Opposition, who said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually do the budget reply speech. I'm going to give that to the shadow Treasurer.' The shadow Treasurer then came out and said: 'Sorry, I didn't actually get around to doing my budget reply speech. I'll ask the shadow finance minister.' It was amazing. As a teacher, I have heard a lot of excuses about why homework was not done, but that was the first time I ever heard anyone say, 'The dog did my homework.' I have never heard that before. It was amazing.
Some Australians are getting very rich from the mining boom, especially very profitable mining companies. Obviously the Labor Party is not concerned about profits—we support profits—but we are concerned when many Australians are left out. While some Australian small businesses are happy just to break even, our biggest miners are generating phenomenal profits. Mining profits for the year ending 30 June 2011 were a massive $93 billion with $430 billion of further investment in the pipeline, so to speak. So much for the member for Goldstein saying that investment in mining is about to dry up. That is ridiculous.
I say again that there is nothing wrong with big profits. Profits are good for shareholders, they reward workers, they help fund future investment and they stimulate our economy. But where we are seeing such enormous profits from the mining of our coal and our iron ore—Australians' coal and Australians' iron ore—much of this money goes overseas. A responsible government, a sensible government, must ensure that Australians are getting a fair return for our resources, which can only be mined once.
The minerals resource rent tax will apply to all new and existing iron ore and coal projects, and it will apply at a rate of 30 per cent. Only coal and iron ore producers generating an annual profit of more than $50 million will pay the tax. I repeat this for those opposite—you must be making an annual profit of more than $50 million before you have to pay this tax. State mining royalties will be fully credited back to the company, whether that state government is a Labor government or a Liberal government. The tax is expected to raise about $3.7 billion in 2012-13, $4 billion in 2013-14 and $3.4 billion in 2014-15, subject obviously to the variability of long-term international commodity prices. Over 10 years the mining tax, it is expected, will deliver an extra $38.5 billion to Australians.
The Gillard Labor government is determined to share these benefits with all Australians. How will we do this? Firstly, employer superannuation contributions will rise from nine per cent to 12 per cent, giving a 30-year-old worker on average earnings an extra $100,000 of savings.
Secondly, we will also give small business a take in the cut. They will be able to write off every asset worth up to $6,500. Who in this chamber would not support small business receiving such a benefit? You would have to be crazy not to support such a cut.
Thirdly, we will slash company tax to 29 per cent from 1 July 2013. All Australian companies—small, medium and large—will go from 30 per cent down to 29 per cent. In contrast, those opposite plan to effectively increase company taxes with their clumsy two per cent paid parental leave tax.
Fourthly, we will simplify personal tax by introducing a $500 standard deduction from 1 July 2012 and a $1,000 deduction from 1 July 2013.
Fifthly, we will reward personal saving for more than five million Australians with a 50 per cent tax discount on up to $500 of interest income from 1 July 2012.
Sixthly, the government will direct more investment back into mining communities through a regional infrastructure fund.
How could a wise man vote against such a tax? Well, I have heard that the honourable Leader of the Opposition does intend to change his name by deed poll to Joseph Wiseman because, as all film buffs would know, that is the actor who played Dr No in the James Bond movie. That is the only way we would be able to have a Wiseman voting against this incredibly sensible policy.
These projects will boost productivity, they will support jobs and they will look after our hard-working mining communities. I do find the opposition's position on this completely perplexing. The opposition climate change spokesperson told Sky Agenda on Tuesday:
… let me say that the mining tax is a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because capital is mobile in this world, that companies and investors have a choice as to where they set up their mining activities.
Obviously, he is half right: capital is mobile and companies do compete in the global mining market. But mining companies do not easily take their capital and just go to any other country to mine immobile resources. They come to Australia not just because of the present tax arrangements but also—wait for it—obviously because we have some of the best minerals in the world. We are blessed geologically. The competitive edge of Australian mining is not only our lean tax regime but also the abundance of these high-quality minerals and natural gas deposits beneath the ground.
Australia has 10 per cent of the world's coal resources, and most of this is top quality black coal like we have in Queensland—with no disrespect at all to the Victorians who are here. We have some of the top coal in the world, with higher energy burns and lower emissions. Australia has 47 per cent of the world's uranium. So this idea that miners will easily just move their capital around the world and mine somewhere else is quite ridiculous.
Let us have a look at the proposed projects. I will go through some which are on the horizon or have already been announced for new investment or CAPEX. Fortescue has a US$8.4 billion expansion in the Pilbara. Xstrata, to name just a couple of their announced projects, has $270 million in the McArthur River lead/zinc expansion, $1.4 billion in the Ravensworth North open cut coking coal project in New South Wales, $234 million in the George Fisher zinc mine expansion at Mt Isa, US$1.1 billion in the Ulan West underground thermal coal mine in New South Wales and $6 billion in the Wandoan coal mine in Queensland. Rio Tinto has US$6 billion in the Pilbara, $803 million in the Argyle open pit transition and $1.78 billion in the Hope Downs iron ore project. BHP Billiton has US$7.4 billion in the Jimblebar mine development in the Pilbara and US$5 billion in the Bowen Basin. These sums are all in US dollars, which I suppose is at approximate parity at the moment. Woodside has $14 billion in the Pluto project. The Woodside Energy joint venture with BP, BHP Billiton, Chevron and Shell has $30 billion in the Browse Basin LNG project. The Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil joint venture has $43 billion in the Gorgon LNG project. Santos has $16 billion in the coal seam gas in Gladstone and Curtis Island. BG Group has a $15 billion LNG plant on Curtis Island and in the Surat Basin, Queensland. Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips have a $35 billion LNG project at Gladstone. Royal Dutch Shell has a $11 billion LNG project.
These are just a few of these mining projects that are supposed to be drying up! It is ridiculous that those opposite can actually stand up and seriously argue that we are threatening the mining industry in Australia with this tax. Australia's resources are finite and precious. Australians own them, and the Gillard Labor government understands the responsibility we have to future generations to ensure that all Australians get a fair return—everyone today, everyone tomorrow and those who are not even a twinkle in the eye today. They all need to have a share in the finite resources that we own.
Speaker after speaker from the opposition got on the protest bandwagon and claimed that this tax would all but bring mining to its knees. I remember the member for Warringah wearing his Mitch Hooke-provided white T-shirt. The jeremiad went like this: 'Investment would end, jobs would go and mines would close.' That was only a year ago. That is what the Henny Penny on steroids, aka the Leader of the Opposition, would have us believe. But the reality looks nothing like this. Since we announced the MRRT, mining investment has soared and stronger growth is coming over the horizon, as I detailed. It has grown from $35 billion in 2009-10 to $47 billion in 2010-11 and will nearly double to $82 billion this financial year. Employment in the mining industry has also advanced rapidly. Just go to regional Queensland and you will see that. Go to Western Australia and you will see that. More than 44,000 new jobs have been created, an increase of nearly 25 per cent. The towns in these areas know that. There is absolutely no sign that the mining tax will damage mining investment.
The Labor government has built a strong economy. We have created 700,000 new jobs—140,000 of them in the last year alone. We have more Australians than ever before in traineeships or apprenticeships. Unemployment is at 5.2 per cent. We abolished Work Choices and restored unfair dismissal protections for 2.8 million workers, and we have slashed income taxes for everyone.
The Labor government is standing between the future prosperity of Australia and the road that the Liberal Party want to take us down, which is a US style economy where one per cent of the population controls 42 per cent of the wealth; where the latest data shows that instead of there being 13 per cent of the population living in poverty it has gone up to 15 per cent; where there are more unemployed people than there are union members. That is the sort of economy those opposite would like here.
Australians have confidence that the Labor government will make the tough and necessary decisions to protect jobs and to manage our economy sensibly. The mining tax will deliver for all Australians and help keep our economy strong into the future. I commend the bill, proudly, to the House.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:13): I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011. I, like the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Curtin—who spoke here before—am a proud West Australian and see that this tax will affect my home state more than it will affect any of the other states. It was clear from the results of the 2010 election in Western Australia that this mining tax and the carbon tax were overwhelmingly rejected by the West Australian population.
I started my career as an apprentice electrician and eventually ran a small business, which is how I earned my living before entering parliament. Unlike many on the other side of the House who had careers working for the trade union movement before entering this place, I know what it is like to run a business and to have to deal with burdensome taxes and government regulations. I know how prohibitive to running a successful business those taxes and regulations can become. That is why I always take great caution when it comes to these sorts of bills and look at why new taxes are being introduced. If this great country of ours is to stay strong and if our industries are to create wealth and provide jobs to Australians, we need to be creating and maintaining economic conditions for those industries to prosper. To maintain strong economic conditions we need investment, and those investors need a return on investment. This bill will suffocate investment, as it will be suffocating return on investment. It is as simple as that. We just heard the member for Moreton talk about what they are doing for small business, but this is just the misunderstanding of the Labor Party—they just don't get business and they just don't get taxes. As an example, he said they were going to reduce small business tax from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, a total of one per cent. The only small business that will benefit from that at all is the small business that is making a profit; if it is not making a profit this will be of no help at all. The other example is that they have just increased the superannuation levy, which wipes out the one per cent straightaway. If a small business man is making a profit, he will get an extra dollar for every $100 that he makes in profit. Big deal. That is no assistance to small business at all. But the Labor Party people think that it is a great bonus for small businesses.
To maintain strong economic conditions, we need investment, and investors need a return on investment. This bill will not maintain strong economic conditions; it will do exactly the opposite. The flawed process with which those opposite announced this mining tax to the public remains one of the most embarrassing performances of the government's time in office. It led to chaos across the country, which led to the ending of the prime ministership of the member for Griffith by the current Prime Minister and left an industry with an uncertain future.
No consultation was done with any stakeholders when the initial mining tax was announced. There was no consultation with industry or with state or territory governments despite serious implications for their own-source revenue. The Henry recommendation that a national profit based resource rent tax should replace state and territory royalties and that the federal government should negotiate the federal-state implications of such a move has been ignored by the federal government. The government's decision to provide no consultation on the implications of the mining tax is worrisome, given that resource royalties are 20 per cent of Western Australian state government revenues, nine per cent of Queensland state government revenues and six per cent of Northern Territory government revenues—and despite major implications for GST sharing arrangements around Australia.
This bill will damage Australia's ability to attract foreign investment. The increased sovereign risk brought on by the retrospective nature of the tax, and the large rise in taxation in comparison to overseas investment destinations, will no doubt cause foreign investors to think twice before entering the Australian market. The mineral resource rent tax is divisive. The government has created a situation where we have three big miners—and the rest. It is turning different parts of the industry and the economy against each other.
The WA state Treasurer, Christian Porter, has informed the government that 65 per cent of the revenue will come from iron ore production in Western Australia alone. It is extraordinary that one new national tax would raise 65 per cent of its revenue from one single state economy. This is about $25 billion coming from WA, out of the $38.5 billion total predicted revenue over the next decade.
This tax is deeply unpopular within my electorate of Swan, and obviously all of Western Australia, judging by the 2010 election results. I see the member for Hasluck in the chamber, and I am sure it is just as unpopular in his electorate. That is why it is disturbing that the federal government is trying to link infrastructure projects that would normally be funded out of consolidated revenue to the passage of the mining tax. The government is trying to hold a gun to the head of the Australian people, saying: support this tax, or else.
Of course, the government has shamelessly tried to use this strategy in my own electorate of Swan, when prior to the last election the government tried to link the future of the mining tax with the Gateway WA project for the roads around Perth. This was a very poor strategy. The government said to the people of Swan, many of whose livelihoods depend on the mining sector, 'Your roads are not going to be upgraded by the government unless you support the world's biggest mining tax, which will impact on the economy, your livelihood and your future.' We in the coalition made it clear that we would be funding these road projects, including the airport roads upgrade and the Great Eastern Highway upgrade, without the mining tax. Gateway WA has been identified by the WA government as critical to relieving state transport bottlenecks. Local people in my electorate know only too well of these bottlenecks, which they have to face during their everyday activities on roads which they share with industrial traffic coming to and from Kewdale and the transport hub in Welshpool. That is why on behalf of the community I campaigned hard for the upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway, which I am pleased to say is now underway, after some worrying times, including when there were concerns about the federal government not meeting a shortfall, which would have seen the upgrade cease at Hardey Road.
Gateway WA is a very important project. The federal contribution to the $600 million project is $480 million. The future of such a project should not be linked to what the Premier of Western Australia has described as a tax on WA. The project should also not have been thrown into the realms of uncertainty as it has been by the government's shaky and unreliable negotiations with the Independents. Today in the Australian we saw a big spread on how the member for New England plans to 'hold a gun to the government's head' on the mining tax legislation over issues in his electorate. The message coming out of Canberra is chaotic and the result may well be delays in this project.
We know the real reason why the federal government is introducing this mining tax legislation: it cannot fund any more of the nation's vital infrastructure projects through usual channels because of the massive national debt it has built up. It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton talking about a figure of $94 billion—it just rolled off his tongue. That is close to the national debt that the government has now built up. Kevin Rudd told all Australians he was an economic conservative but misled the Australian people. This country has never in its history been in more debt than it is now. The government cannot meet its obligations to the Australian people to continue to invest in infrastructure, and that is why it has to introduce this mining tax.
If the mining industry is threatened, so will be Western Australia and also the nation. That is why this was such a serious issue in WA before the last election, not only because of a threat to the jobs of the many people who work directly or indirectly in the mining sector but because the people of Western Australia understand the threat to the health of the local and national economy. There are many fly in, fly out workers in Perth and I know that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia is conducting an inquiry into fly in, fly out work practices at the moment, which I know do place strain on many families across WA. It might also be worth consulting with these workers over this legislation and how they feel it will affect them.
It is well known that Western Australia's GST intake is the lowest in the country, at 68c in the dollar. However, projections from the WA government suggest this could reduce to 50c within three years and be on its way down to the 30c mark. Given this, the Premier's recent decision on iron ore royalties was understandable. With no guarantee of WA's future GST return, the Premier was forced to act to secure some royalties. However the impact of this decision on the federal government's budget shows how the mish-mash deal hammered out before the election by the government with only three of the mining companies was just a short-term political fix. Under this deal the government promised to underwrite any rises in state royalties. State governments in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have increased royalties on iron ore and coal, and the result has been a massive hit on the federal budget bottom line.
I heard members on the other side of the chamber complaining about this, but that was the deal the government set up. It was their deal, so they have nothing to complain about. Other states such as Queensland have reserved the right to raise royalties in the future. None of the states were party to the Prime Minister's pre-election quick political deal and now the government is paying the price. As the shadow Treasurer said in his contribution, you cannot have serious and genuine reform of resource taxation and royalty arrangements without active and constructive engagement between the Commonwealth and state or territory governments.
Perhaps most significantly, there are serious question marks over the constitutional validity of the mining tax. We know that Ken Henry said that the federal government never sought advice on the constitutional validity of the tax before its announcement, and there is now the prospect that this legislation may not be lawful under the existing Constitution. As a tax on a resource at the point of extraction, this could constitute a tax on state property as prohibited by section 114 of the Constitution. Following the Malaysia people-swap decision from the High Court, the government is once again introducing legislation that one would think will inevitably result in a High Court challenge.
I would also say that, based on the outcome of the last election, it is particularly unclear whether the parliament has a mandate to introduce this legislation. I will be listening carefully to the speeches from the Independent members but, as I have already mentioned, the member for New England has announced that he will not support the legislation in its current form. Should these Independents have changed their minds since the last election campaign, it would indeed be another sad day for democracy if this legislation is passed in the House—following on from the carbon tax legislation, which only one or two members out of the 150 went to the last election in support of.
The government should start from scratch and pursue genuine tax reform to give Australians lower, fairer and simpler taxes through an open and transparent process. The parliament should stop the MRRT from going ahead and force the government to start again. The Gillard government needs to get its spending under control so it can focus on delivering lower, simpler, fairer taxes and genuine tax reform based on a proper process that gives everyone a fair opportunity to have their say. Instead of doing this, another 287 pages of tax law will now be added, increasing complexity and compliance costs.
It is concerning that the big three miners have been able to gain benefits for themselves that smaller miners do not have access to. For example, the introduction of a market valuation system to calculate applicable deductions gives the big three miners a significant tax shield that the smaller and mid-tier miners cannot access. Smaller companies will suffer under increased compliance burdens. The Henry tax review recommended a lower tax burden for smaller mining ventures, to help start-ups grow and prosper and to keep mining ventures in their decline phase alive longer. Instead, smaller and mid-tier mining ventures will pay a higher effective tax rate under the Gillard MRRT than the big three who were given exclusive access to the negotiations with the government.
One of the most concerning outcomes of this legislation is that it will worsen our structural deficit. The MRRT will help the government create the illusion of an early surplus in 2012-13 but it will leave the budget worse off from 2013-14 onwards. Treasury projections of MRRT revenue to 2020, released under FOI, indicate that Treasury expects revenue to reduce over time. The revenue not only will be downward trending but also will be volatile. Over the first year since the MRRT was announced revenue estimates fluctuated from between $7.7 billion to $24 billion.
While the revenue will diminish, the cost of the measures the government has attached to the MRRT will continue to grow strongly. For example, the cost of the proposed increase in compulsory super to 12 per cent is expected to rise to $3.6 billion in 2019-20, which is when it would be fully implemented. That same year, Treasury projections show MRRT revenue at $3 billion. The Senate inquiry into the mining tax has conservatively estimated that over the next decade the net cost to the budget will be $20 billion.
The MRRT remains a tax based on a deal negotiated exclusively with the three biggest miners who were given privileged access. Instead of making our tax system simpler and fairer, as we were promised, Labor's mining tax will make it less fair and more complex. This tax is divisive to the country, it distorts the national economy and it diminishes our international competitiveness. It is another example of a bad government getting worse. I will not vote for a bill that will reduce the standard of living for Western Australians and drive investment offshore to other countries that are now offering our miners incentives not taxes.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (13:27): I rise to speak on a series of bills which implement the mineral resources rent tax and extend the petroleum resource rent tax. I would like to acknowledge the assistance in preparing this speech of Chelsea Pietsch, who is participating in a Lachlan Macquarie Internship and spending her week with me here in parliament. I think it is very apt that it is Lachlan Macquarie that is figuring here in this consideration and that Chelsea is from that internship group, because Lachlan Macquarie was a man who had a vision for this country, and we see his vision for the country still evident today in many of the buildings along Macquarie Street in Sydney—and there is no doubt that this is nation-building legislation that is before us today.
Labor is and always has been committed to achieving fairness within the Australian community. As our national platform and constitution state, fairness is one of our key priorities in government. It is our commitment to fairness that shapes our policies and what sets them apart from policies formulated by the opposition. The bills we are debating here today are yet another example of Labor's commitment to achieving fair outcomes for all Australians. And I will repeat that phrase many times throughout this speech, because Labor is for all Australians, not just for some.
Australia has been blessed with incredible natural resources and minerals, which fuel the heart of the Australian economy through the mining industry. Labor fully appreciates the central role of the mining industry in our Australian economy. However, we are also conscious that these natural, wealth-producing resources are finite. We can only dig up our resources once. For this reason, the Gillard government is committed to ensuring that we spread the benefits of the mining boom so that all Australians receive a fair return from the use of our valuable mineral and petroleum resources on the one occasion on which they can be extracted to the benefit of the entire nation. We believe it is not just the very profitable mining companies who should benefit from these natural resources but also the Australian community at large.
More than just achieving fairness with our country's non-renewable resources, however, these bills support growth across the entire economy. This is particularly important to me for the seat of Robertson and the Central Coast region that I represent here in this parliament. I represent an area that has grown at an astronomical rate in the last 30 years. We have many small businesses that are great employers there. We also have incredible pressure on infrastructure. We need to have our economy growing, and the type of legislation that we have before this parliament and the outcomes for Australians are exactly the recipe for success for people from the Central Coast who want to work hard and build this great nation. I can assure the people of the Central Coast that we, the Labor government, will keep delivering for them.
Our government's priority is to lay down the foundations for the long-term prosperity of this nation by ensuring a strong and broad economy. How, you may ask, can we bring about a more equitable share in the profits of natural resources and, at the same time, strengthen the Australian economy? We can achieve these objectives through two critical tools: firstly, by providing an efficient, internationally competitive and sustainable taxation framework on Australia's most significant bulk commodities; and, secondly, by using these taxes to fund important personal and company tax and superannuation reforms that benefit small business and individuals within our Australian community. This is precisely what these bills do.
The Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill 2011 provides for the taxation of the above-normal profits from mining iron ore and coal. This is a tax on Australia's most significant bulk commodities: iron ore, coal, oil and gas, commodities that very few Australians have access to in their backyard—but they do have them in our nation. We share in them as a nation. They are commodities that make a significant profit—profits that can help create a fairer Australia. The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011 seeks to extend an already existing tax on gas and coal projects to onshore and offshore projects. Applying the tax to both onshore and offshore contexts will not only provide certainty to the industry but also ensure broadly equitable tax treatment between competing projects.
Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, the revenue derived from both of these taxes will be used for the benefit of the entire community. Because Labor believes in a fair Australia, we will use the revenue to implement significant tax and superannuation reforms for all Australians, including a cut in the company tax rate to 29 per cent; a new tax break for up to 2.4 million small businesses; reinvestment in Australia's regions through a $6 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund; a boost to superannuation and expanded superannuation concessions for low-income earners; simplification of the personal tax system; and personal tax discounts. That has to be a good recipe for Australia in anyone's book, at least on this side of the chamber. These much-needed reforms represent this government's attempt to make sure all Australians in our patchwork economy get our fair share of the mining boom. We know that many households and small businesses are doing it tough, and we believe that these tax reforms will provide them with the assistance they need to keep managing these challenges as we move together to a better economic and social future—again, for all Australians.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to a recent study published by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, entitled Australian small business key statistics. As the Minister for Small Business, Senator Nick Sherry, revealed during the launch of the study, small businesses accounted for nearly half of total Australian industry employment and a third of industry value-added in 2009-10. In fact, at June 2009, small businesses accounted for nearly 98 per cent of all businesses in the agriculture sector, about 96 per cent in the services sector, about 91 per cent in the mining sector and just over 88 per cent in the manufacturing sector. What these figures indicate is that small business is indeed the backbone of the Australian economy. By implementing the mineral and petroleum resource rent tax bills, the Gillard government is keen to ensure that these critical small businesses receive the support they need to continue providing the essential economic activity they provide to this nation. Labor understands the pressures on small business, and this is why, as of 1 July 2012, the government is offering up to 2.4 million small businesses a new tax break.
As I have already indicated, it is not just small business that will benefit from this new tax. The proceeds of the MRRT will also flow through to regional parts of Australia by means of a Regional Infrastructure Fund. This fund will help communities with much-needed infrastructure support. I have seen this need in my own electorate, the electorate of Robertson. As I said, the growth of our electorate in the last 30 years has been really significant. It has led to ever-growing pressure on our infrastructure. Most evident is the pressure on our roads, our rail, our schools and our health services. Parts of many electorates around the country are bursting at the seams. The tax reforms will help relieve some of this real pressure and, through that relief, stimulate business and further enhance the economic outcomes for our nation.
I now wish to clarify some important points about our tax reform proposals. Firstly, the Minerals Resources Rent Tax Bill is not a tax on production; rather, it is a tax on profit. This is absolutely in line with the recommendations made by the Australia's Future Tax System review. These are recommendations our government takes very seriously. They are recommendations from experts, ignored by those opposite, who always seem to know better than everybody else in every situation—or so they would have us believe. The recommendations we follow are taken very seriously, and we seek to implement viable tax systems for Australia—that is, tax systems that do not destroy, but rather build, the Australian economy. This profits-based tax is a much more efficient way of taxing than state royalties, and it will certainly ensure a much better return for Australia. The opposition will tell you that the introduction of the minerals resource rent tax will derail the mining boom and probably break every worst record they can conjure up. But this is simply not supported by the facts. Consistently we see the real facts getting in the way of the myth making, the negativity and the mischief of those opposite who would tell Australians that all our good days are behind us and none in front of us. The reality is very different to what we hear from the other side—'no, no, no' and the carping negativity—and the leadership this country needs is embodied in this legislation.
The latest survey of business investment plans shows that mining companies invested $34 billion last year. They are going to invest $55 billion this year and—wait for it—the amount is growing. They are going to invest $76 billion next year, hardly a sign of an industry in decay. To put that into perspective: that is more than five times the amount of mining investment undertaken six years ago, before the boom took off. However, it is not just an increase in raw dollar investments happening in the mining sector. Since Labor announced its intention to introduce this tax, mining employment has increased by 34.3 per cent. That is 44,200 mining jobs. And as much as those opposite do not like it, this is no indicator of a mining slump.
The second clarification I wish to make about the minerals resource rent tax is that we were only willing to announce it after significant consultations with major players in the industry. These consultations were facilitated by the Policy Transition Group, chaired by none other than Don Argus—the former Chairman of BHP Billiton—and comprised of numerous representatives, including those from peak industry organisations such as APPEA, MCA and a wide range of mining companies both large and small covering iron ore, petroleum, magnetite and coal seam gas operations across the country.
Our government has not only met with and listened to these representatives, we have also accepted every single one of the 98 recommendations made to us by this group. This is an indication of our commitment to work closely with those in industry. The Labor government cares about industry and highly values the opinions of those who are engaged in the mining boom. We have met with the key players in the mining industry, we have listened to them, we have talked with them and we have made our way forward together for the short- and the long-term future, for the sector as well as the nation. This is unlike those opposite who this week in the Qantas debate sided only with big business. They showed no regard for workers and little regard for the ordinary travelling public. Labor listens and Labor leads with a proper regard for business leaders, for union leaders and ordinary working Australians. We get that we are all in it together.
We have listened to all parties and we have brought the best plans into being in the national interest in this legislation before the House today. We are now seeking to implement all those things which have been recommended to us by stakeholders. Suffice it to say, these bills are none other than a collaborative effort with all at the coalface of the mining industry. But more than this, these tax reforms are our attempt to spread the wealth of the mining boom to all of those struggling to make ends meet in our patchwork economy.
The Leader of the Opposition is against these reforms. As we have seen time and time again, the opposition is much more interested in supporting big business than in addressing the needs of those who are doing it tough. With these tax reforms, small businesses within my electorate, such as the scrumptious Terrigal Bakery, the well-patronised Sushi Circle in downtown Gosford, and hard-working tradies like Paul Palmer, a local plumber, and John Owens, a local painter, will be able to reap some of the benefits of the Australian mining boom. This is a very significant tax reform for small business and they will be able to have multiple items written off immediately.
Labor will provide a boost in the super guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent for around 8.4 million workers, increasing the pool of retirement savings by $500 billion by 2035. What more can I say, aside from the fact that we are the party who introduced super and now we are the ones increasing it. As a woman with two daughters, I am keenly aware that women really need this legislation to pass through this parliament to practically improve their lives in retirement. Women retire with 40 per cent less than men in their super, despite the fact that, happily, we live longer. But through the introduction of these bills, implementation of the mineral resource rent tax and the petroleum resource rent tax, Labor is giving all Australians a fair share of the mining boom—a boost to retirement savings, tax breaks for small business, company tax cuts—and at the same time supporting growth of the Australian economy. I commend these bills to the House.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVILEGE
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (13:43): Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence and your guidance on what could be a matter of privilege. Yesterday in the House, the Assistant Treasurer stated that the age limit is to be abolished on superannuation contributions under the bill that he introduced, entitled the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011. The minister said in his tabling speech:
And this bill abolishes the superannuation guarantee age limit.
It clearly does not. The bill introduced by the minister merely amends section 27(1)(a) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to lift the age discrimination from 70 to 75. It does not abolish the subsection, which is what my private member's bill sought to do when I introduced it earlier.
In question time yesterday, the minister further reinforced this position when he said:
… we will scrap the age discrimination levels for everyone who goes to work.
… … …
So the 18,000 Australians in the workforce who are over the age of 75 will be able to get superannuation.
They will not be able to get that superannuation and that is a false statement. Mr Speaker, would you ask the minister to come back into the House and correct the record, particularly with regard to the tabling speech which, as you know, is a document which courts may consider. If not, would you consider whether there is a prima facie case for referring this matter to the privileges committee for their consideration.
The SPEAKER: I will take on board the matters raised by the member for Mackellar, and I have a distinct feeling that I will be reporting more on the latter than the former.
It being 1:45 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 143. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (13:43): Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence and your guidance on what could be a matter of privilege. Yesterday in the House, the Assistant Treasurer stated that the age limit is to be abolished on superannuation contributions under the bill that he introduced, entitled the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011. The minister said in his tabling speech:
And this bill abolishes the superannuation guarantee age limit.
It clearly does not. The bill introduced by the minister merely amends section 27(1)(a) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to lift the age discrimination from 70 to 75. It does not abolish the subsection, which is what my private member's bill sought to do when I introduced it earlier.
In question time yesterday, the minister further reinforced this position when he said:
… we will scrap the age discrimination levels for everyone who goes to work.
… … …
So the 18,000 Australians in the workforce who are over the age of 75 will be able to get superannuation.
They will not be able to get that superannuation and that is a false statement. Mr Speaker, would you ask the minister to come back into the House and correct the record, particularly with regard to the tabling speech which, as you know, is a document which courts may consider. If not, would you consider whether there is a prima facie case for referring this matter to the privileges committee for their consideration.
The SPEAKER: I will take on board the matters raised by the member for Mackellar, and I have a distinct feeling that I will be reporting more on the latter than the former.
It being 1:45 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 143. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Nestle Battle of the Top End Girls Academies
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:45): Last week I was fortunate enough to participate in the inaugural Nestle Battle of the Top End Girls Academies. The Palmerston Girls Academy, in conjunction with Nestle Australia and Role Models and Leaders Australia, held the event to connect predominantly young Indigenous females with role models they can look up to and gain skills they can use for life.
The girls academies are a great initiative championed by Australian and Territory sporting identity Bo de la Cruz. As a special surprise the Australian singing sensation Jessica Mauboy, a constituent of mine, agreed to speak with the girls. As you can imagine, they were blown away when Jessica walked out to sing her latest hit single. As well as performing, Jessica talked passionately about being an Indigenous woman and how important it is to follow your dreams. Her message to the girls was clear: 'Never give up. If you have the desire to do something then just go for it.' Jessica was an inspiration and she is a perfect role model for young Territorians and, in fact, all Australians.
The girls academy initiative was created with the aim of improving educational, personal and employment outcomes for Indigenous girls. The program provides supportive programs so that all members work towards completion of year 12, employment and further education.
Congratulations to all the girls who participated in the program, and a big thank you to Jessica Mauboy for taking the time out of her hectic schedule to speak with the young women and with me.
Bass Electorate: Singfest
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I notice that Larmenier school is in the audience today. For those in the House who are not aware, Larmenier school recently won the Australian grade 6 spellathon.
But I rise today to talk about a series of schools in my electorate which participated in Singfest, a great concert for schools throughout northern Tasmania. Nine northern Tasmanian schools participated. What I found particularly amazing was that they only had one full day of rehearsals. It was magnificent to be there. Sometimes we politicians underestimate the great opportunities we have to be invited to such wonderful events as Singfest in Tasmania. It was absolutely magnificent.
I know that Larmenier school has a great choir, but they were unable to be in Singfest this year. I look forward to them being in Singfest next year. I congratulate Nelson Tabe, president of Singfest, for the work that he did to organise this wonderful event. I am confident that there are many potential musical stars in the electorate of Bass, and I look forward to their performance next year.
Petition: Medicare Centre in Narellan
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:48): I rise to table a petition from concerned residents in Macarthur. This petition of 1,657 signatures draws to the attention of the House and the Minister for Health and Ageing the need for a Medicare centre in Narellan.
Macarthur's population is expected to double in the next two decades and more than 200,000 people are expected to move into the new estates and suburbs surrounding Narellan—areas such as Oran Park, Gregory Hills Elderslie, Spring Farm, Currans Hill, Mount Annan, Narellan Vale and Harrington Grove. It is imperative that as the population grows we provide new and existing residents with the necessary infrastructure and services to support this growth. The people in my electorate are calling on better access to a close-by Medicare service, and they should not be ignored.
I support the call for a Medicare centre in Narellan, in addition to the existing services in Camden and Campbelltown. In this part of my electorate there is little or no public transport and the population is ageing. Many elderly or disabled residents must rely on family members to take time off work to drive them to Medicare centres out of town. I believe that every Australian should be able to access the government services they need, especially when it comes to their health and wellbeing. Medicare Australia is an excellent service, but we need better accessibility to these services in the Macarthur region.
Residents in my electorate who are elderly, living with a disability or suffering ill health have asked for help, and they should not be ignored. I call on the government to consider opening a Medicare centre in Narellan so that the most vulnerable residents in my electorate can access the services they deserve.
I table this petition of 1,657 signatures because I believe a Medicare centre in Narellan would be a great outcome for the people of Macarthur. I table this petition and bring it to the attention of the Minister for Health and Ageing.
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned Australian citizens draws to the attention of the House the need for a Medicare Centre in Narellan. Macarthur's population is expected to double in the next two decades and more than 200,000 people are expected to move into the new estates in the suburbs surrounding Narellan.
We therefore ask the House to support this petition which would allow for a Medicare Centre to be located within the Narellan business district in addition to the existing services in Camden and Campbelltown.
from 1,657 citizens
Petition received.
Heart and Stroke Parliamentary Friendship Group
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (13:49): This morning the member for Hasluck and I, along with the heart and stroke foundations, launched the Heart and Stroke Parliamentary Friendship Group. I thank the many members and senators who attended to show their support for this extremely important issue.
Cardiovascular disease, that is heart and stroke, is the number one killer of Australians today, and the launch saw a commitment by over 70 members of parliament, senators and health department representatives to raise awareness of this very important issue whilst at the same time considering strategies to reduce heart disease and stroke.
The most important aspect of this morning's launch was that it was bipartisan. Both sides of the parliament came together to make a commitment to approach heart and stroke disease in a bipartisan way. It is very rare in this parliament that we join together and unite on an issue, but it showed that members of both sides of the House and the Senate understand that heart disease is the No. 1 killer and that we have it in our power to show leadership in the communities and electorates which we represent in this parliament. By coming together this morning with the stroke and heart foundations we showed that leadership, and I hope that it makes a real impact on people's lives.
Swan Electorate: Lynwood Village Shopping Centre
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:51): Last Thursday I held a community meeting at Lynwood Village Shopping Centre to discuss security concerns that have been raised with my office by businesses and residents.
Over the last few weeks concerned locals told me about problems at the centre, including persistent antisocial behaviour during the day and trouble at night. One business owner, who told me his staff had been abused, said many of his shoppers routinely ask to be escorted back to their cars due to the antisocial behaviour. After surveying the community it was clear that many others felt this way, with well over 200 responses expressing concerns in my community survey so far.
Lynwood Village is a very important local shopping centre for the residents of Lynwood and Ferndale. The natural barrier of the Canning River and the distance from Carousel shopping centre means that it is difficult for local residents to get to other shopping centres. As such, Lynwood Village is highly valued by the local community and it is therefore important both for businesses and residents that any issues of security be addressed. There was a good turn-out at the community meeting, and I would like to thank centre manager Guy Tristram, from Mair and Co., for addressing those who attended. Residents were able to state their concerns, and business owners had the opportunity to share theirs. City of Canning security patrols also attended to show their support, and within two minutes they were dealing with an issue outside the liquor store. I am pleased to say that the shopping centre managers announced at the meeting they will be installing security guards and looking at CCTV. The police and City of Canning patrols have pledged to step up patrols as well.
I thank everyone who attended, and I am sure the shopping centre will now become a safe environment for the community.
Belconnen Arts Centre
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:52): There are many hidden and not so hidden gems in my electorate of Fraser. In partnership with the Belconnen Arts Centre, on 18 October I launched Mapping the Northside. Mapping the Northside is a project in which community members are invited to identify their favourite place on a two by three metre map of the Fraser electorate. Community members can mark their spot with a drawing, photograph, collage, story or poem. This can be done online or at one of three creative sessions being facilitated by local artist Maryann Mussared on 29 October at the Belconnen Arts Centre, 5 November at Gorman House and 12 November at the Gungahlin Library. At the end of the project, the map will be taken down and used as the basis for a 'people's map' of the electorate of Fraser. These great spots in the north of the ACT deserve to be shared and celebrated within the community.
I would like to thank for all their help and guidance Hannah Semler, Director of the Belconnen Arts Centre; Philip Piggin; Evol McLeod; and Alyssa Hardy. A special mention also goes to Gus Little from my office for his hard work on this project.
Mapping the Northside runs until 17 November, and I cannot wait to see the precious gems that are unearthed.
Australian Volunteers Overseas
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:53): I had the pleasure recently of formally thanking nine Australians for their work as volunteers abroad. I had the pleasure of being joined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at a ceremony in my office several weeks ago to present certificates to those volunteers as appreciation for the work that they have done in various countries around the world, and particularly in the Pacific. The certificates formally acknowledged the volunteers' contribution to the Australian overseas aid program and represent a very sincere thanks from the nation for their service.
The recipients of these certificates of appreciation were Melanie Arnost, Ron Brown, Anthony Dundon, Lou Fornasier, Juana Katzer, Deborah Ralf, Alexandra Robertson, Brock Schaefer and Arthur Wynn. These volunteers have worked in places such as Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Mongolia, Thailand and Cambodia. Many of the people in these developing countries were greatly appreciative of the work of these volunteers, and the work that they have done has been a great credit to Australia. Speaking to them during that event, they shared their experiences, they shared what they got out of it, and they said they thoroughly enjoyed it.
Cardinia Primary School
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (13:55): Last Friday I was delighted to visit Cardinia Primary School to formally open their new facilities constructed under our Building the Education Revolution program. Having visited the school during its construction, it was marvellous to see the finished product and the great use that the children, teachers and other staff were already getting from the building.
I was particularly pleased to be there last Friday, as this week the school celebrates its 100th anniversary. Its original buildings are still being put to great use and have been restored to their original glory with funding from the National School Pride Program. The BER project at Cardinia Primary School will update the school's facilities for a new century. This includes a new outdoor learning area and a new library, and the project as a whole supported the employment of approximately 102 workers—exactly what Labor tried to achieve with the stimulus plan it put in place. It has considerably improved the learning environment for students and has really taken on the personality of the Cardinia Primary School.
I have seen firsthand the pride the school community takes in their school and the tremendous efforts by parents who have assisted with the new works, including making cabinets for the new facilities, producing impressive murals and developing the school's gardens. I congratulate school principal Allan Armstrong, the students, the parents and the teachers at Cardinia Primary School on the occasion of the school's 100th anniversary. I am sure the school will still be standing and making a very substantial contribution to our local community in another 100 years.
Airlie Beach
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:56): Residents of the Whitsundays are fed up with not being listened to by their local council and the state government. This time we have had local Mayor Michael Brunker, his council and state Labor MP Jan Jarratt all pushing for a land swap on the Airlie Beach foreshore, against the community's wishes.
The proposed land swap is an unnecessary by-product of the very welcome redevelopment of the Airlie Beach main street. Part of that redevelopment, which could be relooked at, is a mainly aesthetic curved deviation in the road. This curve will not only be quite costly but will result in the resumption of a business, necessitating either compensation or a land swap for the business owner. The council has moved in favour of a land swap, suggesting public land on the Airlie foreshore be exchanged and a four-storey building be located on that bit of land.
Today the Whitsunday Times reports that Jan Jarratt is backing that proposal. Well, this flies in the face of community opposition to the plan. It is opposed by the Save Our Foreshore group and it is opposed by the Whitsunday Ratepayers Association, who conducted a survey showing that 86 per cent of respondents were opposed to the foreshore land swap.
Because this project has federal funding, I will be writing to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government requesting he ensure council conducts a survey on the land swap and heeds that survey's results. After all, federal government funding for regional development should be used on projects which have the regional community's support. The people of the Whitsundays must be listened to.
Atherton, Gwenneth and George
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:58): I rise today to acknowledge and thank Gwenneth and George Atherton for their significant and enduring contribution to the Canberra community, particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley. A few months ago I held a mobile office at the Lanyon Marketplace in my electorate and had the pleasure of meeting Gwenneth and George.
Every week for 12 years, Gwenneth and George have been setting up a stall at the marketplace selling handmade goods to raise money for local charities. Originally, the stall raised money for local girl Amy Woodhouse, who was battling cerebral palsy. The stall now raises money for the Malkara School in my electorate, and the funds have allowed the school to buy a talking machine and wheelchair.
But these two semi-retirees do not only devote their Saturdays to their community. Six years ago they set up a seniors group at the Mura Lanyon Community Centre at a time when there was nothing for aged Canberrans in the Lanyon area. The group now boasts about 40 members, and it is going from strength to strength. The group holds meetings, celebrates birthdays and organises events, which I have been emphatically told are all about education.
Gwenneth and George moved to Canberra 19 years ago. They originally came for six weeks, then ended up staying—and we are glad they did. On behalf of the Canberra community, particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley and Lanyon, I would like to thank and congratulate Gwenneth and George for their contribution and ongoing commitment to enriching the lives of so many.
Royal Life Saving National Drowning Report
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:59): The Royal Life Saving National drowning report2011 has recently been released. Tragically, last year 315 deaths occurred in Australian waterways, and it is uncertain whether we will reach the Water Safety Council's target to reduce the number of drowning deaths by 50 per cent by the year 2020 as the drowning death toll has continued to rise over the last three consecutive years. Thirty per cent of the deaths this year were in Queensland, a concerning figure for my home state. Queensland has such a vibrant beach-going and water-loving lifestyle, so the need for increased awareness of safety requirements is paramount, particularly coming into summer. We have seen the number of young people drowning decrease by 15 per cent on previous years, so the message of water safety is clearly resonating with families, but worryingly the 2010-11 year showed the majority of deaths to be in the 65 years plus age group. A key issue affecting many elderly people is underlying medical conditions, so the Royal Life Saving Society has recommended in this report that people over the age of 55 get regular medical check-ups, particularly prior to getting involved in any water based activities. I agree with the message and of course want to see all Australians engaged in water safety.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Nestle Battle of the Top End Girls Academies
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:45): Last week I was fortunate enough to participate in the inaugural Nestle Battle of the Top End Girls Academies. The Palmerston Girls Academy, in conjunction with Nestle Australia and Role Models and Leaders Australia, held the event to connect predominantly young Indigenous females with role models they can look up to and gain skills they can use for life.
The girls academies are a great initiative championed by Australian and Territory sporting identity Bo de la Cruz. As a special surprise the Australian singing sensation Jessica Mauboy, a constituent of mine, agreed to speak with the girls. As you can imagine, they were blown away when Jessica walked out to sing her latest hit single. As well as performing, Jessica talked passionately about being an Indigenous woman and how important it is to follow your dreams. Her message to the girls was clear: 'Never give up. If you have the desire to do something then just go for it.' Jessica was an inspiration and she is a perfect role model for young Territorians and, in fact, all Australians.
The girls academy initiative was created with the aim of improving educational, personal and employment outcomes for Indigenous girls. The program provides supportive programs so that all members work towards completion of year 12, employment and further education.
Congratulations to all the girls who participated in the program, and a big thank you to Jessica Mauboy for taking the time out of her hectic schedule to speak with the young women and with me.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:45): Last week I was fortunate enough to participate in the inaugural Nestle Battle of the Top End Girls Academies. The Palmerston Girls Academy, in conjunction with Nestle Australia and Role Models and Leaders Australia, held the event to connect predominantly young Indigenous females with role models they can look up to and gain skills they can use for life.
The girls academies are a great initiative championed by Australian and Territory sporting identity Bo de la Cruz. As a special surprise the Australian singing sensation Jessica Mauboy, a constituent of mine, agreed to speak with the girls. As you can imagine, they were blown away when Jessica walked out to sing her latest hit single. As well as performing, Jessica talked passionately about being an Indigenous woman and how important it is to follow your dreams. Her message to the girls was clear: 'Never give up. If you have the desire to do something then just go for it.' Jessica was an inspiration and she is a perfect role model for young Territorians and, in fact, all Australians.
The girls academy initiative was created with the aim of improving educational, personal and employment outcomes for Indigenous girls. The program provides supportive programs so that all members work towards completion of year 12, employment and further education.
Congratulations to all the girls who participated in the program, and a big thank you to Jessica Mauboy for taking the time out of her hectic schedule to speak with the young women and with me.
Bass Electorate: Singfest
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I notice that Larmenier school is in the audience today. For those in the House who are not aware, Larmenier school recently won the Australian grade 6 spellathon.
But I rise today to talk about a series of schools in my electorate which participated in Singfest, a great concert for schools throughout northern Tasmania. Nine northern Tasmanian schools participated. What I found particularly amazing was that they only had one full day of rehearsals. It was magnificent to be there. Sometimes we politicians underestimate the great opportunities we have to be invited to such wonderful events as Singfest in Tasmania. It was absolutely magnificent.
I know that Larmenier school has a great choir, but they were unable to be in Singfest this year. I look forward to them being in Singfest next year. I congratulate Nelson Tabe, president of Singfest, for the work that he did to organise this wonderful event. I am confident that there are many potential musical stars in the electorate of Bass, and I look forward to their performance next year.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I notice that Larmenier school is in the audience today. For those in the House who are not aware, Larmenier school recently won the Australian grade 6 spellathon.
But I rise today to talk about a series of schools in my electorate which participated in Singfest, a great concert for schools throughout northern Tasmania. Nine northern Tasmanian schools participated. What I found particularly amazing was that they only had one full day of rehearsals. It was magnificent to be there. Sometimes we politicians underestimate the great opportunities we have to be invited to such wonderful events as Singfest in Tasmania. It was absolutely magnificent.
I know that Larmenier school has a great choir, but they were unable to be in Singfest this year. I look forward to them being in Singfest next year. I congratulate Nelson Tabe, president of Singfest, for the work that he did to organise this wonderful event. I am confident that there are many potential musical stars in the electorate of Bass, and I look forward to their performance next year.
Petition: Medicare Centre in Narellan
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:48): I rise to table a petition from concerned residents in Macarthur. This petition of 1,657 signatures draws to the attention of the House and the Minister for Health and Ageing the need for a Medicare centre in Narellan.
Macarthur's population is expected to double in the next two decades and more than 200,000 people are expected to move into the new estates and suburbs surrounding Narellan—areas such as Oran Park, Gregory Hills Elderslie, Spring Farm, Currans Hill, Mount Annan, Narellan Vale and Harrington Grove. It is imperative that as the population grows we provide new and existing residents with the necessary infrastructure and services to support this growth. The people in my electorate are calling on better access to a close-by Medicare service, and they should not be ignored.
I support the call for a Medicare centre in Narellan, in addition to the existing services in Camden and Campbelltown. In this part of my electorate there is little or no public transport and the population is ageing. Many elderly or disabled residents must rely on family members to take time off work to drive them to Medicare centres out of town. I believe that every Australian should be able to access the government services they need, especially when it comes to their health and wellbeing. Medicare Australia is an excellent service, but we need better accessibility to these services in the Macarthur region.
Residents in my electorate who are elderly, living with a disability or suffering ill health have asked for help, and they should not be ignored. I call on the government to consider opening a Medicare centre in Narellan so that the most vulnerable residents in my electorate can access the services they deserve.
I table this petition of 1,657 signatures because I believe a Medicare centre in Narellan would be a great outcome for the people of Macarthur. I table this petition and bring it to the attention of the Minister for Health and Ageing.
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned Australian citizens draws to the attention of the House the need for a Medicare Centre in Narellan. Macarthur's population is expected to double in the next two decades and more than 200,000 people are expected to move into the new estates in the suburbs surrounding Narellan.
We therefore ask the House to support this petition which would allow for a Medicare Centre to be located within the Narellan business district in addition to the existing services in Camden and Campbelltown.
from 1,657 citizens
Petition received.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:48): I rise to table a petition from concerned residents in Macarthur. This petition of 1,657 signatures draws to the attention of the House and the Minister for Health and Ageing the need for a Medicare centre in Narellan.
Macarthur's population is expected to double in the next two decades and more than 200,000 people are expected to move into the new estates and suburbs surrounding Narellan—areas such as Oran Park, Gregory Hills Elderslie, Spring Farm, Currans Hill, Mount Annan, Narellan Vale and Harrington Grove. It is imperative that as the population grows we provide new and existing residents with the necessary infrastructure and services to support this growth. The people in my electorate are calling on better access to a close-by Medicare service, and they should not be ignored.
I support the call for a Medicare centre in Narellan, in addition to the existing services in Camden and Campbelltown. In this part of my electorate there is little or no public transport and the population is ageing. Many elderly or disabled residents must rely on family members to take time off work to drive them to Medicare centres out of town. I believe that every Australian should be able to access the government services they need, especially when it comes to their health and wellbeing. Medicare Australia is an excellent service, but we need better accessibility to these services in the Macarthur region.
Residents in my electorate who are elderly, living with a disability or suffering ill health have asked for help, and they should not be ignored. I call on the government to consider opening a Medicare centre in Narellan so that the most vulnerable residents in my electorate can access the services they deserve.
I table this petition of 1,657 signatures because I believe a Medicare centre in Narellan would be a great outcome for the people of Macarthur. I table this petition and bring it to the attention of the Minister for Health and Ageing.
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned Australian citizens draws to the attention of the House the need for a Medicare Centre in Narellan. Macarthur's population is expected to double in the next two decades and more than 200,000 people are expected to move into the new estates in the suburbs surrounding Narellan.
We therefore ask the House to support this petition which would allow for a Medicare Centre to be located within the Narellan business district in addition to the existing services in Camden and Campbelltown.
from 1,657 citizens
Petition received.
Heart and Stroke Parliamentary Friendship Group
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (13:49): This morning the member for Hasluck and I, along with the heart and stroke foundations, launched the Heart and Stroke Parliamentary Friendship Group. I thank the many members and senators who attended to show their support for this extremely important issue.
Cardiovascular disease, that is heart and stroke, is the number one killer of Australians today, and the launch saw a commitment by over 70 members of parliament, senators and health department representatives to raise awareness of this very important issue whilst at the same time considering strategies to reduce heart disease and stroke.
The most important aspect of this morning's launch was that it was bipartisan. Both sides of the parliament came together to make a commitment to approach heart and stroke disease in a bipartisan way. It is very rare in this parliament that we join together and unite on an issue, but it showed that members of both sides of the House and the Senate understand that heart disease is the No. 1 killer and that we have it in our power to show leadership in the communities and electorates which we represent in this parliament. By coming together this morning with the stroke and heart foundations we showed that leadership, and I hope that it makes a real impact on people's lives.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (13:49): This morning the member for Hasluck and I, along with the heart and stroke foundations, launched the Heart and Stroke Parliamentary Friendship Group. I thank the many members and senators who attended to show their support for this extremely important issue.
Cardiovascular disease, that is heart and stroke, is the number one killer of Australians today, and the launch saw a commitment by over 70 members of parliament, senators and health department representatives to raise awareness of this very important issue whilst at the same time considering strategies to reduce heart disease and stroke.
The most important aspect of this morning's launch was that it was bipartisan. Both sides of the parliament came together to make a commitment to approach heart and stroke disease in a bipartisan way. It is very rare in this parliament that we join together and unite on an issue, but it showed that members of both sides of the House and the Senate understand that heart disease is the No. 1 killer and that we have it in our power to show leadership in the communities and electorates which we represent in this parliament. By coming together this morning with the stroke and heart foundations we showed that leadership, and I hope that it makes a real impact on people's lives.
Swan Electorate: Lynwood Village Shopping Centre
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:51): Last Thursday I held a community meeting at Lynwood Village Shopping Centre to discuss security concerns that have been raised with my office by businesses and residents.
Over the last few weeks concerned locals told me about problems at the centre, including persistent antisocial behaviour during the day and trouble at night. One business owner, who told me his staff had been abused, said many of his shoppers routinely ask to be escorted back to their cars due to the antisocial behaviour. After surveying the community it was clear that many others felt this way, with well over 200 responses expressing concerns in my community survey so far.
Lynwood Village is a very important local shopping centre for the residents of Lynwood and Ferndale. The natural barrier of the Canning River and the distance from Carousel shopping centre means that it is difficult for local residents to get to other shopping centres. As such, Lynwood Village is highly valued by the local community and it is therefore important both for businesses and residents that any issues of security be addressed. There was a good turn-out at the community meeting, and I would like to thank centre manager Guy Tristram, from Mair and Co., for addressing those who attended. Residents were able to state their concerns, and business owners had the opportunity to share theirs. City of Canning security patrols also attended to show their support, and within two minutes they were dealing with an issue outside the liquor store. I am pleased to say that the shopping centre managers announced at the meeting they will be installing security guards and looking at CCTV. The police and City of Canning patrols have pledged to step up patrols as well.
I thank everyone who attended, and I am sure the shopping centre will now become a safe environment for the community.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:51): Last Thursday I held a community meeting at Lynwood Village Shopping Centre to discuss security concerns that have been raised with my office by businesses and residents.
Over the last few weeks concerned locals told me about problems at the centre, including persistent antisocial behaviour during the day and trouble at night. One business owner, who told me his staff had been abused, said many of his shoppers routinely ask to be escorted back to their cars due to the antisocial behaviour. After surveying the community it was clear that many others felt this way, with well over 200 responses expressing concerns in my community survey so far.
Lynwood Village is a very important local shopping centre for the residents of Lynwood and Ferndale. The natural barrier of the Canning River and the distance from Carousel shopping centre means that it is difficult for local residents to get to other shopping centres. As such, Lynwood Village is highly valued by the local community and it is therefore important both for businesses and residents that any issues of security be addressed. There was a good turn-out at the community meeting, and I would like to thank centre manager Guy Tristram, from Mair and Co., for addressing those who attended. Residents were able to state their concerns, and business owners had the opportunity to share theirs. City of Canning security patrols also attended to show their support, and within two minutes they were dealing with an issue outside the liquor store. I am pleased to say that the shopping centre managers announced at the meeting they will be installing security guards and looking at CCTV. The police and City of Canning patrols have pledged to step up patrols as well.
I thank everyone who attended, and I am sure the shopping centre will now become a safe environment for the community.
Belconnen Arts Centre
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:52): There are many hidden and not so hidden gems in my electorate of Fraser. In partnership with the Belconnen Arts Centre, on 18 October I launched Mapping the Northside. Mapping the Northside is a project in which community members are invited to identify their favourite place on a two by three metre map of the Fraser electorate. Community members can mark their spot with a drawing, photograph, collage, story or poem. This can be done online or at one of three creative sessions being facilitated by local artist Maryann Mussared on 29 October at the Belconnen Arts Centre, 5 November at Gorman House and 12 November at the Gungahlin Library. At the end of the project, the map will be taken down and used as the basis for a 'people's map' of the electorate of Fraser. These great spots in the north of the ACT deserve to be shared and celebrated within the community.
I would like to thank for all their help and guidance Hannah Semler, Director of the Belconnen Arts Centre; Philip Piggin; Evol McLeod; and Alyssa Hardy. A special mention also goes to Gus Little from my office for his hard work on this project.
Mapping the Northside runs until 17 November, and I cannot wait to see the precious gems that are unearthed.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:52): There are many hidden and not so hidden gems in my electorate of Fraser. In partnership with the Belconnen Arts Centre, on 18 October I launched Mapping the Northside. Mapping the Northside is a project in which community members are invited to identify their favourite place on a two by three metre map of the Fraser electorate. Community members can mark their spot with a drawing, photograph, collage, story or poem. This can be done online or at one of three creative sessions being facilitated by local artist Maryann Mussared on 29 October at the Belconnen Arts Centre, 5 November at Gorman House and 12 November at the Gungahlin Library. At the end of the project, the map will be taken down and used as the basis for a 'people's map' of the electorate of Fraser. These great spots in the north of the ACT deserve to be shared and celebrated within the community.
I would like to thank for all their help and guidance Hannah Semler, Director of the Belconnen Arts Centre; Philip Piggin; Evol McLeod; and Alyssa Hardy. A special mention also goes to Gus Little from my office for his hard work on this project.
Mapping the Northside runs until 17 November, and I cannot wait to see the precious gems that are unearthed.
Australian Volunteers Overseas
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:53): I had the pleasure recently of formally thanking nine Australians for their work as volunteers abroad. I had the pleasure of being joined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at a ceremony in my office several weeks ago to present certificates to those volunteers as appreciation for the work that they have done in various countries around the world, and particularly in the Pacific. The certificates formally acknowledged the volunteers' contribution to the Australian overseas aid program and represent a very sincere thanks from the nation for their service.
The recipients of these certificates of appreciation were Melanie Arnost, Ron Brown, Anthony Dundon, Lou Fornasier, Juana Katzer, Deborah Ralf, Alexandra Robertson, Brock Schaefer and Arthur Wynn. These volunteers have worked in places such as Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Mongolia, Thailand and Cambodia. Many of the people in these developing countries were greatly appreciative of the work of these volunteers, and the work that they have done has been a great credit to Australia. Speaking to them during that event, they shared their experiences, they shared what they got out of it, and they said they thoroughly enjoyed it.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:53): I had the pleasure recently of formally thanking nine Australians for their work as volunteers abroad. I had the pleasure of being joined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at a ceremony in my office several weeks ago to present certificates to those volunteers as appreciation for the work that they have done in various countries around the world, and particularly in the Pacific. The certificates formally acknowledged the volunteers' contribution to the Australian overseas aid program and represent a very sincere thanks from the nation for their service.
The recipients of these certificates of appreciation were Melanie Arnost, Ron Brown, Anthony Dundon, Lou Fornasier, Juana Katzer, Deborah Ralf, Alexandra Robertson, Brock Schaefer and Arthur Wynn. These volunteers have worked in places such as Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Mongolia, Thailand and Cambodia. Many of the people in these developing countries were greatly appreciative of the work of these volunteers, and the work that they have done has been a great credit to Australia. Speaking to them during that event, they shared their experiences, they shared what they got out of it, and they said they thoroughly enjoyed it.
Cardinia Primary School
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (13:55): Last Friday I was delighted to visit Cardinia Primary School to formally open their new facilities constructed under our Building the Education Revolution program. Having visited the school during its construction, it was marvellous to see the finished product and the great use that the children, teachers and other staff were already getting from the building.
I was particularly pleased to be there last Friday, as this week the school celebrates its 100th anniversary. Its original buildings are still being put to great use and have been restored to their original glory with funding from the National School Pride Program. The BER project at Cardinia Primary School will update the school's facilities for a new century. This includes a new outdoor learning area and a new library, and the project as a whole supported the employment of approximately 102 workers—exactly what Labor tried to achieve with the stimulus plan it put in place. It has considerably improved the learning environment for students and has really taken on the personality of the Cardinia Primary School.
I have seen firsthand the pride the school community takes in their school and the tremendous efforts by parents who have assisted with the new works, including making cabinets for the new facilities, producing impressive murals and developing the school's gardens. I congratulate school principal Allan Armstrong, the students, the parents and the teachers at Cardinia Primary School on the occasion of the school's 100th anniversary. I am sure the school will still be standing and making a very substantial contribution to our local community in another 100 years.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (13:55): Last Friday I was delighted to visit Cardinia Primary School to formally open their new facilities constructed under our Building the Education Revolution program. Having visited the school during its construction, it was marvellous to see the finished product and the great use that the children, teachers and other staff were already getting from the building.
I was particularly pleased to be there last Friday, as this week the school celebrates its 100th anniversary. Its original buildings are still being put to great use and have been restored to their original glory with funding from the National School Pride Program. The BER project at Cardinia Primary School will update the school's facilities for a new century. This includes a new outdoor learning area and a new library, and the project as a whole supported the employment of approximately 102 workers—exactly what Labor tried to achieve with the stimulus plan it put in place. It has considerably improved the learning environment for students and has really taken on the personality of the Cardinia Primary School.
I have seen firsthand the pride the school community takes in their school and the tremendous efforts by parents who have assisted with the new works, including making cabinets for the new facilities, producing impressive murals and developing the school's gardens. I congratulate school principal Allan Armstrong, the students, the parents and the teachers at Cardinia Primary School on the occasion of the school's 100th anniversary. I am sure the school will still be standing and making a very substantial contribution to our local community in another 100 years.
Airlie Beach
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:56): Residents of the Whitsundays are fed up with not being listened to by their local council and the state government. This time we have had local Mayor Michael Brunker, his council and state Labor MP Jan Jarratt all pushing for a land swap on the Airlie Beach foreshore, against the community's wishes.
The proposed land swap is an unnecessary by-product of the very welcome redevelopment of the Airlie Beach main street. Part of that redevelopment, which could be relooked at, is a mainly aesthetic curved deviation in the road. This curve will not only be quite costly but will result in the resumption of a business, necessitating either compensation or a land swap for the business owner. The council has moved in favour of a land swap, suggesting public land on the Airlie foreshore be exchanged and a four-storey building be located on that bit of land.
Today the Whitsunday Times reports that Jan Jarratt is backing that proposal. Well, this flies in the face of community opposition to the plan. It is opposed by the Save Our Foreshore group and it is opposed by the Whitsunday Ratepayers Association, who conducted a survey showing that 86 per cent of respondents were opposed to the foreshore land swap.
Because this project has federal funding, I will be writing to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government requesting he ensure council conducts a survey on the land swap and heeds that survey's results. After all, federal government funding for regional development should be used on projects which have the regional community's support. The people of the Whitsundays must be listened to.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:56): Residents of the Whitsundays are fed up with not being listened to by their local council and the state government. This time we have had local Mayor Michael Brunker, his council and state Labor MP Jan Jarratt all pushing for a land swap on the Airlie Beach foreshore, against the community's wishes.
The proposed land swap is an unnecessary by-product of the very welcome redevelopment of the Airlie Beach main street. Part of that redevelopment, which could be relooked at, is a mainly aesthetic curved deviation in the road. This curve will not only be quite costly but will result in the resumption of a business, necessitating either compensation or a land swap for the business owner. The council has moved in favour of a land swap, suggesting public land on the Airlie foreshore be exchanged and a four-storey building be located on that bit of land.
Today the Whitsunday Times reports that Jan Jarratt is backing that proposal. Well, this flies in the face of community opposition to the plan. It is opposed by the Save Our Foreshore group and it is opposed by the Whitsunday Ratepayers Association, who conducted a survey showing that 86 per cent of respondents were opposed to the foreshore land swap.
Because this project has federal funding, I will be writing to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government requesting he ensure council conducts a survey on the land swap and heeds that survey's results. After all, federal government funding for regional development should be used on projects which have the regional community's support. The people of the Whitsundays must be listened to.
Atherton, Gwenneth and George
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:58): I rise today to acknowledge and thank Gwenneth and George Atherton for their significant and enduring contribution to the Canberra community, particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley. A few months ago I held a mobile office at the Lanyon Marketplace in my electorate and had the pleasure of meeting Gwenneth and George.
Every week for 12 years, Gwenneth and George have been setting up a stall at the marketplace selling handmade goods to raise money for local charities. Originally, the stall raised money for local girl Amy Woodhouse, who was battling cerebral palsy. The stall now raises money for the Malkara School in my electorate, and the funds have allowed the school to buy a talking machine and wheelchair.
But these two semi-retirees do not only devote their Saturdays to their community. Six years ago they set up a seniors group at the Mura Lanyon Community Centre at a time when there was nothing for aged Canberrans in the Lanyon area. The group now boasts about 40 members, and it is going from strength to strength. The group holds meetings, celebrates birthdays and organises events, which I have been emphatically told are all about education.
Gwenneth and George moved to Canberra 19 years ago. They originally came for six weeks, then ended up staying—and we are glad they did. On behalf of the Canberra community, particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley and Lanyon, I would like to thank and congratulate Gwenneth and George for their contribution and ongoing commitment to enriching the lives of so many.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:58): I rise today to acknowledge and thank Gwenneth and George Atherton for their significant and enduring contribution to the Canberra community, particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley. A few months ago I held a mobile office at the Lanyon Marketplace in my electorate and had the pleasure of meeting Gwenneth and George.
Every week for 12 years, Gwenneth and George have been setting up a stall at the marketplace selling handmade goods to raise money for local charities. Originally, the stall raised money for local girl Amy Woodhouse, who was battling cerebral palsy. The stall now raises money for the Malkara School in my electorate, and the funds have allowed the school to buy a talking machine and wheelchair.
But these two semi-retirees do not only devote their Saturdays to their community. Six years ago they set up a seniors group at the Mura Lanyon Community Centre at a time when there was nothing for aged Canberrans in the Lanyon area. The group now boasts about 40 members, and it is going from strength to strength. The group holds meetings, celebrates birthdays and organises events, which I have been emphatically told are all about education.
Gwenneth and George moved to Canberra 19 years ago. They originally came for six weeks, then ended up staying—and we are glad they did. On behalf of the Canberra community, particularly in the Tuggeranong Valley and Lanyon, I would like to thank and congratulate Gwenneth and George for their contribution and ongoing commitment to enriching the lives of so many.
Royal Life Saving National Drowning Report
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:59): The Royal Life Saving National drowning report2011 has recently been released. Tragically, last year 315 deaths occurred in Australian waterways, and it is uncertain whether we will reach the Water Safety Council's target to reduce the number of drowning deaths by 50 per cent by the year 2020 as the drowning death toll has continued to rise over the last three consecutive years. Thirty per cent of the deaths this year were in Queensland, a concerning figure for my home state. Queensland has such a vibrant beach-going and water-loving lifestyle, so the need for increased awareness of safety requirements is paramount, particularly coming into summer. We have seen the number of young people drowning decrease by 15 per cent on previous years, so the message of water safety is clearly resonating with families, but worryingly the 2010-11 year showed the majority of deaths to be in the 65 years plus age group. A key issue affecting many elderly people is underlying medical conditions, so the Royal Life Saving Society has recommended in this report that people over the age of 55 get regular medical check-ups, particularly prior to getting involved in any water based activities. I agree with the message and of course want to see all Australians engaged in water safety.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:59): The Royal Life Saving National drowning report2011 has recently been released. Tragically, last year 315 deaths occurred in Australian waterways, and it is uncertain whether we will reach the Water Safety Council's target to reduce the number of drowning deaths by 50 per cent by the year 2020 as the drowning death toll has continued to rise over the last three consecutive years. Thirty per cent of the deaths this year were in Queensland, a concerning figure for my home state. Queensland has such a vibrant beach-going and water-loving lifestyle, so the need for increased awareness of safety requirements is paramount, particularly coming into summer. We have seen the number of young people drowning decrease by 15 per cent on previous years, so the message of water safety is clearly resonating with families, but worryingly the 2010-11 year showed the majority of deaths to be in the 65 years plus age group. A key issue affecting many elderly people is underlying medical conditions, so the Royal Life Saving Society has recommended in this report that people over the age of 55 get regular medical check-ups, particularly prior to getting involved in any water based activities. I agree with the message and of course want to see all Australians engaged in water safety.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Duffy, Captain Bryce
Birt, Corporal Ashley
Gavin, Lance Corporal Luke
Report from Main Committee
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 29 October 2011 of Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin during combat operations in Afghanistan, place on record its appreciation of their service to their country and tender its profound sympathy to their families in their bereavement.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
Report from Main Committee
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 29 October 2011 of Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin during combat operations in Afghanistan, place on record its appreciation of their service to their country and tender its profound sympathy to their families in their bereavement.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. At a time when the Australian government has net debt of $107 billion and a deficit approaching $50 billion, why is the government planning to provide money it does not have to prop up the Eurozone, which is the world's largest economy?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:02): I am quite disappointed in that question from the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, the implication in the question is completely inaccurate; we have come to expect that. But what we have seen in the last 24 hours, particularly from the shadow Treasurer, is that the bipartisan support for the IMF that has spanned conservative and Labor governments over something like 60 years has now been broken. How low will they go? They should know, because this was the practice when they were in government, that any loans made to the IMF are repaid with interest. That was the situation under conservative governments and it is the situation under this government.
Secondly, and this is more important, the government is not proposing to put any money into a European rescue fund. That is just false—completely false. What we have seen is a xenophobic approach, particularly in the last 24 hours, by the shadow Treasurer, who has been out there blowing the dog whistle that somehow Australia was going to be propping up Greece. Well, we are not. But what we are going to proudly do is meet our commitments to the IMF, as governments of both political persuasions have done for over 60 years.
There is a very serious situation in the global economy at the moment. Whilst our fundamentals are strong, Australia is not immune from the fallout of these events in Europe and also in the United States. It is a difficult situation when two of the big global groupings in the economy are misfiring. That does have consequences for Australia. What we have said and what other G20 finance ministers have said—and I am sure other G20 leaders are saying it as we meet today—is that the world will meet its obligations through the IMF to ensure that the IMF has the capacity in the future to deal with greater global volatility which flows from Europe.
Around the world, conservative governments favour that approach, governments of our persuasion favour that approach and governments of the persuasion of those opposite have favoured that approach: giving the IMF the resources that it needs. The IMF does not have the capacity to contribute directly to any European fund, but what I have said and what the Prime Minister has said is that the IMF must be properly resourced for the future because we are entering into a period of great volatility which brings threats to the global economy and Australia is not immune from those threats. We will pay our fair share through the IMF, as we have always done, but that will be by way of loans, which are repaid with interest.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Acting Prime Minister confident that Europe in general and Greece in particular have put their economic houses in order? If not, isn't the contribution that the government proposes to make throwing good money after bad?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:06): What is really disturbing is that there is a falsehood at the heart of this question. That falsehood is this: that we support the IMF with loans, which are always repaid with interest. The Leader of the Opposition asked me if I was confident that the Europeans were going to solve their problems. I have been to G20 finance ministers meetings, I have been to the IMF and World Bank meetings, I have been back to G20 finance ministers meetings in the past month, and that is because we have been so worried about the consequences for the global economy of a meltdown in the European economy. What offends me by those questions from the Leader of the Opposition is he has not got the wit to understand what a threat that is to global living standards and what a flow-on effect that will have to our economy and to living standards in this country. He is so bereft of economic knowledge he fails to understand that basic economic fact.
What he wants to do is to go for cheap populism and somehow claim that we are going to be throwing good money after bad in Europe. We are not going to be doing that, but what we will do is meet our obligations to the international community, as we met the obligations to the international community during the global financial crisis and as we met the obligations to our own citizens during the global financial crisis. There would have been hundreds of thousands of Australians unemployed if the Liberal Party had had their way during the global financial crisis, but we supported our economy and the consequence of that is that we have one of the strongest developed economies in the world. Really, what he is saying now is that he goes for the scorched earth approach in economics; he does not care if demand falls off a cliff and hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed. Globally now there are over 200 million people unemployed and, if these events in Europe take a turn for the worse, there will be many more. We know in this country that we have the economic strength to handle the fallout and we have the moral strength to say that we will put our hand up for the international institutions that can make a difference. We will support the IMF, as we will support multilateral institutions as governments of their persuasions used to do.
Mining
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:09): My question is to the acting Prime Minister. Will the acting Prime Minister update the House on the importance of spreading the opportunities of the mining boom to all corners of our economy?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:09): I do thank the member for Capricornia for that very important question because she does represent an area in this country which is producing an enormous amount of wealth for Australia and, like many other mineral-producing regions and resource-producing regions, that region suffers the stresses that come with the mining boom, as well as many of the great benefits. What this side of the House is really proud of is that we have put forward a landmark Labor reform, which makes sure that very profitable mining companies, superprofitable mining companies are returning some of those superprofits to the Australian people for the resources the Australian people own 100 per cent and which can only be mined once.
We are proud of what we are doing in this House to ensure that we then spread the benefits of that boom to every corner of our economy, because we do have a strong but a patchwork economy in Australia. Not every small business and not every family is in the fast lane of the resources boom. The whole idea of resource rent taxation is to take those superprofits and give a hand to those people who are not in the fast lane. The first place we can do that is with a very significant tax cut for small business—2.7 million small businesses right around Australia getting the benefit of the $6,500 instant asset write-off, a huge boost to the cash flow of small businesses right around this country. They are looking forward to that.
We will also invest in infrastructure in many of these regions where they are really pressed for roads and other social infrastructure through strong population growth. We are doing this particularly in Western Australia and other places where the mining industry is strong, like the Illawarra or the Hunter in New South Wales and in Queensland—taking the benefits of the boom, spreading them around the country. The thing we are most proud of is investing in the superannuation of Australian workers. That is just fantastic: building the savings of Australian workers, particularly low-income-earning workers; 8.4 million individual sovereign wealth funds all benefiting from our changes to superannuation. And who is opposing this? Those opposite—Dr No over there, no to everything. They do not think it is good to use the superprofits to assist people who are not in the fast lane. Now that the legislation has come into the House—and they are going to oppose it—they are arguing for a tax increase for small business. They are arguing for lower superannuation savings for Australian workers. This just shows how out of touch they are, how economically illiterate they are and how completely incapable they are of running a modern economy.
International Monetary Fund
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:12): My question is to the acting Prime Minister. I refer him to the words of George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons last week, when he said:
I confirm today that Britain will not put its resources in either. We do not have a surplus; we have a large deficit … An active member of the IMF? Yes. Helping the IMF with advice and technical support? Yes. But the IMF contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. And Britain contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. That is Britain’s clear position.
Acting Prime Minister, is that Australia's clear position as well?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:13): Australia's position is that we will support an expansion of IMF funds under the principles and guidelines used by the IMF, but the IMF will not be contributing to a European rescue fund in the way in which the shadow Treasurer has indicated today.
Economy
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. At a time when the Australian government has net debt of $107 billion and a deficit approaching $50 billion, why is the government planning to provide money it does not have to prop up the Eurozone, which is the world's largest economy?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:02): I am quite disappointed in that question from the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, the implication in the question is completely inaccurate; we have come to expect that. But what we have seen in the last 24 hours, particularly from the shadow Treasurer, is that the bipartisan support for the IMF that has spanned conservative and Labor governments over something like 60 years has now been broken. How low will they go? They should know, because this was the practice when they were in government, that any loans made to the IMF are repaid with interest. That was the situation under conservative governments and it is the situation under this government.
Secondly, and this is more important, the government is not proposing to put any money into a European rescue fund. That is just false—completely false. What we have seen is a xenophobic approach, particularly in the last 24 hours, by the shadow Treasurer, who has been out there blowing the dog whistle that somehow Australia was going to be propping up Greece. Well, we are not. But what we are going to proudly do is meet our commitments to the IMF, as governments of both political persuasions have done for over 60 years.
There is a very serious situation in the global economy at the moment. Whilst our fundamentals are strong, Australia is not immune from the fallout of these events in Europe and also in the United States. It is a difficult situation when two of the big global groupings in the economy are misfiring. That does have consequences for Australia. What we have said and what other G20 finance ministers have said—and I am sure other G20 leaders are saying it as we meet today—is that the world will meet its obligations through the IMF to ensure that the IMF has the capacity in the future to deal with greater global volatility which flows from Europe.
Around the world, conservative governments favour that approach, governments of our persuasion favour that approach and governments of the persuasion of those opposite have favoured that approach: giving the IMF the resources that it needs. The IMF does not have the capacity to contribute directly to any European fund, but what I have said and what the Prime Minister has said is that the IMF must be properly resourced for the future because we are entering into a period of great volatility which brings threats to the global economy and Australia is not immune from those threats. We will pay our fair share through the IMF, as we have always done, but that will be by way of loans, which are repaid with interest.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Acting Prime Minister confident that Europe in general and Greece in particular have put their economic houses in order? If not, isn't the contribution that the government proposes to make throwing good money after bad?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:06): What is really disturbing is that there is a falsehood at the heart of this question. That falsehood is this: that we support the IMF with loans, which are always repaid with interest. The Leader of the Opposition asked me if I was confident that the Europeans were going to solve their problems. I have been to G20 finance ministers meetings, I have been to the IMF and World Bank meetings, I have been back to G20 finance ministers meetings in the past month, and that is because we have been so worried about the consequences for the global economy of a meltdown in the European economy. What offends me by those questions from the Leader of the Opposition is he has not got the wit to understand what a threat that is to global living standards and what a flow-on effect that will have to our economy and to living standards in this country. He is so bereft of economic knowledge he fails to understand that basic economic fact.
What he wants to do is to go for cheap populism and somehow claim that we are going to be throwing good money after bad in Europe. We are not going to be doing that, but what we will do is meet our obligations to the international community, as we met the obligations to the international community during the global financial crisis and as we met the obligations to our own citizens during the global financial crisis. There would have been hundreds of thousands of Australians unemployed if the Liberal Party had had their way during the global financial crisis, but we supported our economy and the consequence of that is that we have one of the strongest developed economies in the world. Really, what he is saying now is that he goes for the scorched earth approach in economics; he does not care if demand falls off a cliff and hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed. Globally now there are over 200 million people unemployed and, if these events in Europe take a turn for the worse, there will be many more. We know in this country that we have the economic strength to handle the fallout and we have the moral strength to say that we will put our hand up for the international institutions that can make a difference. We will support the IMF, as we will support multilateral institutions as governments of their persuasions used to do.
Mining
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:09): My question is to the acting Prime Minister. Will the acting Prime Minister update the House on the importance of spreading the opportunities of the mining boom to all corners of our economy?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:09): I do thank the member for Capricornia for that very important question because she does represent an area in this country which is producing an enormous amount of wealth for Australia and, like many other mineral-producing regions and resource-producing regions, that region suffers the stresses that come with the mining boom, as well as many of the great benefits. What this side of the House is really proud of is that we have put forward a landmark Labor reform, which makes sure that very profitable mining companies, superprofitable mining companies are returning some of those superprofits to the Australian people for the resources the Australian people own 100 per cent and which can only be mined once.
We are proud of what we are doing in this House to ensure that we then spread the benefits of that boom to every corner of our economy, because we do have a strong but a patchwork economy in Australia. Not every small business and not every family is in the fast lane of the resources boom. The whole idea of resource rent taxation is to take those superprofits and give a hand to those people who are not in the fast lane. The first place we can do that is with a very significant tax cut for small business—2.7 million small businesses right around Australia getting the benefit of the $6,500 instant asset write-off, a huge boost to the cash flow of small businesses right around this country. They are looking forward to that.
We will also invest in infrastructure in many of these regions where they are really pressed for roads and other social infrastructure through strong population growth. We are doing this particularly in Western Australia and other places where the mining industry is strong, like the Illawarra or the Hunter in New South Wales and in Queensland—taking the benefits of the boom, spreading them around the country. The thing we are most proud of is investing in the superannuation of Australian workers. That is just fantastic: building the savings of Australian workers, particularly low-income-earning workers; 8.4 million individual sovereign wealth funds all benefiting from our changes to superannuation. And who is opposing this? Those opposite—Dr No over there, no to everything. They do not think it is good to use the superprofits to assist people who are not in the fast lane. Now that the legislation has come into the House—and they are going to oppose it—they are arguing for a tax increase for small business. They are arguing for lower superannuation savings for Australian workers. This just shows how out of touch they are, how economically illiterate they are and how completely incapable they are of running a modern economy.
International Monetary Fund
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:12): My question is to the acting Prime Minister. I refer him to the words of George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons last week, when he said:
I confirm today that Britain will not put its resources in either. We do not have a surplus; we have a large deficit … An active member of the IMF? Yes. Helping the IMF with advice and technical support? Yes. But the IMF contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. And Britain contributing money to the eurozone bail-out fund? No. That is Britain’s clear position.
Acting Prime Minister, is that Australia's clear position as well?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:13): Australia's position is that we will support an expansion of IMF funds under the principles and guidelines used by the IMF, but the IMF will not be contributing to a European rescue fund in the way in which the shadow Treasurer has indicated today.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:14): Order! I inform the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon Don Cameron, a member of this place for more than 33 years as the former member for Griffith, a former member for Fadden and a former member for Moreton. On behalf of the House I extend to Don a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, Hear!
The SPEAKER (14:14): Order! I inform the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon Don Cameron, a member of this place for more than 33 years as the former member for Griffith, a former member for Fadden and a former member for Moreton. On behalf of the House I extend to Don a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, Hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Qantas
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (14:14): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Would the minister update the House on the current state of the Qantas industrial dispute? How is the government helping Australians affected by the Qantas decision to lock out its workforce and to ground its fleet?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:14): This government's priority when we were informed about the lockout of the workforce and the grounding of the fleet on Saturday was to go to Fair Work Australia and to make sure that we got Qantas back up in the air, because this was not just a lockout of its workforce, it was a lockout of its customers. It is a bit like Telstra having a disagreement with one of its unions and shutting down the telecommunications industry. It is like one of the energy companies, because it is having a problem with one of the unions, turning off the lights and shutting down the power system. It is like one of the water companies having a problem with one of its unions and shutting off the water system. That is why this government thinks that this was an irresponsible and extreme action and why we are so surprised that those opposite have shown their ideological obsession by saying not one word of criticism against Qantas.
The parties now, as a result of our action, have 21 days to bargain. We are of the view that parties should talk to each other and settle an agreement rather than engage in militant action, whether it be by employers or employees—either way we oppose. I am advised that Qantas and the pilots have already had one meeting before Fair Work Australia this week. The licensed engineers will meet with Qantas before Fair Work Australia next Monday to continue their negotiations. The Transport Workers Union and Qantas will return to Fair Work Australia next Tuesday. This is a good thing—that we have bargaining in good faith.
It is important to note that Fair Work Australia found that there were good prospects for agreement between the parties prior to Qantas's decision to lock out its workforce and ground its fleet. So I encourage all parties and, indeed, have spoken to all parties to encourage them to get this deal done in the interests of this important, iconic Australian company, in the interests of its workforce and in the national interest. Of course, that has been our approach the whole way through.
The shadow Treasurer confirmed on the 7.30 program that he knew that Qantas was considering a lockout of its workforce. When asked when he was told, he said: 'Well, I can't recall. Well, I can't recall.' That was his position when told about an action that would be of such damage to the Australian economy—he could not recall when he was told. It is not surprising that he cannot find the $70 billion, that he cannot find a policy on anything at all—
The SPEAKER: The minister will relate his remarks to the question.
Mr ALBANESE: Today he objected to debating the minerals resource rent tax because he thought it was a new idea he did not see coming. They actually tried to adjourn the debate because they could not see it coming.
Our priority is for all parties, and I call upon them to do it, to bargain in good faith—Qantas and the unions—and make sure they get these arrangements agreed in the interests of themselves and in the interests of the nation.
Interest Rates
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:18): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the fact the banks have now ignored the Treasurer's warnings on interest rate movements on 51 occasions. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to his statement yesterday that the decision by the National Australia Bank not to pass on the full interest rate cut was 'a kick in the guts to working families' and 'a greedy decision from the NAB'. Did the Acting Prime Minister convey these views to Dr Ken Henry who, along with being on the personal staff of the Prime Minister, is also on the board of the NAB?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:19): The decision by the NAB not to pass on the Reserve Bank rate cut in full was a greedy decision. It is completely and utterly unjustified by any of the fundamentals when it comes to their borrowing requirements. I conveyed my view directly to the chief executive, Mr Cameron Clyne. I passed it on a very directly. I did not only make my views public, I put them privately as well—as I have done when, on other occasions, banks have done that. And I will continue to do that when I believe these decisions are unjustified.
The reason the government has put in place a comprehensive package of banking reforms is to enable customers that are unhappy with their bank to go down the road—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Acting Prime Minister will respond to the question.
Mr SWAN: I know they are not interested in competition in the banking system but I will go on and talk about the government's proposals, which are currently being implemented, to make sure our banking system is much more competitive. One of the reforms that we put in place which has been opposed by those opposite is the abolition of mortgage exit fees. The shadow Treasurer opposed our proposition to abolish mortgage exit fees, which has led to a reduction of mortgage exit fees and the abolition of mortgage exit fees by the National Australia Bank. So, in these circumstances, if you have a mortgage with the NAB and you are unhappy with their decision you can walk down the road as a result of reforms this government has put in place.
Mr Hockey: Everyone else is more expensive!
Mr SWAN: Come in spinner! The interjection was that they have a lower rate. They do not have a lower rate than many other financial institutions: there are plenty of credit unions out there with a lower rate than the NAB. If their customers are unhappy they can walk down the road and get a better rate.
Mining
Mr CROOK (O'Connor) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the government's mining tax which was negotiated in secret with the three biggest mining companies—BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata—to the exclusion of the rest of the industry. In particular I refer to the government's revenue projections which are based on secret data and secret assumptions and which directly contradict industry projections. I ask the Treasurer, firstly: why are you not prepared to guarantee in legislation that the rest of the industry will not pay the tax earlier than the big three? Secondly: why are you not prepared to guarantee in legislation that the rest of the industry will not pay the tax at a higher rate than those big three companies that helped design the tax?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:23): We should call a spade a spade. The fact is that there is a completely unjustified campaign, run by a number of organisations that describe themselves as 'smaller miners', that somehow this tax discriminates against small miners. This tax does not discriminate against small miners and it will be paid predominantly by very large miners. Mr Forrest is here today, and he was part of a press conference, and he claims to be a small miner. He has a $20 billion company! A $20 billion company is not a small miner.
We made a range of changes to the tax over a period of time in what has been probably the most open and transparent process that any piece of tax legislation has ever been put through. We went through the Ferguson-Argus review, and there were comprehensive submissions made right through that process. It has been through two rounds of consultation through the tax office. But let us get rid of this bunkum that the tax somehow discriminates against small miners. It does not. We have even put in a new threshold where it is not paid under $50 million and it phases out through to $100 million. This is complete rubbish. As far as Mr Forrest is concerned, when he put on the public record all of the changes he wanted, on 29 June last year, we implemented every single one of them.
Mr Crook: Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: I simply asked for a guarantee in legislation. If that is no, the Treasurer could say that.
The SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister will respond in a directly relevant manner to the question.
Mr SWAN: We have been through a comprehensive process of consultation on this legislation, and there are some who are unhappy about it because the truth is that they do not want to pay any tax. They want to mine the mineral, which is owned 100 per cent by Australians, which can only be dug up once, which has gone to record prices, and they do not want the Australian people to get a fair return. The consequence of that is that struggling small businesses right around this country will pay more and there will be less in the superannuation savings of millions of workers. That is what they stand for, and that is what those on that side of the House stand for. They have always stood with vested interest. We stand for working families.
Workplace Relations
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. How does the Fair Work Act ensure that the government can act quickly and in the national interest during an industrial relations crisis? How does this compare with the system it replaced?
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (14:27): I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. She, like all of those who sit on this side of the House, was delighted when the Rudd government was able to replace the discredited Work Choices legislation with the Fair Work Act—an act that brought dignity and fairness back into the industrial relations system and brought a structure to the system where negotiations broke down. Why has it been important for the economy? This week has been a classic example as to why. By utilising the Fair Work Act and by moving decisively and quickly, we got Qantas back in the air again. That required two things. It required an act that gave us the framework, but it also required a government that was prepared to make the right decision at the right time.
I contrast that with the circumstances which would have existed had those who sit opposite been in power at the time. Not only would there not have been an act that provided that framework; the actions of those who sit opposite would have been to let the dispute run on. We know that the member for North Sydney has admitted to knowing weeks in advance that Qantas was planning to lock out its workforce and ground its air fleet, but he said nothing. There was the Australian government acting in the national interest as soon as it knew what Qantas's intentions were, and the member for North Sydney was sitting it out—grubby political interests, hoping that this dispute would worsen and impact upon the economy and thereby the government.
I had the opportunity to listen to the member's personal explanation yesterday in relation to his view about how decisively they moved when they were in office. I refer back to the Tristar dispute, and I will remind members of the true facts of this dispute. This was a prolonged dispute that had been running for 18 months. The employer's strategy was to let the collective bargain expire so that they would not be required to pay workers' entitlements—run down the clock. That government failed to do anything in those circumstances. I am asked how it compares with the system we replaced, and I am giving an example of that. The intervention that the member for North Sydney talked about was in relation to one person, a man that was dying. He did get his worker entitlements for him, but not for the whole of the workforce. They refused to act in so many circumstances under their legislation, under their system, to protect workers' entitlements. The only time they acted was in relation to the then Prime Minister's brother's company, National Textiles. Remember? Not Tristar, not the coal industry, only National Textiles.
That was a government that would not support workers' entitlements. When it came to intervening under their system, let me say what was on the record in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The company, Tristar, stood by a memo written after the meeting with Mr Hockey in which it quotes, 'It wanted this issue sorted out and implied that, if we did not, there would be ramifications.' They would sack the workforce and replace it. (Time expired)
Broadband
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:31): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the Economist Intelligence Unit's recent broadband report which confirmed that the NBN project is the most expensive, most anti-competitive broadband policy in the world, making Greece look like a model of frugality and China a beacon of competitive markets. Can the Acting Prime Minister explain how this will make broadband more affordable and Australia more productive? Doesn't Australia deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:32): There is a very simple answer to that question because the report, which I have read, from the Economist Intelligence Unit is not worth the paper it is written on.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Acting Prime Minister will resume his seat until the House comes to order.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for North Sydney is warned.
Mr SWAN: They got it wrong. The fact is that we had produced—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SWAN: Well, it is a fact.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt is now warned. The House will come to order.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dickson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Dickson then left the chamber.
Mr SWAN: I know those opposite think we live in a post-fact world. That is demonstrated in here every day of the week when it comes to basic facts about the economy, about levels of borrowing, about the IMF, about the NBN and about just about anything else. On this occasion they want to quote one report, but the evidence is contradicted by just about every other reputable report on the NBN that has been done around the world. I will quote someone that they like to quote occasionally, Mr Alan Kohler. He said:
Not only will the NBN not be a white elephant it will almost certainly prove to be a great investment. In fact, without wishing to get carried away … it could represent, on its own, a huge national savings plan. When it's finished the asset will be worth several times the government's investment of $27.5 billion.
End of story.
Mining
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Minister, how is the government ensuring the benefits of the mining boom are spread throughout the Australian economy?
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (14:36): I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. She, more than most members in this House, understands the importance of the mining boom and also appreciates, due to the diverse nature of the South Coast of New South Wales, the impact it is having on other sections of her local community.
The member for Cunningham is very supportive of the fact that, at the moment, mining industry companies in Australia are actually making record profits. The message she has received from the Australian community, which was under the pump because of the impact of the resources sector on the broader community, is that the rest of the community actually needs a helping hand. That is what the debate on the mining tax is about. It is about how we spread the benefit of this boom to the broader Australian community. That is not about stifling investment.
The record speaks for itself. Contrary to the arguments presented by the coalition in this House today, there is no sovereign risk. In Australia at the moment, $430 billion is planned or committed to capital investment. Look at the skyrocketing of investment—from $35 billion in 2009-10 to an expected $80 billion in 2011-12. And there is more significant investment to come Australia's way. It is built off the back of record commodity prices and good profits—and we are very, very pleased for those companies.
But the time has come to spread these benefits to ensure, for example, that we assist the tourism industry. That is not to deny that there is going to continue to be job growth in the mining sector. Importantly, jobs growth in the mining sector has continued, with almost 30,000 jobs created in 2010-11. It is also expected that at least 70,000 new operational jobs will be created in the mining sector by 2015. That is good for young people seeking a terrific career opportunity.
But we also have to make sure that we look after small business. I find it amazing that the coalition is opposed to cutting taxation for small businesses, many of which actually operate in the tourism sector I have responsibility for, and is actually willing to vote against giving them some assistance in the purchase of new capital equipment. Why should they not have that assistance, given the huge impact that the strength of the Australian dollar is having on them at the moment, both in terms of international visitation and the fact that so many Australians are doing well and are going overseas for a holiday? We have to make sure that we assist small business through this change in mining taxation.
More importantly, it is supported by many, many mining companies in Australia, because in some ways they are embarrassed by the profits they are receiving at the moment and they think it is their social responsibility to spread the benefits to the Australian community. It would also mean that we would have the capacity to invest in infrastructure which is not only important to the resources sector but also important to the tourism sector. The Gateway project in Western Australia to improve airport access is a prime example of benefits going not only to the resources sector but to the whole Australian community.
In conclusion, it is about time the coalition fronted up to its social responsibilities to ensure that all Australians get a fair share of this once-in-a-century opportunity, this resources boom. Step back and review your position and do not be so antagonistic to sharing these benefits and so denying small business and those sections of the Australian community who are actually doing it a little bit tough at this point in our history.
Carbon Pricing
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14: 40): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the Canadian Foreign Minister's categorical statement last week that Canada and the United States will not introduce a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. Given that the government's modelling of the impact of the carbon tax lies entirely on the introduction of similar schemes across the world, how can the Acting Prime Minister continue to claim the government's modelling is credible, or is he suggesting the Canadian Foreign Minister is wrong?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:37): I would have thought it was very clear: we have a different policy from the Canadians. There are a few points that ought to be made here, because the context of the question is the assertion that somehow there is no carbon pricing in Canada, which is simply untrue. The Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Quebec already have carbon taxes. We did not hear any mention of that and of course we do not hear any mention of those states in the United States which are putting in place carbon pricing. This is what I meant before when I said they live in a post-fact world. They simply try to ignore the basic facts when it comes to any issue, because what they want to do is to simply play politics, deny the science, deny the facts. We see that on display in here time and time again. Alberta also has a form of carbon price. As I said before, Quebec does as well, and we have California, in its own right the eighth-largest economy in the world, with carbon pricing.
But what does all this come back to? What all this comes back to is that that side at the moment happens to be dominated by climate change sceptics. We know the Leader of the Opposition has said he is a weathervane. We know the member for Wentworth does not agree with the opposition's approach to carbon pricing and we also know there are a number on the backbench who do not agree. But they will continue to play their basic political games. We will get on with putting in place the difficult reforms that will deliver the prosperity and jobs for the Australians of the future.
Mining
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:42): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How does the minerals resource rent tax help small businesses in my community and communities all across Australia? What are the challenges that small businesses face and how is the government addressing these?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (14:43): I would like to thank the member for Moreton for his question. He is very supportive of the minerals resource rent resource tax—and why wouldn't he be?—51,500 of his constituents are going to get their superannuation lifted courtesy of the government.
Indeed, this government does believe in small business. We understand that small business is about people. We understand that small business wants to be able to have the time on Sunday to be with their families rather than filling in forms. The Prime Minister of Australia said on 16 September that she understood that owning a small business, the aspiration of being your own boss, is part of the Australian DNA. Indeed, we understand on this side of the House that small business provided 190,000 jobs during the global financial crisis between June 2009 and June 2010.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong is warned!
Mr SHORTEN: Of course, it is not just our words which we have for evidence of our support for small business; we have some hard evidence, and it is called the minerals resource rent tax. What a ripper for small business. What unreservedly good news, because there is only one side of Australian politics which wants to lower their tax rate from 30 per cent to 29 per cent. There is only one side of Australian politics which wants to help 2.7 million small businesses. We want to give them a $1 billion tax break. We are the ones with the ideas to help small business. Indeed, we also want to make sure that the motor vehicle write-off for small business—
Mr Laming interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman is warned!
Mr SHORTEN: There is another $5K for small business there—every small business. If you buy that $33,000 ute and the MRRT gets passed, there is $1,275 back in your pocket, helping small business.
I am asked: what are the challenges to small business? Two challenges come to mind as I look across at the opposition. One of the challenges to small business is the opposition. Never in the history of the Australian Federation would I have imagined a situation where, while the mining companies are willing to pay the tax, there is only one group in Australia which wants to give $11 billion back to the miners, and that is those opposite. This crowd opposite would watch the film Robin Hood and back the Sheriff of Nottingham. But there is another threat.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I see that arrow struck home! There is another threat to small business. It is the threat of unpredictable, disproportionate, precipitate, rogue industrial action. That is always a threat to small business—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The House will come to order! The member for Fadden! I know that he has many conversations with the Assistant Treasurer up that end of the room. He should not continue them whilst the Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: The member for Fadden has a lot to say for himself. I wish they would give him a question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Assistant Treasurer will ignore him.
Mr SHORTEN: As the Minister for Tourism said, there are many small businesses in tourism, and what a terrible weekend they had courtesy of the rogue action and the lockout by Qantas. The Accommodation Association of Australia has reported $10 million lost—the cancelled rooms, the conferences, the travel and the pre-existing staff rosters which have to be honoured. But it is not just tourism. Queensland and Australia lost $1.4 billion in tourism in the first quarter of this year. Just as they are getting over that hump, struggling back, they get a Qantas made tsunami of economic disorder rained upon them. How can small business cope when the national carrier is locking out its staff?
I think the best summary of the challenges to small business comes from none other than Ita Buttrose. She tweeted: 'I'm very disappointed in the Qantas board and its chairman.' (Time expired)
Australian Labor Party: Leadership
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:48): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to reports in today's Daily Telegraph that the foreign minister is about to challenge for the leadership of the government. Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with Senator Doug Cameron that the Murdoch press is a 'threat to democracy in this country'? Don't Australians deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:48): With all of the big issues that are around at the moment—we have a meltdown in the European economy, potentially; we have a very big and important discussion about resource rent taxation; we have huge challenges when it comes to skills; we have, or should have, a big economic debate—all those opposite can concentrate on is muckraking from a newspaper which has its own motives. I do not think anyone on our side of politics would be at all surprised by anything that was written about politics in the Daily Telegraph. They are running their own agenda; they have their own motives—and that is entirely a matter for them.
But we on this side of the House get on with dealing with the big issues that matter to Australia. That is what we are doing, and we are doing that in a way which is making sure that we strengthen the fundamentals of our economy, whilst those opposite simply mouth empty rhetoric—not a clue about policy or future directions in our country. We are getting on with the job of governing Australia for the future.
Infrastructure
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. How will the government secure future infrastructure investment in regional Australia? What would be the impact of not proceeding with the government's regional investment pipeline?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:50): I thank the member for Throsby for his question and look forward to being back in the Illawarra next Friday, where we will be opening the SMART infrastructure unit at Wollongong University. Indeed, we have committed some $22 billion into regional Australia in infrastructure—$22 billion from the Nation Building Program.
But we want to do more. That is why we have established the Regional Infrastructure Fund: to use the resources from the MRRT to invest into regional Australia and to make a difference on the big productivity agenda, in rail, in roads and in ports that are impacted by the mineral boom. Indeed, we have already announced eight projects, including the Blacksoil Interchange in the electorate of the member for Oxley. Work has already commenced on this project. The Mackay ring road study; the Scone level crossing study in the electorate of Hunter—once again, work has already commenced on these studies in cooperation with state governments. The Gladstone port access road, Townsville ring road, Peak Downs Highway, the intersection of the Bruce and Capricorn highways and Gateway WA—all of these projects boosting productivity and making a difference to our national economy.
But they are only possible if you have revenue from somewhere. Should it come from ordinary taxpayers or should it come from the resources that are all of Australia's property?
We on this side think all Australians should benefit. Those on that side think the big miners alone should benefit. Those opposite will always side with the big end of town against working families. We have seen it this week on the MRRT, as we saw it with the Qantas dispute. They oppose ordinary Australians sharing in a fair return from the nation's resources at a time of record mining profits, even though this will lead to lower taxation for companies, higher levels of infrastructure investment and higher superannuation for workers.
But when it comes to the debate, you have to look for consistency. I saw a fascinating quote from September. One of the leading advocates of a political party in this place said:
I share the disappointment about how few mining companies contribute to the areas they invade and how little state governments return of the massive royalty incomes they receive to the communities.
Mr Randall: Absolute rubbish!
Mr ALBANESE: That is the quote, talking about invading areas—
Mr Randall: You've never been up north, have you?
Mr ALBANESE: talking about the little return from state governments of the 'massive royalty incomes' to the communities that produce this wealth, and stating how disappointed this person was about 'how few mining companies contribute to the areas they invade'.
Mr Randall: Go to the Pilbara.
Mr ALBANESE: Do you know who it was? It was the Leader of the National Party speaking about the 'invasion'. Look at the Blackberry, Warren. He goes out there and says this to one audience—this is what they say in communities—but in here, where they have a chance to make a difference, they support the 'invasion', as he called it, of mining companies. (Time expired)
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! After warning the member for Canning, he has continued to interject, and I have to say to him that this final interjection was in no way friendly banter. But I will ignore that and only give him the one hour. He will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). I remind him that he was warned.
The member for Canning then left the chamber.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:55): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact that over 250 boats, carrying 13,000 people, have arrived illegally in Australia since August 2008, will the Acting Prime Minister now admit that the government was wrong to abolish the Howard government's proven border protection regime that provided an effective deterrent for six years? Don't Australians deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:55): All the evidence shows that it did not provide an effective deterrent. That is why we need a regional solution. We take our advice from the same people who advised the previous government. They have advised us that what we need at the moment to break the people smugglers' model is a regional solution, and we want to proceed—and are determined to do so. That is why those people opposite should put the national interest first and join with us in supporting a regional solution.
Older Australians
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. How is the government spreading the benefits of the mining boom to assist and reward older Australians who stay in the workforce, and why is this so important?
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) (14:57): I thank the member for Blair for his question. A couple of months ago I was invited to a birthday party for a lady called Mavis who turned 100.
Honourable members interjecting—Oh!
Mr BUTLER: Yes, it is somewhat of a change of pace. I thought I would tell the House about some impressions I got from that. The first was that when Mavis was born 100 years ago the average man died at 55 in Australia and the average woman died at 57. In the space of Mavis's lifetime—albeit a pretty long lifetime—Australia had added 25 years of life expectancy. That is a phenomenon not unique to Australia but one which the World Health Organisation has described as one of humanity's greatest triumphs.
Our challenge now is to make sure that, as far as possible, those additional 25 years are good years, years during which Australians live healthy, active and connected lives. One of the most effective ways of achieving all three of those objectives is through the opportunity to work—an opportunity that will be of increasing importance to the broader national economy. As the oldest of the baby boomers turns 65 this year, we confront a situation for the first time in memory where more Australians will be leaving the workforce than joining it and where it will only be immigration that will prevent our workforce in Australia from actually shrinking.
Our problem is that older Australians constantly describe barriers and discrimination which prevent them from staying in work or engaging in encore careers. We are advised that there are two million older Australians outside the workforce who are willing to work; that one in three Australians over 65 will not look for work and will not look for more hours because they think employers regard them as simply too old; and that three in five workers who face mandatory retirement say that they would like to keep working—at the same time that we know, literally, that grey is gold. The Human Rights Commission told us this year that older workers are worth almost $2,000 per year more than other workers because of things like lower absenteeism and increased retention rates. As this House knows, this government is acting on all of these issues. The improved work bonus introduced this year by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs allows pensioners to keep more of their wage and more of their pension if they take up the opportunity to work and to bank that entitlement for fully 12 months. Initiatives led by my South Australian colleague the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare are providing more support and more training for older workers through things like More Help for Mature Age Workers and Experience Plus. The Attorney-General has delivered on our election commitment to establish the first stand-alone Age Discrimination Commissioner, a position that will particularly focus on the workplace.
The Treasurer—the Acting Prime Minister today—has established an Advisory Panel on the Economic Potential of Senior Australians that will explore other elements of these questions. The panel's second report focuses on the four pillars of positive ageing: health, housing, lifelong learning and participation. The report describes a myriad of other barriers that older Australians confront when trying to stay in the workplace, including financial issues like equitable access to superannuation. I am very pleased to say that, literally at the same time I was receiving the second report from Everald Compton and his panel, the Assistant Treasurer was at this very dispatch box announcing that this government will do just that as part of the MRRT package—just one more way in which this government, across portfolios, is acting to support older Australians to lead a healthy, active and connected life. We see in their opposition to the MRRT package just one more way in which the opposition are opposing it. (Time expired)
Gambling
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (15:01): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the concerns expressed about the government's mandatory precommitment policy by the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Eden-Monaro, who said, 'I wouldn't support anything that would threaten the viability of my pubs and clubs,' and the member for Page, who said, 'I would prefer voluntary precommitment.' Acting Prime Minister, do you agree with your colleagues? Don't you also agree that Australians deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:02): There are many in this House, on both sides, that share the objective of doing something fundamental about problem gambling, which is why we have gone down the road, over a four-year period, of a Productivity Commission inquiry into the issue of problem gambling. That is why we have come to a situation where we have a commitment to mandatory precommitment technology. You can be a supporter of the club industry and have a commitment to mandatory precommitment. I have been a supporter of the club industry for a long period of time, and I dare say that in the future I will be a supporter for a long period of time as well. But it is no secret that there is a faction within the club industry that is opposed to mandatory precommitment and they are prosecuting their case with vigour, as is their democratic right. But these matters will be brought to a conclusion. We are working our way through these issues with the industry and with the crossbench. We will continue to do that. We on this side of the House are determined to do something about problem gambling because it destroys lives and it is not good for communities. Something must be done.
Mining
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House of the significance of the minerals resource rent tax for Australian exports? What are the benefits of applying a profit based mining tax and the consequences of repealing it?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade) (15:03): I thank the member for Hunter for his ongoing interest in the mining industry of Australia, particularly in his own region. Of course, we are experiencing a mining boom in this country unprecedented in 140 years—the highest terms of trade and the highest mineral prices—and it is firmly the conviction of the Labor government that the benefits of the mining boom should be fairly spread so that it is not only the mining industry and their direct employees who benefit but the wider community. That is the philosophy that underlies the idea of a profits based tax on the mining industry. Indeed, as trade minister I can report that last month Australia recorded its second largest trade surplus, and this was built on the back of a resurgence in mining exports as a result of the resumption of exports, particularly in Queensland, following the devastating weather conditions and floods earlier in the year.
So that is very good news, but I note that there have been suggestions to the contrary—that mining in this country is doomed. Of course, the opposition leader said that the mining tax is 'almost guaranteed to kill the mining boom stone dead'. This is the prophecy of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, we know that, rather than the mining industry being killed stone dead, there is in fact a massive pipeline of investment of $430 billion. These are huge numbers—an unprecedented mining boom.
But, of course, the economics of a profits based tax are far better than royalties that are levied on either the volume or value of production, because those royalties can actually deter mineral development and the full export of the mineral wealth of this country. So the royalties themselves are a deterrent, but a profits based tax is not. Yet again we have from the Leader of the Opposition no concern whatsoever about states increasing those royalties that do have an adverse effect on the mining industry and our mineral development. The opposition leader said:
… if people feel that the mining industry is under-taxed, there’s nothing to stop the states increasing royalties …
So he thinks it is fine for the states to increase royalties. But the truth is that the same opposition leader does not believe that the mining industry is undertaxed; he believes that it is overtaxed—that the mining industry already pays more than its fair share of tax. Again we are seeing the opposition—the coalition—always going in to bat for the few at the expense of the many. What we are seeking to do is dedicate the revenue from the mining tax to providing increased superannuation for working Australians; 8.4 million working Australians would get the benefit of an increase in superannuation and, of course, 2.7 million small businesses would get the benefit of the immediate write-off of assets valued up to $6,500. So here we are, in the week when we are introducing the mining tax, with the Leader of the Opposition always siding with the few. The once great party that says it stands for small business is absolutely against small business because it does not want them to get a tax break. The party that says it is for the workers, and says it is for the steel industry, votes against the steel industry plan and then says that the working people of this country do not deserve an increase in superannuation. We have two frontbenchers saying, 'Absolutely, that is right, they do not deserve an increase in superannuation.' It will always be Labor that sides with the many against the few in this country. (Time expired)
Gambling
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In his travels as foreign minister, has he become aware of any country that has adopted a mandatory precommitment regime in relation to gambling? Does he support the cabinet's position on this?
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (15:08): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. In the hubbub, I did not hear the last bit of it, so I will attempt as best I can to respond to the question that she raises. The House may be surprised to know that the question of poker machines in general and mandatory precommitment was not a huge subject at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In bilateral conversations with the British Foreign Secretary, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the foreign minister of South Africa and the foreign minister of India, this was not at the top of the agenda in the normal work that one does as a foreign minister. In fact, there were other priorities on the agenda of foreign ministers in Perth—this was not one of them. I appreciate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised this question about international travel because we are about to have a distinguished guest in Australia within two weeks.
Ms Julie Bishop: Mr Speaker, on a point of order—this is not a criticism of the foreign minister: he said he did not hear the end of the question. The question I asked was: does he support the cabinet's position in relation to mandatory precommitment? That was the question. So could he be relevant to that part of the question?
The SPEAKER: The foreign minister is aware that he has to be directly relevant and he is responding to the question.
Mr RUDD: I do note the Deputy Leader of the Opposition required me to be relevant to that part of her question. I would simply say that her question was of a broader nature and it referred also to international travel. But, when we are speaking about international statesmen of the type that we were meeting in Perth recently, we should also reflect on the comments of another international statesman—namely, Senator Barnaby Joyce, who has said most recently.
To be honest, I think I'm on the wrong side of the debate in the Coalition on this one.
Lots of solidarity from Senator Joyce as far as opposition policy is concerned. But I refer to our important guest in this chamber within a week or two. That, of course, is the President of the United States. I think that, foreign policy having been raised here, it is important to remember that, first, the former Prime Minister Mr Howard described the election of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, as a victory for terrorism. Secondly, the current Leader of the Opposition said:
He sounds terrific but I don't know what's really there.
Thirdly, the disgraceful manner in which the member for Sturt conducted himself earlier today on a simple procedural motion—inviting the House to assemble in a week or two—underlines fundamentally where those opposite stand on foreign policy priorities. Finally, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interested in international practice, I note recently that they have gone very quiet on the question of what is actually unfolding in Norway. But that is a matter for her.
Economy
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (15:12): My question is to the acting Prime Minister. Will the acting Prime Minister outline for the House the role of economic policy in standing up for working Australians?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:13): I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. We on this side of the House will always stand up for hardworking Australians. That went to the core of the actions that we took during the global financial crisis and the global recession. We understand the dignity of work. We understand the importance of having a job and job security. We understand the importance of families having access to affordable health, education and housing. That goes to the very core of the beliefs of all of those on this side of the House in the Labor Party, because we understand that when work is taken away, when unemployment becomes high, it not only destroys the individual but also destroys community.
That is why at the height of the global financial crisis we moved to put in place very substantial stimulus to support the employment of families and to keep the doors of small business open, because we understood the destruction that would be experienced here if we did not do that. We have seen the destruction that has taken place in economies around the world where it was not done. I mentioned before that unemployment globally is around 200 million, but here in Australia unemployment is just above five per cent. It is double that right throughout Europe and almost double that in the United States. What drives us on this side of the House is jobs and also the capacity to work with fair working conditions. That is why we do need the Fair Work Act. We need to support those people at work with fair working conditions, and we need to back up their families with access to affordable health and education. And all of that is built on having a strict fiscal policy, because you cannot achieve those objectives of supporting employment unless you have a good, strict budget policy.
That is what we on this side of the House have done; we have brought the budget back to surplus well before just about any other developed economy. But we also understand that you need to build people up. That is why we are investing in skills and education. Those on the other side of the House want to tear people down. They do not have the same commitment to investing in skills and education, and we know that they certainly do not have a commitment to a fair industrial relations system. They will always side with the vested interests against the interests of the broad mass of the community.
They opposed our stimulus. Had they been in power, unemployment would be far higher now, and the social destruction from that would have been still blighting too many of our communities. As we go through this period of global volatility, we understand again that we have to engage not just domestically but internationally. We saw in the House today the lack of knowledge and the lack of comprehension of what needs to be done in the global economy. They demonstrated yet again how dangerous they would be if they were in power in these volatile conditions. They demonstrated yet again that they do not understand the international economy and that they do not understand the basis of the Australian economy.
Those are the fundamental differences between us on this side of the House and those on that side of the House. They always stand up for vested interests. We have seen it in the carbon price debate, we have seen it in the resource rent debate and we have seen in the industrial relations debate. We on this side of the House stand for ordinary hardworking Australians who expect nothing other than a fair go, a job, and fair health, education and housing systems. That is why we are all proud to be Labor.
The SPEAKER: I call the Acting Prime Minister.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The SPEAKER: He can jump at any time!
Mr ALBANESE: He can jump at any time, Tony.
Mr Swan: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
Qantas
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (14:14): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Would the minister update the House on the current state of the Qantas industrial dispute? How is the government helping Australians affected by the Qantas decision to lock out its workforce and to ground its fleet?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:14): This government's priority when we were informed about the lockout of the workforce and the grounding of the fleet on Saturday was to go to Fair Work Australia and to make sure that we got Qantas back up in the air, because this was not just a lockout of its workforce, it was a lockout of its customers. It is a bit like Telstra having a disagreement with one of its unions and shutting down the telecommunications industry. It is like one of the energy companies, because it is having a problem with one of the unions, turning off the lights and shutting down the power system. It is like one of the water companies having a problem with one of its unions and shutting off the water system. That is why this government thinks that this was an irresponsible and extreme action and why we are so surprised that those opposite have shown their ideological obsession by saying not one word of criticism against Qantas.
The parties now, as a result of our action, have 21 days to bargain. We are of the view that parties should talk to each other and settle an agreement rather than engage in militant action, whether it be by employers or employees—either way we oppose. I am advised that Qantas and the pilots have already had one meeting before Fair Work Australia this week. The licensed engineers will meet with Qantas before Fair Work Australia next Monday to continue their negotiations. The Transport Workers Union and Qantas will return to Fair Work Australia next Tuesday. This is a good thing—that we have bargaining in good faith.
It is important to note that Fair Work Australia found that there were good prospects for agreement between the parties prior to Qantas's decision to lock out its workforce and ground its fleet. So I encourage all parties and, indeed, have spoken to all parties to encourage them to get this deal done in the interests of this important, iconic Australian company, in the interests of its workforce and in the national interest. Of course, that has been our approach the whole way through.
The shadow Treasurer confirmed on the 7.30 program that he knew that Qantas was considering a lockout of its workforce. When asked when he was told, he said: 'Well, I can't recall. Well, I can't recall.' That was his position when told about an action that would be of such damage to the Australian economy—he could not recall when he was told. It is not surprising that he cannot find the $70 billion, that he cannot find a policy on anything at all—
The SPEAKER: The minister will relate his remarks to the question.
Mr ALBANESE: Today he objected to debating the minerals resource rent tax because he thought it was a new idea he did not see coming. They actually tried to adjourn the debate because they could not see it coming.
Our priority is for all parties, and I call upon them to do it, to bargain in good faith—Qantas and the unions—and make sure they get these arrangements agreed in the interests of themselves and in the interests of the nation.
Interest Rates
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:18): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the fact the banks have now ignored the Treasurer's warnings on interest rate movements on 51 occasions. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to his statement yesterday that the decision by the National Australia Bank not to pass on the full interest rate cut was 'a kick in the guts to working families' and 'a greedy decision from the NAB'. Did the Acting Prime Minister convey these views to Dr Ken Henry who, along with being on the personal staff of the Prime Minister, is also on the board of the NAB?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:19): The decision by the NAB not to pass on the Reserve Bank rate cut in full was a greedy decision. It is completely and utterly unjustified by any of the fundamentals when it comes to their borrowing requirements. I conveyed my view directly to the chief executive, Mr Cameron Clyne. I passed it on a very directly. I did not only make my views public, I put them privately as well—as I have done when, on other occasions, banks have done that. And I will continue to do that when I believe these decisions are unjustified.
The reason the government has put in place a comprehensive package of banking reforms is to enable customers that are unhappy with their bank to go down the road—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Acting Prime Minister will respond to the question.
Mr SWAN: I know they are not interested in competition in the banking system but I will go on and talk about the government's proposals, which are currently being implemented, to make sure our banking system is much more competitive. One of the reforms that we put in place which has been opposed by those opposite is the abolition of mortgage exit fees. The shadow Treasurer opposed our proposition to abolish mortgage exit fees, which has led to a reduction of mortgage exit fees and the abolition of mortgage exit fees by the National Australia Bank. So, in these circumstances, if you have a mortgage with the NAB and you are unhappy with their decision you can walk down the road as a result of reforms this government has put in place.
Mr Hockey: Everyone else is more expensive!
Mr SWAN: Come in spinner! The interjection was that they have a lower rate. They do not have a lower rate than many other financial institutions: there are plenty of credit unions out there with a lower rate than the NAB. If their customers are unhappy they can walk down the road and get a better rate.
Mining
Mr CROOK (O'Connor) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the government's mining tax which was negotiated in secret with the three biggest mining companies—BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata—to the exclusion of the rest of the industry. In particular I refer to the government's revenue projections which are based on secret data and secret assumptions and which directly contradict industry projections. I ask the Treasurer, firstly: why are you not prepared to guarantee in legislation that the rest of the industry will not pay the tax earlier than the big three? Secondly: why are you not prepared to guarantee in legislation that the rest of the industry will not pay the tax at a higher rate than those big three companies that helped design the tax?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:23): We should call a spade a spade. The fact is that there is a completely unjustified campaign, run by a number of organisations that describe themselves as 'smaller miners', that somehow this tax discriminates against small miners. This tax does not discriminate against small miners and it will be paid predominantly by very large miners. Mr Forrest is here today, and he was part of a press conference, and he claims to be a small miner. He has a $20 billion company! A $20 billion company is not a small miner.
We made a range of changes to the tax over a period of time in what has been probably the most open and transparent process that any piece of tax legislation has ever been put through. We went through the Ferguson-Argus review, and there were comprehensive submissions made right through that process. It has been through two rounds of consultation through the tax office. But let us get rid of this bunkum that the tax somehow discriminates against small miners. It does not. We have even put in a new threshold where it is not paid under $50 million and it phases out through to $100 million. This is complete rubbish. As far as Mr Forrest is concerned, when he put on the public record all of the changes he wanted, on 29 June last year, we implemented every single one of them.
Mr Crook: Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: I simply asked for a guarantee in legislation. If that is no, the Treasurer could say that.
The SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister will respond in a directly relevant manner to the question.
Mr SWAN: We have been through a comprehensive process of consultation on this legislation, and there are some who are unhappy about it because the truth is that they do not want to pay any tax. They want to mine the mineral, which is owned 100 per cent by Australians, which can only be dug up once, which has gone to record prices, and they do not want the Australian people to get a fair return. The consequence of that is that struggling small businesses right around this country will pay more and there will be less in the superannuation savings of millions of workers. That is what they stand for, and that is what those on that side of the House stand for. They have always stood with vested interest. We stand for working families.
Workplace Relations
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. How does the Fair Work Act ensure that the government can act quickly and in the national interest during an industrial relations crisis? How does this compare with the system it replaced?
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (14:27): I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. She, like all of those who sit on this side of the House, was delighted when the Rudd government was able to replace the discredited Work Choices legislation with the Fair Work Act—an act that brought dignity and fairness back into the industrial relations system and brought a structure to the system where negotiations broke down. Why has it been important for the economy? This week has been a classic example as to why. By utilising the Fair Work Act and by moving decisively and quickly, we got Qantas back in the air again. That required two things. It required an act that gave us the framework, but it also required a government that was prepared to make the right decision at the right time.
I contrast that with the circumstances which would have existed had those who sit opposite been in power at the time. Not only would there not have been an act that provided that framework; the actions of those who sit opposite would have been to let the dispute run on. We know that the member for North Sydney has admitted to knowing weeks in advance that Qantas was planning to lock out its workforce and ground its air fleet, but he said nothing. There was the Australian government acting in the national interest as soon as it knew what Qantas's intentions were, and the member for North Sydney was sitting it out—grubby political interests, hoping that this dispute would worsen and impact upon the economy and thereby the government.
I had the opportunity to listen to the member's personal explanation yesterday in relation to his view about how decisively they moved when they were in office. I refer back to the Tristar dispute, and I will remind members of the true facts of this dispute. This was a prolonged dispute that had been running for 18 months. The employer's strategy was to let the collective bargain expire so that they would not be required to pay workers' entitlements—run down the clock. That government failed to do anything in those circumstances. I am asked how it compares with the system we replaced, and I am giving an example of that. The intervention that the member for North Sydney talked about was in relation to one person, a man that was dying. He did get his worker entitlements for him, but not for the whole of the workforce. They refused to act in so many circumstances under their legislation, under their system, to protect workers' entitlements. The only time they acted was in relation to the then Prime Minister's brother's company, National Textiles. Remember? Not Tristar, not the coal industry, only National Textiles.
That was a government that would not support workers' entitlements. When it came to intervening under their system, let me say what was on the record in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The company, Tristar, stood by a memo written after the meeting with Mr Hockey in which it quotes, 'It wanted this issue sorted out and implied that, if we did not, there would be ramifications.' They would sack the workforce and replace it. (Time expired)
Broadband
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:31): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the Economist Intelligence Unit's recent broadband report which confirmed that the NBN project is the most expensive, most anti-competitive broadband policy in the world, making Greece look like a model of frugality and China a beacon of competitive markets. Can the Acting Prime Minister explain how this will make broadband more affordable and Australia more productive? Doesn't Australia deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:32): There is a very simple answer to that question because the report, which I have read, from the Economist Intelligence Unit is not worth the paper it is written on.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Acting Prime Minister will resume his seat until the House comes to order.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for North Sydney is warned.
Mr SWAN: They got it wrong. The fact is that we had produced—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SWAN: Well, it is a fact.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt is now warned. The House will come to order.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dickson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Dickson then left the chamber.
Mr SWAN: I know those opposite think we live in a post-fact world. That is demonstrated in here every day of the week when it comes to basic facts about the economy, about levels of borrowing, about the IMF, about the NBN and about just about anything else. On this occasion they want to quote one report, but the evidence is contradicted by just about every other reputable report on the NBN that has been done around the world. I will quote someone that they like to quote occasionally, Mr Alan Kohler. He said:
Not only will the NBN not be a white elephant it will almost certainly prove to be a great investment. In fact, without wishing to get carried away … it could represent, on its own, a huge national savings plan. When it's finished the asset will be worth several times the government's investment of $27.5 billion.
End of story.
Mining
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Minister, how is the government ensuring the benefits of the mining boom are spread throughout the Australian economy?
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman—Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (14:36): I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. She, more than most members in this House, understands the importance of the mining boom and also appreciates, due to the diverse nature of the South Coast of New South Wales, the impact it is having on other sections of her local community.
The member for Cunningham is very supportive of the fact that, at the moment, mining industry companies in Australia are actually making record profits. The message she has received from the Australian community, which was under the pump because of the impact of the resources sector on the broader community, is that the rest of the community actually needs a helping hand. That is what the debate on the mining tax is about. It is about how we spread the benefit of this boom to the broader Australian community. That is not about stifling investment.
The record speaks for itself. Contrary to the arguments presented by the coalition in this House today, there is no sovereign risk. In Australia at the moment, $430 billion is planned or committed to capital investment. Look at the skyrocketing of investment—from $35 billion in 2009-10 to an expected $80 billion in 2011-12. And there is more significant investment to come Australia's way. It is built off the back of record commodity prices and good profits—and we are very, very pleased for those companies.
But the time has come to spread these benefits to ensure, for example, that we assist the tourism industry. That is not to deny that there is going to continue to be job growth in the mining sector. Importantly, jobs growth in the mining sector has continued, with almost 30,000 jobs created in 2010-11. It is also expected that at least 70,000 new operational jobs will be created in the mining sector by 2015. That is good for young people seeking a terrific career opportunity.
But we also have to make sure that we look after small business. I find it amazing that the coalition is opposed to cutting taxation for small businesses, many of which actually operate in the tourism sector I have responsibility for, and is actually willing to vote against giving them some assistance in the purchase of new capital equipment. Why should they not have that assistance, given the huge impact that the strength of the Australian dollar is having on them at the moment, both in terms of international visitation and the fact that so many Australians are doing well and are going overseas for a holiday? We have to make sure that we assist small business through this change in mining taxation.
More importantly, it is supported by many, many mining companies in Australia, because in some ways they are embarrassed by the profits they are receiving at the moment and they think it is their social responsibility to spread the benefits to the Australian community. It would also mean that we would have the capacity to invest in infrastructure which is not only important to the resources sector but also important to the tourism sector. The Gateway project in Western Australia to improve airport access is a prime example of benefits going not only to the resources sector but to the whole Australian community.
In conclusion, it is about time the coalition fronted up to its social responsibilities to ensure that all Australians get a fair share of this once-in-a-century opportunity, this resources boom. Step back and review your position and do not be so antagonistic to sharing these benefits and so denying small business and those sections of the Australian community who are actually doing it a little bit tough at this point in our history.
Carbon Pricing
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14: 40): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the Canadian Foreign Minister's categorical statement last week that Canada and the United States will not introduce a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. Given that the government's modelling of the impact of the carbon tax lies entirely on the introduction of similar schemes across the world, how can the Acting Prime Minister continue to claim the government's modelling is credible, or is he suggesting the Canadian Foreign Minister is wrong?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:37): I would have thought it was very clear: we have a different policy from the Canadians. There are a few points that ought to be made here, because the context of the question is the assertion that somehow there is no carbon pricing in Canada, which is simply untrue. The Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Quebec already have carbon taxes. We did not hear any mention of that and of course we do not hear any mention of those states in the United States which are putting in place carbon pricing. This is what I meant before when I said they live in a post-fact world. They simply try to ignore the basic facts when it comes to any issue, because what they want to do is to simply play politics, deny the science, deny the facts. We see that on display in here time and time again. Alberta also has a form of carbon price. As I said before, Quebec does as well, and we have California, in its own right the eighth-largest economy in the world, with carbon pricing.
But what does all this come back to? What all this comes back to is that that side at the moment happens to be dominated by climate change sceptics. We know the Leader of the Opposition has said he is a weathervane. We know the member for Wentworth does not agree with the opposition's approach to carbon pricing and we also know there are a number on the backbench who do not agree. But they will continue to play their basic political games. We will get on with putting in place the difficult reforms that will deliver the prosperity and jobs for the Australians of the future.
Mining
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:42): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How does the minerals resource rent tax help small businesses in my community and communities all across Australia? What are the challenges that small businesses face and how is the government addressing these?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (14:43): I would like to thank the member for Moreton for his question. He is very supportive of the minerals resource rent resource tax—and why wouldn't he be?—51,500 of his constituents are going to get their superannuation lifted courtesy of the government.
Indeed, this government does believe in small business. We understand that small business is about people. We understand that small business wants to be able to have the time on Sunday to be with their families rather than filling in forms. The Prime Minister of Australia said on 16 September that she understood that owning a small business, the aspiration of being your own boss, is part of the Australian DNA. Indeed, we understand on this side of the House that small business provided 190,000 jobs during the global financial crisis between June 2009 and June 2010.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong is warned!
Mr SHORTEN: Of course, it is not just our words which we have for evidence of our support for small business; we have some hard evidence, and it is called the minerals resource rent tax. What a ripper for small business. What unreservedly good news, because there is only one side of Australian politics which wants to lower their tax rate from 30 per cent to 29 per cent. There is only one side of Australian politics which wants to help 2.7 million small businesses. We want to give them a $1 billion tax break. We are the ones with the ideas to help small business. Indeed, we also want to make sure that the motor vehicle write-off for small business—
Mr Laming interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman is warned!
Mr SHORTEN: There is another $5K for small business there—every small business. If you buy that $33,000 ute and the MRRT gets passed, there is $1,275 back in your pocket, helping small business.
I am asked: what are the challenges to small business? Two challenges come to mind as I look across at the opposition. One of the challenges to small business is the opposition. Never in the history of the Australian Federation would I have imagined a situation where, while the mining companies are willing to pay the tax, there is only one group in Australia which wants to give $11 billion back to the miners, and that is those opposite. This crowd opposite would watch the film Robin Hood and back the Sheriff of Nottingham. But there is another threat.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I see that arrow struck home! There is another threat to small business. It is the threat of unpredictable, disproportionate, precipitate, rogue industrial action. That is always a threat to small business—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The House will come to order! The member for Fadden! I know that he has many conversations with the Assistant Treasurer up that end of the room. He should not continue them whilst the Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: The member for Fadden has a lot to say for himself. I wish they would give him a question.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Assistant Treasurer will ignore him.
Mr SHORTEN: As the Minister for Tourism said, there are many small businesses in tourism, and what a terrible weekend they had courtesy of the rogue action and the lockout by Qantas. The Accommodation Association of Australia has reported $10 million lost—the cancelled rooms, the conferences, the travel and the pre-existing staff rosters which have to be honoured. But it is not just tourism. Queensland and Australia lost $1.4 billion in tourism in the first quarter of this year. Just as they are getting over that hump, struggling back, they get a Qantas made tsunami of economic disorder rained upon them. How can small business cope when the national carrier is locking out its staff?
I think the best summary of the challenges to small business comes from none other than Ita Buttrose. She tweeted: 'I'm very disappointed in the Qantas board and its chairman.' (Time expired)
Australian Labor Party: Leadership
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:48): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to reports in today's Daily Telegraph that the foreign minister is about to challenge for the leadership of the government. Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with Senator Doug Cameron that the Murdoch press is a 'threat to democracy in this country'? Don't Australians deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:48): With all of the big issues that are around at the moment—we have a meltdown in the European economy, potentially; we have a very big and important discussion about resource rent taxation; we have huge challenges when it comes to skills; we have, or should have, a big economic debate—all those opposite can concentrate on is muckraking from a newspaper which has its own motives. I do not think anyone on our side of politics would be at all surprised by anything that was written about politics in the Daily Telegraph. They are running their own agenda; they have their own motives—and that is entirely a matter for them.
But we on this side of the House get on with dealing with the big issues that matter to Australia. That is what we are doing, and we are doing that in a way which is making sure that we strengthen the fundamentals of our economy, whilst those opposite simply mouth empty rhetoric—not a clue about policy or future directions in our country. We are getting on with the job of governing Australia for the future.
Infrastructure
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. How will the government secure future infrastructure investment in regional Australia? What would be the impact of not proceeding with the government's regional investment pipeline?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:50): I thank the member for Throsby for his question and look forward to being back in the Illawarra next Friday, where we will be opening the SMART infrastructure unit at Wollongong University. Indeed, we have committed some $22 billion into regional Australia in infrastructure—$22 billion from the Nation Building Program.
But we want to do more. That is why we have established the Regional Infrastructure Fund: to use the resources from the MRRT to invest into regional Australia and to make a difference on the big productivity agenda, in rail, in roads and in ports that are impacted by the mineral boom. Indeed, we have already announced eight projects, including the Blacksoil Interchange in the electorate of the member for Oxley. Work has already commenced on this project. The Mackay ring road study; the Scone level crossing study in the electorate of Hunter—once again, work has already commenced on these studies in cooperation with state governments. The Gladstone port access road, Townsville ring road, Peak Downs Highway, the intersection of the Bruce and Capricorn highways and Gateway WA—all of these projects boosting productivity and making a difference to our national economy.
But they are only possible if you have revenue from somewhere. Should it come from ordinary taxpayers or should it come from the resources that are all of Australia's property?
We on this side think all Australians should benefit. Those on that side think the big miners alone should benefit. Those opposite will always side with the big end of town against working families. We have seen it this week on the MRRT, as we saw it with the Qantas dispute. They oppose ordinary Australians sharing in a fair return from the nation's resources at a time of record mining profits, even though this will lead to lower taxation for companies, higher levels of infrastructure investment and higher superannuation for workers.
But when it comes to the debate, you have to look for consistency. I saw a fascinating quote from September. One of the leading advocates of a political party in this place said:
I share the disappointment about how few mining companies contribute to the areas they invade and how little state governments return of the massive royalty incomes they receive to the communities.
Mr Randall: Absolute rubbish!
Mr ALBANESE: That is the quote, talking about invading areas—
Mr Randall: You've never been up north, have you?
Mr ALBANESE: talking about the little return from state governments of the 'massive royalty incomes' to the communities that produce this wealth, and stating how disappointed this person was about 'how few mining companies contribute to the areas they invade'.
Mr Randall: Go to the Pilbara.
Mr ALBANESE: Do you know who it was? It was the Leader of the National Party speaking about the 'invasion'. Look at the Blackberry, Warren. He goes out there and says this to one audience—this is what they say in communities—but in here, where they have a chance to make a difference, they support the 'invasion', as he called it, of mining companies. (Time expired)
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! After warning the member for Canning, he has continued to interject, and I have to say to him that this final interjection was in no way friendly banter. But I will ignore that and only give him the one hour. He will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). I remind him that he was warned.
The member for Canning then left the chamber.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:55): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact that over 250 boats, carrying 13,000 people, have arrived illegally in Australia since August 2008, will the Acting Prime Minister now admit that the government was wrong to abolish the Howard government's proven border protection regime that provided an effective deterrent for six years? Don't Australians deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:55): All the evidence shows that it did not provide an effective deterrent. That is why we need a regional solution. We take our advice from the same people who advised the previous government. They have advised us that what we need at the moment to break the people smugglers' model is a regional solution, and we want to proceed—and are determined to do so. That is why those people opposite should put the national interest first and join with us in supporting a regional solution.
Older Australians
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. How is the government spreading the benefits of the mining boom to assist and reward older Australians who stay in the workforce, and why is this so important?
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) (14:57): I thank the member for Blair for his question. A couple of months ago I was invited to a birthday party for a lady called Mavis who turned 100.
Honourable members interjecting—Oh!
Mr BUTLER: Yes, it is somewhat of a change of pace. I thought I would tell the House about some impressions I got from that. The first was that when Mavis was born 100 years ago the average man died at 55 in Australia and the average woman died at 57. In the space of Mavis's lifetime—albeit a pretty long lifetime—Australia had added 25 years of life expectancy. That is a phenomenon not unique to Australia but one which the World Health Organisation has described as one of humanity's greatest triumphs.
Our challenge now is to make sure that, as far as possible, those additional 25 years are good years, years during which Australians live healthy, active and connected lives. One of the most effective ways of achieving all three of those objectives is through the opportunity to work—an opportunity that will be of increasing importance to the broader national economy. As the oldest of the baby boomers turns 65 this year, we confront a situation for the first time in memory where more Australians will be leaving the workforce than joining it and where it will only be immigration that will prevent our workforce in Australia from actually shrinking.
Our problem is that older Australians constantly describe barriers and discrimination which prevent them from staying in work or engaging in encore careers. We are advised that there are two million older Australians outside the workforce who are willing to work; that one in three Australians over 65 will not look for work and will not look for more hours because they think employers regard them as simply too old; and that three in five workers who face mandatory retirement say that they would like to keep working—at the same time that we know, literally, that grey is gold. The Human Rights Commission told us this year that older workers are worth almost $2,000 per year more than other workers because of things like lower absenteeism and increased retention rates. As this House knows, this government is acting on all of these issues. The improved work bonus introduced this year by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs allows pensioners to keep more of their wage and more of their pension if they take up the opportunity to work and to bank that entitlement for fully 12 months. Initiatives led by my South Australian colleague the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare are providing more support and more training for older workers through things like More Help for Mature Age Workers and Experience Plus. The Attorney-General has delivered on our election commitment to establish the first stand-alone Age Discrimination Commissioner, a position that will particularly focus on the workplace.
The Treasurer—the Acting Prime Minister today—has established an Advisory Panel on the Economic Potential of Senior Australians that will explore other elements of these questions. The panel's second report focuses on the four pillars of positive ageing: health, housing, lifelong learning and participation. The report describes a myriad of other barriers that older Australians confront when trying to stay in the workplace, including financial issues like equitable access to superannuation. I am very pleased to say that, literally at the same time I was receiving the second report from Everald Compton and his panel, the Assistant Treasurer was at this very dispatch box announcing that this government will do just that as part of the MRRT package—just one more way in which this government, across portfolios, is acting to support older Australians to lead a healthy, active and connected life. We see in their opposition to the MRRT package just one more way in which the opposition are opposing it. (Time expired)
Gambling
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (15:01): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the concerns expressed about the government's mandatory precommitment policy by the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Eden-Monaro, who said, 'I wouldn't support anything that would threaten the viability of my pubs and clubs,' and the member for Page, who said, 'I would prefer voluntary precommitment.' Acting Prime Minister, do you agree with your colleagues? Don't you also agree that Australians deserve better than this divided and directionless government?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:02): There are many in this House, on both sides, that share the objective of doing something fundamental about problem gambling, which is why we have gone down the road, over a four-year period, of a Productivity Commission inquiry into the issue of problem gambling. That is why we have come to a situation where we have a commitment to mandatory precommitment technology. You can be a supporter of the club industry and have a commitment to mandatory precommitment. I have been a supporter of the club industry for a long period of time, and I dare say that in the future I will be a supporter for a long period of time as well. But it is no secret that there is a faction within the club industry that is opposed to mandatory precommitment and they are prosecuting their case with vigour, as is their democratic right. But these matters will be brought to a conclusion. We are working our way through these issues with the industry and with the crossbench. We will continue to do that. We on this side of the House are determined to do something about problem gambling because it destroys lives and it is not good for communities. Something must be done.
Mining
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House of the significance of the minerals resource rent tax for Australian exports? What are the benefits of applying a profit based mining tax and the consequences of repealing it?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade) (15:03): I thank the member for Hunter for his ongoing interest in the mining industry of Australia, particularly in his own region. Of course, we are experiencing a mining boom in this country unprecedented in 140 years—the highest terms of trade and the highest mineral prices—and it is firmly the conviction of the Labor government that the benefits of the mining boom should be fairly spread so that it is not only the mining industry and their direct employees who benefit but the wider community. That is the philosophy that underlies the idea of a profits based tax on the mining industry. Indeed, as trade minister I can report that last month Australia recorded its second largest trade surplus, and this was built on the back of a resurgence in mining exports as a result of the resumption of exports, particularly in Queensland, following the devastating weather conditions and floods earlier in the year.
So that is very good news, but I note that there have been suggestions to the contrary—that mining in this country is doomed. Of course, the opposition leader said that the mining tax is 'almost guaranteed to kill the mining boom stone dead'. This is the prophecy of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, we know that, rather than the mining industry being killed stone dead, there is in fact a massive pipeline of investment of $430 billion. These are huge numbers—an unprecedented mining boom.
But, of course, the economics of a profits based tax are far better than royalties that are levied on either the volume or value of production, because those royalties can actually deter mineral development and the full export of the mineral wealth of this country. So the royalties themselves are a deterrent, but a profits based tax is not. Yet again we have from the Leader of the Opposition no concern whatsoever about states increasing those royalties that do have an adverse effect on the mining industry and our mineral development. The opposition leader said:
… if people feel that the mining industry is under-taxed, there’s nothing to stop the states increasing royalties …
So he thinks it is fine for the states to increase royalties. But the truth is that the same opposition leader does not believe that the mining industry is undertaxed; he believes that it is overtaxed—that the mining industry already pays more than its fair share of tax. Again we are seeing the opposition—the coalition—always going in to bat for the few at the expense of the many. What we are seeking to do is dedicate the revenue from the mining tax to providing increased superannuation for working Australians; 8.4 million working Australians would get the benefit of an increase in superannuation and, of course, 2.7 million small businesses would get the benefit of the immediate write-off of assets valued up to $6,500. So here we are, in the week when we are introducing the mining tax, with the Leader of the Opposition always siding with the few. The once great party that says it stands for small business is absolutely against small business because it does not want them to get a tax break. The party that says it is for the workers, and says it is for the steel industry, votes against the steel industry plan and then says that the working people of this country do not deserve an increase in superannuation. We have two frontbenchers saying, 'Absolutely, that is right, they do not deserve an increase in superannuation.' It will always be Labor that sides with the many against the few in this country. (Time expired)
Gambling
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In his travels as foreign minister, has he become aware of any country that has adopted a mandatory precommitment regime in relation to gambling? Does he support the cabinet's position on this?
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (15:08): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. In the hubbub, I did not hear the last bit of it, so I will attempt as best I can to respond to the question that she raises. The House may be surprised to know that the question of poker machines in general and mandatory precommitment was not a huge subject at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In bilateral conversations with the British Foreign Secretary, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the foreign minister of South Africa and the foreign minister of India, this was not at the top of the agenda in the normal work that one does as a foreign minister. In fact, there were other priorities on the agenda of foreign ministers in Perth—this was not one of them. I appreciate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised this question about international travel because we are about to have a distinguished guest in Australia within two weeks.
Ms Julie Bishop: Mr Speaker, on a point of order—this is not a criticism of the foreign minister: he said he did not hear the end of the question. The question I asked was: does he support the cabinet's position in relation to mandatory precommitment? That was the question. So could he be relevant to that part of the question?
The SPEAKER: The foreign minister is aware that he has to be directly relevant and he is responding to the question.
Mr RUDD: I do note the Deputy Leader of the Opposition required me to be relevant to that part of her question. I would simply say that her question was of a broader nature and it referred also to international travel. But, when we are speaking about international statesmen of the type that we were meeting in Perth recently, we should also reflect on the comments of another international statesman—namely, Senator Barnaby Joyce, who has said most recently.
To be honest, I think I'm on the wrong side of the debate in the Coalition on this one.
Lots of solidarity from Senator Joyce as far as opposition policy is concerned. But I refer to our important guest in this chamber within a week or two. That, of course, is the President of the United States. I think that, foreign policy having been raised here, it is important to remember that, first, the former Prime Minister Mr Howard described the election of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, as a victory for terrorism. Secondly, the current Leader of the Opposition said:
He sounds terrific but I don't know what's really there.
Thirdly, the disgraceful manner in which the member for Sturt conducted himself earlier today on a simple procedural motion—inviting the House to assemble in a week or two—underlines fundamentally where those opposite stand on foreign policy priorities. Finally, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interested in international practice, I note recently that they have gone very quiet on the question of what is actually unfolding in Norway. But that is a matter for her.
Economy
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (15:12): My question is to the acting Prime Minister. Will the acting Prime Minister outline for the House the role of economic policy in standing up for working Australians?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:13): I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. We on this side of the House will always stand up for hardworking Australians. That went to the core of the actions that we took during the global financial crisis and the global recession. We understand the dignity of work. We understand the importance of having a job and job security. We understand the importance of families having access to affordable health, education and housing. That goes to the very core of the beliefs of all of those on this side of the House in the Labor Party, because we understand that when work is taken away, when unemployment becomes high, it not only destroys the individual but also destroys community.
That is why at the height of the global financial crisis we moved to put in place very substantial stimulus to support the employment of families and to keep the doors of small business open, because we understood the destruction that would be experienced here if we did not do that. We have seen the destruction that has taken place in economies around the world where it was not done. I mentioned before that unemployment globally is around 200 million, but here in Australia unemployment is just above five per cent. It is double that right throughout Europe and almost double that in the United States. What drives us on this side of the House is jobs and also the capacity to work with fair working conditions. That is why we do need the Fair Work Act. We need to support those people at work with fair working conditions, and we need to back up their families with access to affordable health and education. And all of that is built on having a strict fiscal policy, because you cannot achieve those objectives of supporting employment unless you have a good, strict budget policy.
That is what we on this side of the House have done; we have brought the budget back to surplus well before just about any other developed economy. But we also understand that you need to build people up. That is why we are investing in skills and education. Those on the other side of the House want to tear people down. They do not have the same commitment to investing in skills and education, and we know that they certainly do not have a commitment to a fair industrial relations system. They will always side with the vested interests against the interests of the broad mass of the community.
They opposed our stimulus. Had they been in power, unemployment would be far higher now, and the social destruction from that would have been still blighting too many of our communities. As we go through this period of global volatility, we understand again that we have to engage not just domestically but internationally. We saw in the House today the lack of knowledge and the lack of comprehension of what needs to be done in the global economy. They demonstrated yet again how dangerous they would be if they were in power in these volatile conditions. They demonstrated yet again that they do not understand the international economy and that they do not understand the basis of the Australian economy.
Those are the fundamental differences between us on this side of the House and those on that side of the House. They always stand up for vested interests. We have seen it in the carbon price debate, we have seen it in the resource rent debate and we have seen in the industrial relations debate. We on this side of the House stand for ordinary hardworking Australians who expect nothing other than a fair go, a job, and fair health, education and housing systems. That is why we are all proud to be Labor.
The SPEAKER: I call the Acting Prime Minister.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The SPEAKER: He can jump at any time!
Mr ALBANESE: He can jump at any time, Tony.
Mr Swan: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Daniel Morecombe Foundation
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Deputy Speaker) (15:17): On behalf of Bruce and Denise Morecombe and the Daniel Morecombe Foundation I would like to express thanks that so many members wore an item of red today to signify the importance of child safety in this country. Other parliaments around Australia have also joined in parliamentary days for Daniel, and the Senate has been involved as well. On behalf of the foundation, I would just like to thank honourable members.
Daniel Morecombe Foundation
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Deputy Speaker) (15:17): On behalf of Bruce and Denise Morecombe and the Daniel Morecombe Foundation I would like to express thanks that so many members wore an item of red today to signify the importance of child safety in this country. Other parliaments around Australia have also joined in parliamentary days for Daniel, and the Senate has been involved as well. On behalf of the foundation, I would just like to thank honourable members.
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—Deputy Speaker) (15:17): On behalf of Bruce and Denise Morecombe and the Daniel Morecombe Foundation I would like to express thanks that so many members wore an item of red today to signify the importance of child safety in this country. Other parliaments around Australia have also joined in parliamentary days for Daniel, and the Senate has been involved as well. On behalf of the foundation, I would just like to thank honourable members.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (15:17): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation to clarify a matter.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SHORTEN: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr SHORTEN: The member for Mackellar seems to be confused. The government is firmly committed to abolishing the Superannuation Guarantee age limit for all Australian workers. My second reading speech for the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill yesterday states that the bill will lift the SG limit to 75. It also states that after strong representations from the Labor backbench and the crossbench—the member for Lyne and the member for New England—the government has decided to remove the age limit for superannuation contributions altogether.
The government will introduce our own amendments to the bill to achieve this in a sustainable and prudent way that provides sufficient lead time for employers and older Australians to adjust, unlike the earlier stunt by the member for Mackellar which sought to impose immediate change.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will not debate it any further. I simply say to the member for Mackellar that she made a submission to me before question time, and whilst I treated that as a misrepresentation it is an attempt to fulfil the first aspect where she said, 'Ask the minister to come back into the House and correct the record'. I did not ask him to, but he has come in and prefaced his remarks by saying that they were a clarification.
There is plenty of opportunity to make points through the debate of the bills. I simply say to the member for Mackellar that I think she may have achieved what she intended to achieve as best as can be at this point in time. But if she insists upon the call, I call the member for Mackellar.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (15:20): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented.
The SPEAKER: The member claims to have been misrepresented. Please proceed.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: When the Assistant Treasurer rose he said that I had been confused. I would simply read from his tabling speech where he said:
And this bill abolishes the superannuation guarantee age limit.
It does not. And when the minister rose he did not correct the record. He said, 'Oh, we will amend in the future.'
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I indicate to the member for Mackellar that, as far as I am concerned, this item is now closed. I have suggested that there are other ways—when the debate is on—she can make points, but as far as I am concerned she asked for a clarification and she was given a clarification.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (15:21): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mrs GRIGGS: Yes, most grievously.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mrs GRIGGS: Last Sunday's 'Bushranger' in the Northern Territory Newson 30 October—
Government members interjecting—
Mrs GRIGGS: You're a joke.
The SPEAKER: The member will ignore interjections and the interjectors will cease.
Mrs GRIGGS: The Northern Territory News claims that I supported the GP superclinic in the northern suburbs of Darwin. I have never supported a GP superclinic in the northern suburbs.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (15:17): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation to clarify a matter.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SHORTEN: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr SHORTEN: The member for Mackellar seems to be confused. The government is firmly committed to abolishing the Superannuation Guarantee age limit for all Australian workers. My second reading speech for the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill yesterday states that the bill will lift the SG limit to 75. It also states that after strong representations from the Labor backbench and the crossbench—the member for Lyne and the member for New England—the government has decided to remove the age limit for superannuation contributions altogether.
The government will introduce our own amendments to the bill to achieve this in a sustainable and prudent way that provides sufficient lead time for employers and older Australians to adjust, unlike the earlier stunt by the member for Mackellar which sought to impose immediate change.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will not debate it any further. I simply say to the member for Mackellar that she made a submission to me before question time, and whilst I treated that as a misrepresentation it is an attempt to fulfil the first aspect where she said, 'Ask the minister to come back into the House and correct the record'. I did not ask him to, but he has come in and prefaced his remarks by saying that they were a clarification.
There is plenty of opportunity to make points through the debate of the bills. I simply say to the member for Mackellar that I think she may have achieved what she intended to achieve as best as can be at this point in time. But if she insists upon the call, I call the member for Mackellar.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (15:20): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented.
The SPEAKER: The member claims to have been misrepresented. Please proceed.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: When the Assistant Treasurer rose he said that I had been confused. I would simply read from his tabling speech where he said:
And this bill abolishes the superannuation guarantee age limit.
It does not. And when the minister rose he did not correct the record. He said, 'Oh, we will amend in the future.'
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I indicate to the member for Mackellar that, as far as I am concerned, this item is now closed. I have suggested that there are other ways—when the debate is on—she can make points, but as far as I am concerned she asked for a clarification and she was given a clarification.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (15:21): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mrs GRIGGS: Yes, most grievously.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mrs GRIGGS: Last Sunday's 'Bushranger' in the Northern Territory Newson 30 October—
Government members interjecting—
Mrs GRIGGS: You're a joke.
The SPEAKER: The member will ignore interjections and the interjectors will cease.
Mrs GRIGGS: The Northern Territory News claims that I supported the GP superclinic in the northern suburbs of Darwin. I have never supported a GP superclinic in the northern suburbs.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:22): Mr Speaker, having been here for 18½ years, I believe—but I could be wrong—that the second reading speeches of ministers are relied upon by the courts in order to determine what the parliament intended by a bill. My question to you is: if the second reading speech says something that the bill does not do, how can the courts rely on that to determine the will of the parliament?
The SPEAKER (15:22): I will not enter into this. Another point has yet been made.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:23): I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 38 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report will eventually get to the table.
The report reads as follows—
Report relating to consideration of bills introduced 31 October to 3 November 2011
1. The committee met in private session on 2 and 3 November 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011;
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade:
Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011; and
Customs Amendment (Military End-Use) Bill 2011; and
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications:
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011;
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011; and
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011.
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:23): I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 38 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report will eventually get to the table.
The report reads as follows—
Report relating to consideration of bills introduced 31 October to 3 November 2011
1. The committee met in private session on 2 and 3 November 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011;
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade:
Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011; and
Customs Amendment (Military End-Use) Bill 2011; and
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications:
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011;
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011; and
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011.
Report
The SPEAKER (15:23): I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 38 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report will eventually get to the table.
The report reads as follows—
Report relating to consideration of bills introduced 31 October to 3 November 2011
1. The committee met in private session on 2 and 3 November 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011;
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade:
Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011; and
Customs Amendment (Military End-Use) Bill 2011; and
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications:
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011;
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011; and
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011.
The SPEAKER (15:23): I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 38 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report will eventually get to the table.
The report reads as follows—
Report relating to consideration of bills introduced 31 October to 3 November 2011
1. The committee met in private session on 2 and 3 November 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (MySuper Core Provisions) Bill 2011;
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade:
Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011; and
Customs Amendment (Military End-Use) Bill 2011; and
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications:
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011;
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011; and
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
The SPEAKER (15:23): I present the Auditor-General's reports for 2011-12 entitled Audit report No. 10, Administration of the National Partnership on Early Childhood Education, and Audit report No.11, Implementation and Management of the Housing Affordability Fund.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
The SPEAKER (15:23): I present the Auditor-General's reports for 2011-12 entitled Audit report No. 10, Administration of the National Partnership on Early Childhood Education, and Audit report No.11, Implementation and Management of the Housing Affordability Fund.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:23): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Human Rights Commission—Reports—
No. 46—Yousefi family v Commonwealth of Australia.
Review into the treatment of women at the Australian Defence Force Academy—Phase 1, October 2011.
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime—Government response.
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into the changing economic environment in the Indian Ocean Territories—Government response.
Productivity Commission—Report No. 51—Wheat export marketing arrangements—Government response.
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust—Report for 2010-11.
Debate adjourned.
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:23): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Human Rights Commission—Reports—
No. 46—Yousefi family v Commonwealth of Australia.
Review into the treatment of women at the Australian Defence Force Academy—Phase 1, October 2011.
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime—Government response.
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into the changing economic environment in the Indian Ocean Territories—Government response.
Productivity Commission—Report No. 51—Wheat export marketing arrangements—Government response.
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust—Report for 2010-11.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:23): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Human Rights Commission—Reports—
No. 46—Yousefi family v Commonwealth of Australia.
Review into the treatment of women at the Australian Defence Force Academy—Phase 1, October 2011.
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime—Government response.
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into the changing economic environment in the Indian Ocean Territories—Government response.
Productivity Commission—Report No. 51—Wheat export marketing arrangements—Government response.
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust—Report for 2010-11.
Debate adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
The SPEAKER (15:24): I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to responsibly manage the economy
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:24): I noticed in the newspapers this morning a report that the Treasurer will resign from parliament should the member for Griffith be elected Leader of the Labor Party—and I suspect that after that question time the member doubled his numbers in the caucus. The Treasurer made a very feeble attempt to recover some level of economic integrity after yet again being exposed in his failure to address the details of all of his announcements—quite ably, I might say, by my colleague the member for Mackellar, who had picked up quite appropriately that the announcement in the government's second reading speech that there was no age limit on the Superannuation Guarantee contribution in fact totally contradicted what was in the law they were introducing, which put up a 75-year age limit.
This is a classic example of this government's performance and the fact that they are incompetent and pay no attention to detail. Even this morning they were still updating on the internet the explanatory memoranda for the 11 mining tax bills they introduced yesterday—and they expect this parliament to have a properly informed debate about the matter!
You would have thought that this week Australian households and small businesses would have been relieved at a decision by the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut the cash rate by 25 basis points. Three of the four major banks passed on that rate cut in full to the standard variable home loan. Of course, the National Australia Bank did not. I say it should have been good news because it will be some measure of relief for Australian households from some of the challenges they face with higher utility prices, higher food prices and so on. But the reduction in interest rates came about because the Reserve Bank is concerned about international movements—and rightly so—but also concerned about the moderation in economic growth. Economic growth is not travelling at the speed that the Reserve Bank expected. That means the economy is not performing as well as the Reserve Bank originally expected.
Consumers are also more cautious than the Reserve Bank expected. Why are consumers cautious? Every time this government sees a problem or challenge in the community it taxes it—'If there's a problem with teenage binge drinking, introduce an alcopops tax,' 'If there's a problem with people smoking too many cigarettes, introduce a cigarette tax,' 'If there's a problem with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, introduce a carbon tax,' and, 'If there's a challenge for the Australian car industry facing cheaper imports, introduce laws that increase the taxation rate on foreign made cars and more expensive motor vehicles.'
Of course, if you do well in Australia this government always wants to target you, no matter who you are. It was not that long ago, perhaps 14 years, that the mining industry in Australia was, relatively speaking, on its knees. But this government now says: 'Well, if you're doing well in Australia, we'll tax you. If you're not doing well in Australia, we'll still tax you. And if anyone is left, we'll regulate them.' That is what the Labor Party does.
I nearly fell off the green leather chair here today when the Treasurer said they had a great fiscal strategy and it is delivering a surplus. Unfortunately, it is not delivering a surplus; that is why it is a bad fiscal strategy. The budget deficit this year will be $22.6 billion, and it will be the fourth consecutive year of deficit. I said before, and I have said consistently, I do not expect Labor to ever deliver a surplus budget. Originally I said it about the member for Griffith, and I was absolutely right—he never did deliver a surplus budget. I say it emphatically about the Labor Party: they will not deliver a surplus budget. Bear this in mind, Mr Speaker: you will need to deliver surplus after surplus after surplus to start paying down the $110 billion of net debt. Bear in mind that, over the last four years, Labor have accrued a deficit of $154 billion. The only reason net debt is less than that is that we left money in the bank. We actually left the country with no net debt; in fact, there was a net surplus of assets. So they have spent the surplus of assets that we left them with four years ago and then they accrued $110 billion extra in net debt. The government are borrowing $62 million a day, at the moment, simply to meet day-to-day expenditure. It is no wonder that the Australian people reacted when the Prime Minister announced in the papers today that she wants to lend money to the IMF to lend money to the Eurozone to lend money to the Greeks. Under this proposal, Australia would be borrowing money to lend it to people who would lend it to people who would lend it to people who have a debt problem.
Of course, the Treasurer himself was tricking in question time. He knew exactly what we were getting at. First of all, he started the bluff and bluster about the coalition no longer supporting the IMF. We do support the IMF; we have always supported the IMF. We have done so on a number of occasions and we will continue to do so. But the IMF should not accept some of the suggestions from the Eurozone that it should form a partnership with the Eurozone for the European bailout fund. It is not part of the current mandate of the IMF. That is a very important point.
I quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, and I repeat it. He knows that the people of Britain will not cop British taxpayers' money being used to bail out the Greeks and the European currency. It is one thing to bail out an individual country. The IMF does that on regular occasions and it is appropriate that it does so. The strict rules that the IMF applies—and they are often criticised, as they were during the Asian financial crisis—are appropriate as a way of repaying those loans. The concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and our concern, is that this is about shoring up a currency. This is about shoring up the European Union.
The Prime Minister has gone into this issue like a wild bull in a china shop. Firstly, the Prime Minister arrives overseas and says, 'We stand ready to give more money to the IMF for this purpose,' yet the IMF has no deal with the Eurozone. Secondly, the concerns for everyday Australians are: what is the amount of money that is going to be put into this program and why is Australia leading the charge when the nearest neighbours to the Europeans—that is, the British—are not prepared to do the same? The third key factor is that the Europeans are trying to get the Greeks to agree to the current package on the table. They are trying desperately to get the Greeks across the line on the current package, saying, 'It is this package. You should accept it.' But along comes Julia Gillard and says, 'Hang on, there could be another pot of money.' So all the dissenters in Greece can turn to the words of the Prime Minister of Australia and say, 'Here's an alternative to accepting the existing European package.'
When the Prime Minister said she does not understand foreign affairs, she was damn right. The British know this, and other countries know this, but unfortunately we have a Prime Minister who is more interested in big-noting herself and going to the G20, when she is one of the weakest voices and trying to pretend to Australians that she is the strongest voice.
The challenge for Australia out of this is that, firstly, we should fix our own house. Our strength in our words comes from our actions. When Australia speaks, people listen, provided that we have the cash in our pocket, that we are not penalising our people, that we do not have to have austerity measures and that we as a nation are enhanced and empowered by having no debt, by having cash in our pocket. In a world where there is financial turmoil there is one truth: the person who has cash, the person who has no debt, and the person who can influence politics and influence outcomes is the one who has the most money in their pocket. That is the rule.
There is the emergence of China and the fact that the Europeans are now seeking out China for funding. The Chinese are not openly offering funding to the Eurozone like our Prime Minister. No, no, no. The Chinese are standing back and saying, 'You must prove that you are prepared to fix your house, and you come to me.' That is because they are the powerful ones, they have the money. But our Prime Minister feels the need to be generous at taxpayers' expense, after she has just delivered a $50 billion deficit, with a more than $22 billion deficit this year and with her incompetent Treasurer umming and ahhing about whether he actually can deliver a surplus.
You know what, the bottom line is this: the Prime Minister is promising what she cannot deliver. She is 'writing cheques her body cannot cash'—to quote from a great movie. The bottom line out of that is: Australians end up paying the price. Why do they end up paying the price? Because this is a government addicted to tax. On the same day that the Prime Minister offers money to help the Eurozone—the richest and largest economy in the world—when they did not even ask for it, Australians are having new taxes imposed on them by the government. A flood tax, a mining tax, a carbon tax, an alcopops tax, a cigarettes tax and new taxes on cars are all happening at the same time that our Prime Minister is beating her chest over in Europe, saying, 'We're going to lend you money.' My goodness! That is like a member of the gallery up there going along to the National Australia Bank and saying, 'Look, I can lend you 100 bucks'—
Mr Laming: 'And I've got a home loan with you!'
Mr HOCKEY: That is right: 'I'll offer you a home loan!'
The challenge in the Australian economy at the moment is that this government is not concerned about the fundamentals, which include improving productivity. This government has not lifted a finger on productivity. This week we have seen the government, the Labor Party, as the acting Prime Minister said, return to true form. They always look at the opportunity to engage in class war. They were so focused on the interests of the unions this week that they forgot the people out there that get on the planes. They were so focused on the unions this week that they forgot the interests of the miners that take the risk—invest the money to deliver the minerals to the marketplace that pay our bills.
The government was so focused on its own internal politics this week—the battle between the member for Griffith and the Prime Minister—that they did not recognise the signals from the Reserve Bank that the economy is not performing as well as was expected. Of course, the acting Prime Minister would say that this is the fault of the Europeans. Falling consumer confidence is not the fault of the Europeans. Falling consumer confidence comes when everyday Australians face higher bills—higher utility bills in electricity and water—higher transportation costs, higher health costs, higher rents, higher housing costs and construction costs. The falling building construction numbers and falling consumer confidence are alarming because they represent the fact that the Australian consumer has not got the confidence to go through. As far as I and the coalition are concerned, you do not build consumer confidence by introducing new taxes. You do not build Australian business confidence by taxing those that are most successful. You do not help the Australian economy by offering money, which Australia does not have, to a cause that Australia should not be involved in at this point of time. The fundamental point is that this is a directionless government that is focused on its own achievements of power and preservation of power rather than on the interests of the Australian people. And long may it continue until the day when we throw them out of government. (Time expired)
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (15:39): On the matter of public importance, I waited with my usual optimism to hear something constructive from the shadow Treasurer, but yet again nothing came out. If we are going to have a debate about the reasonable management of the economy, we need to set up the tests for that management. I would submit to the House that there is a number of reasonable tests: getting the big calls right; balancing the books; identifying existing problems in our economy and our society and fixing them; making sure that our economy grows fairly and inclusively; looking at the alternative management strategy, that is, of the opposition; and, most importantly, having innovative ideas and an optimistic vision for the future. These are the criteria. These, I submit, are the things Australians are interested in: getting the big calls right; balancing the books; identifying the major problems; seeing that the economy grows fairly and inclusively; examining if there are better alternative options; and making sure that we have an optimistic long-term view—not just for today or tomorrow, next week or next month or next year but for the next decade or the next two decades.
Returning to the submissions on the efficient and effective management of the economy, let us have a look at the big calls; let us look at the scoreboard for the government. On the global financial crisis: unlike most of the rest of the OECD, this nation managed to escape recession. Let us look at the big calls in the workplace: we reformed and abolished the unfair Work Choices laws of our predecessors which were leading us in a race to the bottom in wages and conditions. We abolished the minimum standards which would see our children and our grandchildren being paid inferior and unfair wages.
Let us look at another big call that we have got right: the information superhighway, the National Broadband Network, the innovation for the 21st century, which allows Australians to compete with the rest of the world. Let us look at another call we got right: flood reconstruction. No-one could have predicted these floods, but what options were available? Using the national economy, we set a levy and found the funds to help rebuild the terribly damaged infrastructure, mainly in Queensland but in other places too. We are also getting the big call right about finally acting on creating a sustainable economy by putting a price on carbon pollution. Indeed, have a look at the most immediate big call we had: dealing with the precipitous and over-the-top lockout at Qantas, stranding tens of thousands of passengers and travellers and grounding hundreds of aeroplanes. So there we go, we got the big calls right—the GFC, Work Choices, NBN, flood reconstruction, the carbon price and the most recent imbroglio and confusion created by Qantas shutting down its airline.
There is another submission which shows that we are managing the economy reasonably—that is, the need to balance the books. When you look at our net public sector debt in the Commonwealth to GDP, you see we are doing better than most of the rest of the world. It is going to peak at seven per cent; our interest payments are 0.4 per cent. Let us be very clear what the GFC did: the GFC absolutely slammed government revenue, but we have managed to engage in the fastest fiscal contraction since records began. That is $100 billion across four budgets. We have been winding back the Howard government's welfare creep. Indeed, when we came to power at the end of 2007, nearly 75 per cent of Australian families were receiving some family payment from the government. This was not sustainable and we have been winding that back. Look at the departmental efficiency dividend we have been applying to get our numbers back into the black—1.5 per cent. This I believe contrasts very favourably to the ill-thought-out opposition policies, which I will come to in a moment.
Having said that we get the big calls right and having said that we balance the books, we have also identified existing problems and we are in the process of fixing them. We do have a multispeed economy. You would have to live on another planet not to recognise that the mining boom, whilst it is good for some sections of the Australian economy, is causing dislocation in other parts of the economy. We have a very high dollar, which makes it hard for domestic tourism, domestic education services and local manufacturers to compete. So what are we doing? We have introduced the minerals resource rent tax so that we will share the prosperity that the richest companies in the world are enjoying from non-renewable resources—Australians' birthright—throughout the whole of the Australian Commonwealth; we are going to provide the 29 per cent corporate tax break; we are going to provide $1 billion in tax breaks for small business; we are going to build national infrastructure; and we are certainly going to lift compulsory superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
Never let it be forgotten that those opposite get 15 per cent super but would vote against 8½ million Australians getting 12 per cent. I look up the dictionary and that is coalition hypocrisy of the worst order. I note there are no interjections from them on that point because they know I am right. We also look at the unfair fees in superannuation—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Now they come up with interjections when they guiltily realise they have been caught out with their hand in the cookie jar of superannuation.
Mr Christensen: Play a different tune!
Mr SHORTEN: If the member for Dawson is bored, why doesn't he go and find something else to do? Dial a friend! Fees in superannuation are unfair, so we are going to have SuperStream and MySuper and make sure that we put downward pressure on fees and charges in superannuation. We are going to improve and reform the provision of financial advice in Australia.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I can hear the member for Mayo, the mini-me of Peter Reith, interjecting. We are the only people who will even listen to him—his own side keep gagging him. We have the Future of Financial Advice reforms, and we are going to reform financial planning. We are going to reduce the confusion around flood insurance and sort out a common definition so that never again will Australians have to go through fruitless and frustrating arguments with their insurer as to whether or not they are covered for flood. We are also making many more reforms in many other areas.
Having said that we are identifying existing problems and fixing them, that we are balancing the books and that we are getting the big calls right, I would submit in support of the proposition that we are managing the economy efficiently the fact that we are making sure that the economy grows fairly and inclusively. We understand that change is an inevitable part of Australian life, but we are determined to make sure that no-one gets left behind, as opposed to a coalition society where, if you cannot survive for yourself—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): It is Thursday afternoon and, while I admire the exuberance of the member for Bradfield, he should restrain himself at this point in time. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for pulling up the member for Bradfield. We are making sure that we do not forget social justice. Australia as a nation is in a process of change, but we can never forget people in that process of change. We have increased the pension. We have engaged in income tax cuts. Fortuitously, I have to hand some of the statistics on the personal income tax cuts that this government has delivered.
Someone earning $20,000 is paying $750 less this financial year than they were in 2007-08. Someone earning $30,000 is paying $750 less than they would have been in the last year of the Howard government. Someone earning $50,000 is paying $1,750 less this financial year than they would have been in the last year the Howard government.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members for Mayo and Bradfield will desist from continual interjections.
Mr SHORTEN: I get more sense off a bunch of crows on a power line than those two! The person earning $80,000 is paying $1,400 less this year, even including the flood levy, than they would have paid under the Howard government. So we have been delivering real change. For instance, a single person without children earning $39,000 in 2007-08 and $44,500 in 2010-11 has seen their tax wedge fall by 1.7 percentage points to 14.9 per cent in 2010-11. These are real numbers, and the real numbers are confronting to the opposition.
We are doing other things in the field of social justice which should not be overlooked. The most important thing you can do for social justice is create a job. If an Australian has a job they have a chance of engaging in the housing market and of educating their kids: they have a stake in society. Since Labor has been elected, 752,000 jobs have been created. When you look at what has been happening around the world in the global financial crisis, 30 million jobs have gone; yet in Australia under a Labor government 752,000 jobs have been created. We have increased the family payments for families with teenagers between 16 and 19. As any parent with a teenager between 16 and 19 knows, they do not get any cheaper the older they get.
The government is also proposing a particularly equitable piece of law, and we put the bill into the parliament yesterday, but the coalition is regrettably opposing it. There are 3½ million Australians who earn less than $37,000 a year, which means that they either pay no tax or 15 per cent in income tax. But what happens with their superannuation, since superannuation is taxed concessionally at 15 per cent? That 15 per cent concessional tax is all right if you pay a higher rate in income tax, because there is then an advantage to put your money in super at the lower tax rate. The problem is that, if you are one of the 3½ million lower income Australians, you do not get the benefit of that tax concession. So what are we going to do? We are going to abolish it. What will happen is that, if you earn less than $37,000 a year, you will no longer pay tax on your superannuation—it will all go into your superannuation.
It does not just stop there, though. We have now extended and developed the education tax refund, providing more help for families with the cost of educating their kids. the education tax refund has been extended to include school uniforms and a range of other incidental costs. These are the costs parents have, and they are DNA-hardwired to pay them for their kids because they want their kids to get the best start in life. What we are doing is helping them in that process of educating the kids.
Having said that we get the big calls right, that we balance the books, that we identify the existing problems and are fixing them, that we are into social justice and that we are making sure Australians have an opportunity to cope in an ever-changing world, we must look at some of the coalition myths. Getting criticism from the opposition about economic management seems a little rich when I look at their costing errors. In the election period last year they had a $10.6 billion costing black hole. The opposition need to know that taxpayers' money is not monopoly money; it is real money, and you should not have black hole. Some of their costing errors—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Perhaps if the member for Mayo spoke less and listened more there would be a chance that he would learn more. I apologise—I did not mean to imply he was learning! Their costing errors included spending $3.3 billion from the nation-building funds on local roads and not accounting for it in their numbers. They did not account for $356 million in their employment participation policy. They did not allow for $2.5 billion. They reduced what is known as the conservative bias allowance, which Treasury says does not realise any actual budgetary savings. Treasury and finance have identified literally hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I understand why the member for Goldstein attempts to interrupt me: he is embarrassed because he is in charge of this economic smash-up—this economic road crash.
Let us have a look at the final thing which, I would submit, shows that we are the party capable of economic management. We are the only party with an innovative and positive view of the future. If you have not been convinced already—by our balancing the books, by our working at fixing the problems, by our propositions of social justice and by the litany of opposition costing errors which are more like something done by Homer Simpson than by a serious opposition—then I submit to you three points among the collection of propositions that we are advancing for the future of Australia.
Firstly, we want to lift compulsory superannuation to 12 per cent. The opposition know it is a good idea—they get 15 per cent or defined benefit. The first rule of leadership is: don't just say it; practice what you preach. If they are willing to take 15 per cent for themselves, why can't the rest of Australia get 12 per cent?
It does not stop there. Secondly, we are now spending, as a down payment on the future, $3 billion on productivity through training apprentices and training trainees. Nearly half a million Australian people are on the path of apprenticeships and training.
There is a third idea which, I submit to you, demonstrates our capacity to manage the economy on behalf of the society as a whole. I think a lot of people on the Labor side know what that is: the proposition of a national disability insurance scheme.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: The opposition interjects on such a good idea—very heartless. A national disability insurance scheme is a long overdue proposition for this nation. Why should someone, because they are born with an impairment or acquire it in a blink of an eye, live a second-class life in Australia? Why should their carers live a second-class life? This party of government, this Labor Party, understand that it is now time to set right the wrong that has been occurring for a very long time in Australia. We are establishing the foundations for a national disability insurance scheme. We are working on a national injury insurance scheme. We are determined to make sure that two million Australians with profound or severe disability and their carers finally get included in Australian society on an equal basis. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:55): We have recently heard a litany of confusion and make-up. In recent weeks we have had to suffer the embarrassment of our Prime Minister and our Treasurer lecturing Europe about their economic woes. As we have just heard from the member for Maribyrnong, the lecturing of Europe has only served to highlight the incompetence of those opposite in managing our economy.
Overnight we heard more platitudes from our Prime Minister, who, speaking in Europe, admonished the Europeans for muddling through and urged them to get a plan. Can you believe it? It is the pot calling the kettle black. It comes from a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who have muddled from one train wreck to another. It is cringe worthy. They are lecturing the Europeans, yet it is looking increasingly likely that this government will once again have to raise the debt ceiling above the quarter of a trillion dollars that they raised it to only months ago from $70 billion when they took office. They have raised it now to a quarter of a trillion dollars, and it is looking likely that they will come back again into this place within 12 months and look for a further rise in that debt ceiling.
Their self-esteem is such that our Prime Minister and Treasurer are now offering to borrow more money to bail out Europe. This is a Europe which this year will again, after many years of doing the same thing, spend tens of billions of dollars subsidising their farmers so that our own farmers are locked out of their markets. They are going to spend tens of billions of dollars in Europe to lock our farmers out of their markets and disadvantage our farmers, yet we are going to help bail out Europe with tens of millions of dollars in aid. This is a nonsense, this is cringe worthy, this is embarrassing and, more importantly, this is sheer incompetence.
What do you think people who are struggling in small business out there—
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
Mr ROBB: So you are going to give them a carbon tax, and you are going to give business a mining tax. This is the sort of thinking we have to deal with. This is the absurd thinking and the economic illiteracy that is running our country. They are going to help the Europeans to lock our farmers out of their markets. They are going to help the Europeans spend our borrowed money—every cent of that money they give to the Europeans will be borrowed money—and that will be used to help subsidise their farmers to lock our own farmers out of Europe. This is just unbelievable.
But the biggest criticism that we have with this government—and we have had it for a long time—is their refusal to acknowledge the vulnerability of our economy. All of that vulnerability is not their fault, but they will not even acknowledge the vulnerability that is not even their own fault.
This is why there is a crisis of confidence. People know that there is something afoot—that there are dark clouds out there. People know that we are totally reliant on the pollyanna assumptions that this government made in their budget estimations. People know that, if resource prices come off just 15 or 20 per cent, we will have more and more deficits and higher and higher interest rates. People know this. They know that jobs will go backwards. People are concerned about losing their jobs. The trend is there, yet this government will not acknowledge the vulnerability of our economy. They refuse to act to restore the economic resilience that they inherited. Despite the mining boom, we have seen growth of debt—the third fastest in the developed world. There are only the economic powerhouses of Iceland and—
Mr Bradbury: Back it up.
Mr ROBB: Here he is! He looks confused. He does not even know the OECD figures that show that the Australian economy went from zero debt to, now, $210 billion of gross debt. We have gone to that level, and it is the third fastest in growth of any developed country in the world, apart from the powerhouses of Iceland and Ireland!
A government member interjecting—
Mr ROBB: What an embarrassment! What a statement! 'We got the big calls right,' said the member for Maribyrnong, and now we have confusion coming across the table—total confusion. Despite the mining boom we have had three record deficits. Not only that; we have had a structural deficit in this year's budget, which is twice Germany's structural deficit. We have, on a per capita basis compared with Italy—one of the big economies in the world and one of the shaky ones—a structural deficit which is 30 per cent greater.
So on a per capita basis we are twice as risky—twice as bad and twice as big—as Germany, and compared to Italy our structural deficit is 30 per cent greater on a per capita basis. This is the vulnerability that we have. This means that if there is any downturn in commodity prices we will be facing a $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion deficits for years and years. That means much higher debt, and all of the prosperity—all of the great blessings that we have had from this mining boom—will be squandered. This is irresponsibility. This is a government that will not acknowledge what is going on in our own country, much less the rest of the world.
The other thing about this vulnerability is the growth in government that we have seen in our lives over the last four years. It is the biggest growth in government in my life—and that includes the Whitlam era. This is the only government in the world that reregulated its labour market in the face of a global financial crisis. Those changes are now coming home to roost. We are now seeing the vulnerability and the repercussions.
Not only that; this is the only country in the world—the only government in the world—that is renationalising its telecommunications sector. What does the Economist magazine think of that? We heard about it earlier on. This is the only country in the world that is bringing in a nationwide carbon tax. What about that tax? It is crawling with thousands of bureaucrats. It is crawling with six new organisations. It is the most interventionist way you could ever try to deal with a price on carbon. It is the most socialist way you could deal with the price of carbon. No-one else has one; we are ahead of the rest of the world. That is a vulnerability. We are putting this carbon tax on everybody in this economy despite the fact that we are facing very vulnerable, very doubtful times.
We had the member for Maribyrnong up here a few minutes ago gloating that this government had created an efficient public service. If you go back to the first budget of the Treasurer of this Labor government you find that the budget predicted that, in 2011-12, the Public Service would grow to a cost of $16 billion. Have a look at the budget papers this year and you will see that the cost for 2011-12 is expected to be $19 billion. So there we had the member for Maribyrnong, who is supposed to be the Assistant Treasurer—what a goose!—who thinks his party has improved, refined and maintained a public service which is efficient. Yet it has grown $3 billion more in cost than they anticipated just three years ago—and that is in the face of a global financial crisis, for goodness sake!
This is a government that has failed Australians. We can give hope, growth and development, and we can open up the north; but this government has failed and will not deliver on those things. We offer hope, reward and opportunity.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:05): I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate about the management of the economy. The matter that has been raised by the member for North Sydney suggests that this government has not been capable in managing the economy; the facts tell a very different story. In fact, if we have a look at what has occurred over the last couple of years across the global economy we see that Australia stands out as one of the most outstanding success stories when it comes to economic management. I regularly host visits of individuals from all around the world, and when they come here they comment, almost universally, on how successful the economic management has been here in Australia through the troubled times of the global financial crisis.
To underline this point I will make a simple comparison of some figures. At the height of the global financial crisis, 30 million jobs were shed across the global economy; yet here in Australia we created over 700,000 jobs. We created over 700,000 jobs at a time when every other country was facing job losses. The initiatives that we put in place by acting decisively to stimulate the economy have been the difference. Those initiatives ensured that Australians were able to stay in employment through these difficult times.
We all know that the government has a very strong focus on jobs. When we talk about managing the economy, we talk about managing it for the many and not for the few. We talk about managing it so that working Australians continue to be in work. Had we adopted the so-called policy prescriptions of the opposition during the global financial crisis then lots of Australians—tens if not hundreds of thousands of Australians—would not have stayed in employment. The consequences of that would have been extremely detrimental to the national economy.
We all know that, when the debate in this place was occurring around the government's response to the global financial crisis, the Leader of the Opposition was not even in this chamber. Unlike most of his colleagues, he actually did not vote against the stimulus measures, because he failed to turn up to the chamber. We all recall the article in the Daily Telegraph that at great length identified the fact that the member for Warringah, before he was the Leader of the Opposition, did not even come into this chamber to vote; he slept through the vote. Is that the sort of person we want with their hands on the levers and the steering wheel of the national economy as we move into the next phase of economic development? Is that the person we want at the helm? He was asleep at the wheel when this government intervened to save all of those jobs.
Those on the other side seek to diminish the contribution of the government to the economy through the global financial crisis. They often say: 'It was not the government; it was the resources boom. That is all it was—the resources boom.' I am reminded of the comments that the then Secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, made to Senate estimates in May last year. He made the very valid point that if every sector across the Australian economy the Australian economy had shed jobs at that same rate as did the resources sector through the global financial crisis—and to recap for those who cannot recall, during the global financial crisis the mining industry shed 15 per cent of its jobs—the unemployment rate in Australia would have been 19 per cent. I would like to hear those who say the mining sector saved the Australian economy through the global financial crisis respond to that.
There are those who say that it was not just the mining sector; it was China. They say this as if to suggest that China was not around before this government came to power and that any of the revenue gains over the years which governments before us were able to achieve had nothing to do with China. All of a sudden China decided to industrialise when Labor came to power! They say that we only survived the global financial crisis as the economic success story we are because of China.
In the Leader of the Opposition's most recent pronouncements he said he has grave concerns about dealing with China. He thinks we need to be very cautious about a free trade agreement with China. In fact, I am sure his former leader, the former member for Bennelong, would be most concerned and disturbed to know that the very free trade negotiations he initiated back in 2005 have now become the source of such great concern to his old party. I think it is a further example of the complete lack of sensible economic thinking within the coalition at the moment.
You often hear those on the other side talk about taxation. We heard another bout of it from the member for North Sydney today. They say this government has introduced this tax and that tax: 'All they ever do is introduce new taxes.' Why would a government want to introduce taxes? Governments introduce taxes for various reasons. I would hazard a guess that some of the reasons we have introduced some of these initiatives might be the same reasons that the former government introduced all of the new taxes they chose to introduce, whether it be the sugar levy, the dairy levy, the tax on airfares after the Ansett collapse, the East Timor levy or the mother of all taxes they introduced: the goods and services tax. They come into this place and talk as though they are the only ones who ever cut taxes and we are the only ones who ever introduced them. They fail to acknowledge the fact that in our first three budgets we cut personal income tax by $47 billion. We have reduced personal income tax by $47 billion.
This is all a smokescreen to hide the real motives behind their decision to block and then repeal the mining tax. They are going to have to argue this in their communities. The Australian community is onboard with the mining tax. When I talk to people in the community, I find there is almost universal acceptance that this is what our nation requires. When BHP was announcing its record profits and when BlueScope Steel was laying off over 1,000 working Australians, most Australians could see that the nature of this patchwork economy meant that we needed to spread the benefits of the resources boom.
We need to ensure that all Australians get the benefit of the exploitation of our mineral resources. These are the resources we as Australian people own. As companies seek to exploit them to generate their own income and—as a result—national income, we need to ensure that the benefits are evenly spread. We are determined to do that. We are determined to do that to deliver a tax cut to small business, to reduce the company rate and to increase the ability of small businesses to instantly write off asset purchases of up to $5,000 and $6,000 to ensure that those purchasing motor vehicles are able to take an upfront deduction up to that amount.
We are also ensuring that working people are able to aspire to the retirement savings we all know they deserve. After toiling away for 40 years in the workforce, Australians expect that in retirement they will have a decent standard of living. We know that the compulsory superannuation levy at nine per cent will not deliver sufficient retirement savings; we want to make sure that all Australians are able to retire with a degree of comfort. These are measures that those on the other side oppose and will seek to repeal in government. They will increase taxes on small business. They will rip away superannuation for working Australians. They will give a massive windfall tax cut to the resource companies. That is their vision for the future. We are determined to build an economy that is resilient for the future, to tackle the challenge of an ageing population and to build the infrastructure that we need through a national broadband network. We are determined to ensure that our economy is a prosperous one and that the benefits of it are spread right across the economy. Most importantly, we want to make sure that working Australians get their fair share. It is all good and well for the big end of town to benefit; we want to make sure that working families and working Australians share in the fruits and the bounty of the prosperity that we will enjoy. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:15): We are here to speak on the government's failure to responsibly manage the economy, and we have heard from Admiral Bradbury that everything is shipshape—the economy is well anchored. But it is very difficult for me to know where to start to criticise the government on this front. How do you choose from the vast array of economic vandalism that this government has listed on its resume? It would be a laughable proposition if only it were not so serious.
The government's economic failure is extremely serious for those on the receiving end—for this country's forgotten families: the hardworking mums and dads out there who had to sit back and watch this government dive into the pool of money earned by the good people of this country and responsibly banked by the previous government. The families in my electorate of Dawson had to sit back and watch them splash it around, spilling billions of dollars here and billions of dollars there. They are a Labor government, so they are not so concerned about a bit of spillage or a bit of waste, because waste is their middle name. When the pool of money ran out, they borrowed more, and then they borrowed more, and then they borrowed even more money. They splash, they spill, they waste. They just keep borrowing and they just keep wasting. It is painful to watch for the families that have worked hard for that money and even more painful for the families who will spend the rest of their working lives without seeing an end to Labor's debt, if this lot stay in.
This economic mismanagement continues to destroy the economy. They are a bit like a kid in the lolly store—spoilt for choice—but I will choose just three things to focus on. They are big things that the government are responsible for. They have continued and will continue to waste money. They have cost and will cost families money. They have cost and will cost businesses money. They have cost and will cost jobs.
There can be no greater example of a government determined to destroy its own economy than the Labor-Greens government, who are imposing the biggest, the ugliest and the most destructive carbon tax in the world. The problem with this government is their complete isolation from the people they are supposed to represent. The Prime Minister and the Labor members in this place sought and got a mandate from the people not to impose a carbon tax. They did not listen then and they are certainly not listening now. They are not listening to businesspeople, who quite justifiably have very serious concerns about the impact that this carbon tax will have on their livelihood. This Labor government denies the legitimate anxiety that these businesses have, knowing this tax is about to come in and hit them very, very hard. This is what business and industry are saying out in the real world. The National Generators Forum, the peak body of Australia's power industry, said the carbon tax will:
… produce virtually no change in emissions from the generation sector while imposing huge costs on the community, trade-exposed industries and electricity generators.
After looking at the legislation that this government introduced and passed, the National Generators Forum said it would almost double the wholesale price of electricity to $100 per megawatt hour by 2020. The Labor government either does not listen or does not care—probably both—about what this will do to businesses and the families that are employed by them.
Businesses in my electorate of Dawson have already made decisions to halt investment. Take, for example, Werner Engineering, a business that has been around for three decades in the Mackay region servicing the agricultural and resource sectors. I spoke to their manager, Chris Geach, about his planned multimillion dollar relocation and expansion. They have had to put it on hold. The increased cost that his local, Australian based business will have to pay under the carbon tax will not be paid by his international competitors. You cannot blame business for being against this carbon tax. But it is not just business; it is the families and workers employed, or soon to be not employed, by businesses who hate it as well. It is no wonder that more than 94 per cent of people who returned a survey that I put out in my electorate say they are opposed to the carbon tax.
Mr McCormack: Ninety four per cent?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Six thousand people responded; 94 per cent were against. But, as big and as ugly and as economically destructive as the carbon tax is, it is just one method this government is using to bring the economy to its knees. Everything this government touches it stuffs up. As the Leader of the Opposition says, it is like the Midas touch in reverse; in fact, it is actually worse than the Midas touch in reverse because the government even manages to stuff up the economy with what it does not touch.
The one time they should have done something—the one time they should have stepped in—they did not. Qantas and the flying public needed the government to act and they did not act. They sat on their hands and did nothing. They were probably too scared to do anything because they know what happens when they do act. But doing nothing just punched another big, fat hole in the economy. It punched another big hole in business. In the Whitsundays, in the electorate of Dawson, times are already tough—as tough as they were during the pilots strike of 1989. They are suffering from the high Aussie dollar and the legacy of the summer of natural disasters. The Whitsundays relies on tourism and, by allowing the situation with the Qantas industrial dispute to get so out of control that the national carrier's entire fleet was grounded, this government knocked the stuffing out of even more Whitsunday businesses. QantasLink flights, thankfully, continued into the Whitsundays, but I have to tell you that there were a lot of empty seats. No connections means no passengers, and no passengers means no business, and that means someone is out of pocket—a family is out of pocket. How much more damage does the government want to do to the economy in the Whitsundays? They cannot wait for the carbon tax up there, I can tell you. They cannot wait!
Then there is the damage that has been caused to job-creating investment proposals in North Queensland by the rigid regulations of the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation approvals process. I point to one very big example of the damage: the multibillion dollar Abbot Point multicargo facility project. This project, which has the capacity to generate thousands of jobs and see an increase in population and services into the town of Bowen, has been held up by the federal environment department, awaiting EPBC approval, since December last year. Literally nothing has happened to what will be one of the biggest projects of all in Northern Australia. Each month the project proponents are told, 'Next month you will get the approval,' or 'The approval is coming; it is coming.' Well, so is Christmas—for a second time round for this proposal. Next month the project will have sat there stagnant for a year because of the federal government's delays.
Here is a little update that has been given by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; it came out during the Senate estimates. A bureaucrat from there, Barbara Jones, Assistant Secretary of the Environment Assessment Branch, said:
The proponent, North Queensland Bulk Ports, provided a final EIS document to the department on 6 December last year. The department is still considering the content of that document and assessing it.
The department has been assessing it for nearly a year. The proponents were advised that the application would be finalised in February—nine months ago—and it has been held up because of the onerous demands to offset perceived environmental damage. I have to tell you that that has Bob Brown's fingerprints all over it. The state government has already addressed the issue, and the proponents have agreed to a 100 per cent offset to all perceived environmental damage—100 per cent agreed. That was the original issue, and the agreement—you would think—would be the end of the issue.
But industry sources have told me that the department has now got UNESCO involved—UNESCO; would you believe it?—because the project is off the coast of the Great Barrier Reef. Now we have some bureaucrat in some United Nations office sitting over there in Paris with his little red pen, probably daydreaming about a holiday in the Bahamas or somewhere, and he is more concerned about that or what he is going to have for lunch than he is about creating jobs in North Queensland. The department basically confirmed this at Senate estimates. While they would not use the word 'referral' because of the connotations it has, they said that they were basically notifying UNESCO bureaucrats in Paris about job-creating projects in North Queensland.
Who is running this country? Is it the Labor Party, who quite clearly could not care less about business, investment or the economy? Is it the Greens, who want to completely shut it all down? If a Labor government is taking its economic policy from the Greens, it is just a matter of time before there is no economy in North Queensland—and the rest of the country will not be far behind.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:25): Deputy Speaker Slipper, may I congratulate you on your sartorial splendour this afternoon?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I thank the honourable member.
Dr LEIGH: The member for Dawson has been dancing around the matter of public importance today, which is that of the economy. It is surprising, therefore, that he does not raise the issue that he raised in his maiden speech. In his first speech to this place, the member for Dawson called for the scrapping of income tax—a bold proposal, to be sure, which I am sure that the member for Dawson is still committed to. Why is he not putting that forward? It might be something to do with the fact that the coalition are in a deep, deep black hole.
We know, of course, that in the last federal election they were a cool $11 billion down in their costings. But it has only got worse, and the hole is now $70 billion. It is kind of odd that at this point that the member for Dawson does not just say, 'Let's keep on digging and see what we find; let's scrap the income tax as well.' Why doesn't he say it? Maybe he is like his leader—maybe he is willing to say anything to any audience that will keep them happy.
In contrast, we on this side of the House have an economic record which includes keeping 200,000 people in employment in the global financial crisis and saving tens of thousands of small businesses from going to the wall. We have got rid of inefficient taxes like the dependant spouse tax offset, the entrepreneurs' tax offset and the fringe benefits tax arrangement for cars—which, perversely, was bad economics and bad environmental policy. We have done that so that we can put money where it is needed most—into the National Broadband Network, which will boost productivity, and into schools and hospital reforms that will lay the productivity agenda for the next generation.
We listened to economists when we put in place a minerals resource rent tax that taxes an immobile source of production in minerals and allows us to cut taxes on a mobile source of production—that is, corporate tax investment. When economists throughout the world told us, as the scientists do, that climate change is happening and that a price on carbon pollution is the right thing to do, we on this side of the House listened and put a price on carbon pollution; those on that side of the House just abuse economists when they do not like what they say.
We are putting in place a national disability insurance scheme—another pillar in Australia's social safety net—and we are boosting superannuation. Meanwhile, those opposite are opposing the boost to 12 per cent super. Fifteen per cent is good enough for them, and nine per cent is good enough for their constituents. They are like a duke living in a castle complaining about public housing investment.
We on this side of the House held a tax forum to look at new ideas; those on that side of the House were missing in action. Occasionally we get the odd idea from them. The members for Wentworth and Kooyong support a sovereign wealth fund. A sovereign wealth fund is like a piggybank in overseas currency, so it is useful if you have something to put in it. Do they want to put anything in it? No; they oppose the minerals resource rent tax. The members for Wentworth and Kooyong have a policy of an empty piggybank. That is their economic idea.
The member for Mayo wants a broad-based goods and services tax. He says he wants to broaden the goods and services tax but, in the next breath, he is says that he wants a narrow carbon price and attacks the notion of a broad based carbon price. Ours is not the broadest-based carbon price, but the principle is there. The member for Mayo wants to broaden the GST but to narrow the carbon price. What would the former Treasurer Peter Costello say if he could see these people now? We know what he would say, because they are opposing his own reforms. They are opposing the fuel tax reforms he brought into parliament in 2003. They are taking a position on the petroleum resource rent tax that is the opposite of what the Howard-Costello government pursued throughout the 1990s and 2000s in their litigation with Esso.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The discussion is now concluded.
Economy
The SPEAKER (15:24): I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to responsibly manage the economy
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:24): I noticed in the newspapers this morning a report that the Treasurer will resign from parliament should the member for Griffith be elected Leader of the Labor Party—and I suspect that after that question time the member doubled his numbers in the caucus. The Treasurer made a very feeble attempt to recover some level of economic integrity after yet again being exposed in his failure to address the details of all of his announcements—quite ably, I might say, by my colleague the member for Mackellar, who had picked up quite appropriately that the announcement in the government's second reading speech that there was no age limit on the Superannuation Guarantee contribution in fact totally contradicted what was in the law they were introducing, which put up a 75-year age limit.
This is a classic example of this government's performance and the fact that they are incompetent and pay no attention to detail. Even this morning they were still updating on the internet the explanatory memoranda for the 11 mining tax bills they introduced yesterday—and they expect this parliament to have a properly informed debate about the matter!
You would have thought that this week Australian households and small businesses would have been relieved at a decision by the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut the cash rate by 25 basis points. Three of the four major banks passed on that rate cut in full to the standard variable home loan. Of course, the National Australia Bank did not. I say it should have been good news because it will be some measure of relief for Australian households from some of the challenges they face with higher utility prices, higher food prices and so on. But the reduction in interest rates came about because the Reserve Bank is concerned about international movements—and rightly so—but also concerned about the moderation in economic growth. Economic growth is not travelling at the speed that the Reserve Bank expected. That means the economy is not performing as well as the Reserve Bank originally expected.
Consumers are also more cautious than the Reserve Bank expected. Why are consumers cautious? Every time this government sees a problem or challenge in the community it taxes it—'If there's a problem with teenage binge drinking, introduce an alcopops tax,' 'If there's a problem with people smoking too many cigarettes, introduce a cigarette tax,' 'If there's a problem with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, introduce a carbon tax,' and, 'If there's a challenge for the Australian car industry facing cheaper imports, introduce laws that increase the taxation rate on foreign made cars and more expensive motor vehicles.'
Of course, if you do well in Australia this government always wants to target you, no matter who you are. It was not that long ago, perhaps 14 years, that the mining industry in Australia was, relatively speaking, on its knees. But this government now says: 'Well, if you're doing well in Australia, we'll tax you. If you're not doing well in Australia, we'll still tax you. And if anyone is left, we'll regulate them.' That is what the Labor Party does.
I nearly fell off the green leather chair here today when the Treasurer said they had a great fiscal strategy and it is delivering a surplus. Unfortunately, it is not delivering a surplus; that is why it is a bad fiscal strategy. The budget deficit this year will be $22.6 billion, and it will be the fourth consecutive year of deficit. I said before, and I have said consistently, I do not expect Labor to ever deliver a surplus budget. Originally I said it about the member for Griffith, and I was absolutely right—he never did deliver a surplus budget. I say it emphatically about the Labor Party: they will not deliver a surplus budget. Bear this in mind, Mr Speaker: you will need to deliver surplus after surplus after surplus to start paying down the $110 billion of net debt. Bear in mind that, over the last four years, Labor have accrued a deficit of $154 billion. The only reason net debt is less than that is that we left money in the bank. We actually left the country with no net debt; in fact, there was a net surplus of assets. So they have spent the surplus of assets that we left them with four years ago and then they accrued $110 billion extra in net debt. The government are borrowing $62 million a day, at the moment, simply to meet day-to-day expenditure. It is no wonder that the Australian people reacted when the Prime Minister announced in the papers today that she wants to lend money to the IMF to lend money to the Eurozone to lend money to the Greeks. Under this proposal, Australia would be borrowing money to lend it to people who would lend it to people who would lend it to people who have a debt problem.
Of course, the Treasurer himself was tricking in question time. He knew exactly what we were getting at. First of all, he started the bluff and bluster about the coalition no longer supporting the IMF. We do support the IMF; we have always supported the IMF. We have done so on a number of occasions and we will continue to do so. But the IMF should not accept some of the suggestions from the Eurozone that it should form a partnership with the Eurozone for the European bailout fund. It is not part of the current mandate of the IMF. That is a very important point.
I quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, and I repeat it. He knows that the people of Britain will not cop British taxpayers' money being used to bail out the Greeks and the European currency. It is one thing to bail out an individual country. The IMF does that on regular occasions and it is appropriate that it does so. The strict rules that the IMF applies—and they are often criticised, as they were during the Asian financial crisis—are appropriate as a way of repaying those loans. The concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and our concern, is that this is about shoring up a currency. This is about shoring up the European Union.
The Prime Minister has gone into this issue like a wild bull in a china shop. Firstly, the Prime Minister arrives overseas and says, 'We stand ready to give more money to the IMF for this purpose,' yet the IMF has no deal with the Eurozone. Secondly, the concerns for everyday Australians are: what is the amount of money that is going to be put into this program and why is Australia leading the charge when the nearest neighbours to the Europeans—that is, the British—are not prepared to do the same? The third key factor is that the Europeans are trying to get the Greeks to agree to the current package on the table. They are trying desperately to get the Greeks across the line on the current package, saying, 'It is this package. You should accept it.' But along comes Julia Gillard and says, 'Hang on, there could be another pot of money.' So all the dissenters in Greece can turn to the words of the Prime Minister of Australia and say, 'Here's an alternative to accepting the existing European package.'
When the Prime Minister said she does not understand foreign affairs, she was damn right. The British know this, and other countries know this, but unfortunately we have a Prime Minister who is more interested in big-noting herself and going to the G20, when she is one of the weakest voices and trying to pretend to Australians that she is the strongest voice.
The challenge for Australia out of this is that, firstly, we should fix our own house. Our strength in our words comes from our actions. When Australia speaks, people listen, provided that we have the cash in our pocket, that we are not penalising our people, that we do not have to have austerity measures and that we as a nation are enhanced and empowered by having no debt, by having cash in our pocket. In a world where there is financial turmoil there is one truth: the person who has cash, the person who has no debt, and the person who can influence politics and influence outcomes is the one who has the most money in their pocket. That is the rule.
There is the emergence of China and the fact that the Europeans are now seeking out China for funding. The Chinese are not openly offering funding to the Eurozone like our Prime Minister. No, no, no. The Chinese are standing back and saying, 'You must prove that you are prepared to fix your house, and you come to me.' That is because they are the powerful ones, they have the money. But our Prime Minister feels the need to be generous at taxpayers' expense, after she has just delivered a $50 billion deficit, with a more than $22 billion deficit this year and with her incompetent Treasurer umming and ahhing about whether he actually can deliver a surplus.
You know what, the bottom line is this: the Prime Minister is promising what she cannot deliver. She is 'writing cheques her body cannot cash'—to quote from a great movie. The bottom line out of that is: Australians end up paying the price. Why do they end up paying the price? Because this is a government addicted to tax. On the same day that the Prime Minister offers money to help the Eurozone—the richest and largest economy in the world—when they did not even ask for it, Australians are having new taxes imposed on them by the government. A flood tax, a mining tax, a carbon tax, an alcopops tax, a cigarettes tax and new taxes on cars are all happening at the same time that our Prime Minister is beating her chest over in Europe, saying, 'We're going to lend you money.' My goodness! That is like a member of the gallery up there going along to the National Australia Bank and saying, 'Look, I can lend you 100 bucks'—
Mr Laming: 'And I've got a home loan with you!'
Mr HOCKEY: That is right: 'I'll offer you a home loan!'
The challenge in the Australian economy at the moment is that this government is not concerned about the fundamentals, which include improving productivity. This government has not lifted a finger on productivity. This week we have seen the government, the Labor Party, as the acting Prime Minister said, return to true form. They always look at the opportunity to engage in class war. They were so focused on the interests of the unions this week that they forgot the people out there that get on the planes. They were so focused on the unions this week that they forgot the interests of the miners that take the risk—invest the money to deliver the minerals to the marketplace that pay our bills.
The government was so focused on its own internal politics this week—the battle between the member for Griffith and the Prime Minister—that they did not recognise the signals from the Reserve Bank that the economy is not performing as well as was expected. Of course, the acting Prime Minister would say that this is the fault of the Europeans. Falling consumer confidence is not the fault of the Europeans. Falling consumer confidence comes when everyday Australians face higher bills—higher utility bills in electricity and water—higher transportation costs, higher health costs, higher rents, higher housing costs and construction costs. The falling building construction numbers and falling consumer confidence are alarming because they represent the fact that the Australian consumer has not got the confidence to go through. As far as I and the coalition are concerned, you do not build consumer confidence by introducing new taxes. You do not build Australian business confidence by taxing those that are most successful. You do not help the Australian economy by offering money, which Australia does not have, to a cause that Australia should not be involved in at this point of time. The fundamental point is that this is a directionless government that is focused on its own achievements of power and preservation of power rather than on the interests of the Australian people. And long may it continue until the day when we throw them out of government. (Time expired)
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (15:39): On the matter of public importance, I waited with my usual optimism to hear something constructive from the shadow Treasurer, but yet again nothing came out. If we are going to have a debate about the reasonable management of the economy, we need to set up the tests for that management. I would submit to the House that there is a number of reasonable tests: getting the big calls right; balancing the books; identifying existing problems in our economy and our society and fixing them; making sure that our economy grows fairly and inclusively; looking at the alternative management strategy, that is, of the opposition; and, most importantly, having innovative ideas and an optimistic vision for the future. These are the criteria. These, I submit, are the things Australians are interested in: getting the big calls right; balancing the books; identifying the major problems; seeing that the economy grows fairly and inclusively; examining if there are better alternative options; and making sure that we have an optimistic long-term view—not just for today or tomorrow, next week or next month or next year but for the next decade or the next two decades.
Returning to the submissions on the efficient and effective management of the economy, let us have a look at the big calls; let us look at the scoreboard for the government. On the global financial crisis: unlike most of the rest of the OECD, this nation managed to escape recession. Let us look at the big calls in the workplace: we reformed and abolished the unfair Work Choices laws of our predecessors which were leading us in a race to the bottom in wages and conditions. We abolished the minimum standards which would see our children and our grandchildren being paid inferior and unfair wages.
Let us look at another big call that we have got right: the information superhighway, the National Broadband Network, the innovation for the 21st century, which allows Australians to compete with the rest of the world. Let us look at another call we got right: flood reconstruction. No-one could have predicted these floods, but what options were available? Using the national economy, we set a levy and found the funds to help rebuild the terribly damaged infrastructure, mainly in Queensland but in other places too. We are also getting the big call right about finally acting on creating a sustainable economy by putting a price on carbon pollution. Indeed, have a look at the most immediate big call we had: dealing with the precipitous and over-the-top lockout at Qantas, stranding tens of thousands of passengers and travellers and grounding hundreds of aeroplanes. So there we go, we got the big calls right—the GFC, Work Choices, NBN, flood reconstruction, the carbon price and the most recent imbroglio and confusion created by Qantas shutting down its airline.
There is another submission which shows that we are managing the economy reasonably—that is, the need to balance the books. When you look at our net public sector debt in the Commonwealth to GDP, you see we are doing better than most of the rest of the world. It is going to peak at seven per cent; our interest payments are 0.4 per cent. Let us be very clear what the GFC did: the GFC absolutely slammed government revenue, but we have managed to engage in the fastest fiscal contraction since records began. That is $100 billion across four budgets. We have been winding back the Howard government's welfare creep. Indeed, when we came to power at the end of 2007, nearly 75 per cent of Australian families were receiving some family payment from the government. This was not sustainable and we have been winding that back. Look at the departmental efficiency dividend we have been applying to get our numbers back into the black—1.5 per cent. This I believe contrasts very favourably to the ill-thought-out opposition policies, which I will come to in a moment.
Having said that we get the big calls right and having said that we balance the books, we have also identified existing problems and we are in the process of fixing them. We do have a multispeed economy. You would have to live on another planet not to recognise that the mining boom, whilst it is good for some sections of the Australian economy, is causing dislocation in other parts of the economy. We have a very high dollar, which makes it hard for domestic tourism, domestic education services and local manufacturers to compete. So what are we doing? We have introduced the minerals resource rent tax so that we will share the prosperity that the richest companies in the world are enjoying from non-renewable resources—Australians' birthright—throughout the whole of the Australian Commonwealth; we are going to provide the 29 per cent corporate tax break; we are going to provide $1 billion in tax breaks for small business; we are going to build national infrastructure; and we are certainly going to lift compulsory superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
Never let it be forgotten that those opposite get 15 per cent super but would vote against 8½ million Australians getting 12 per cent. I look up the dictionary and that is coalition hypocrisy of the worst order. I note there are no interjections from them on that point because they know I am right. We also look at the unfair fees in superannuation—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Now they come up with interjections when they guiltily realise they have been caught out with their hand in the cookie jar of superannuation.
Mr Christensen: Play a different tune!
Mr SHORTEN: If the member for Dawson is bored, why doesn't he go and find something else to do? Dial a friend! Fees in superannuation are unfair, so we are going to have SuperStream and MySuper and make sure that we put downward pressure on fees and charges in superannuation. We are going to improve and reform the provision of financial advice in Australia.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I can hear the member for Mayo, the mini-me of Peter Reith, interjecting. We are the only people who will even listen to him—his own side keep gagging him. We have the Future of Financial Advice reforms, and we are going to reform financial planning. We are going to reduce the confusion around flood insurance and sort out a common definition so that never again will Australians have to go through fruitless and frustrating arguments with their insurer as to whether or not they are covered for flood. We are also making many more reforms in many other areas.
Having said that we are identifying existing problems and fixing them, that we are balancing the books and that we are getting the big calls right, I would submit in support of the proposition that we are managing the economy efficiently the fact that we are making sure that the economy grows fairly and inclusively. We understand that change is an inevitable part of Australian life, but we are determined to make sure that no-one gets left behind, as opposed to a coalition society where, if you cannot survive for yourself—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): It is Thursday afternoon and, while I admire the exuberance of the member for Bradfield, he should restrain himself at this point in time. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for pulling up the member for Bradfield. We are making sure that we do not forget social justice. Australia as a nation is in a process of change, but we can never forget people in that process of change. We have increased the pension. We have engaged in income tax cuts. Fortuitously, I have to hand some of the statistics on the personal income tax cuts that this government has delivered.
Someone earning $20,000 is paying $750 less this financial year than they were in 2007-08. Someone earning $30,000 is paying $750 less than they would have been in the last year of the Howard government. Someone earning $50,000 is paying $1,750 less this financial year than they would have been in the last year the Howard government.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members for Mayo and Bradfield will desist from continual interjections.
Mr SHORTEN: I get more sense off a bunch of crows on a power line than those two! The person earning $80,000 is paying $1,400 less this year, even including the flood levy, than they would have paid under the Howard government. So we have been delivering real change. For instance, a single person without children earning $39,000 in 2007-08 and $44,500 in 2010-11 has seen their tax wedge fall by 1.7 percentage points to 14.9 per cent in 2010-11. These are real numbers, and the real numbers are confronting to the opposition.
We are doing other things in the field of social justice which should not be overlooked. The most important thing you can do for social justice is create a job. If an Australian has a job they have a chance of engaging in the housing market and of educating their kids: they have a stake in society. Since Labor has been elected, 752,000 jobs have been created. When you look at what has been happening around the world in the global financial crisis, 30 million jobs have gone; yet in Australia under a Labor government 752,000 jobs have been created. We have increased the family payments for families with teenagers between 16 and 19. As any parent with a teenager between 16 and 19 knows, they do not get any cheaper the older they get.
The government is also proposing a particularly equitable piece of law, and we put the bill into the parliament yesterday, but the coalition is regrettably opposing it. There are 3½ million Australians who earn less than $37,000 a year, which means that they either pay no tax or 15 per cent in income tax. But what happens with their superannuation, since superannuation is taxed concessionally at 15 per cent? That 15 per cent concessional tax is all right if you pay a higher rate in income tax, because there is then an advantage to put your money in super at the lower tax rate. The problem is that, if you are one of the 3½ million lower income Australians, you do not get the benefit of that tax concession. So what are we going to do? We are going to abolish it. What will happen is that, if you earn less than $37,000 a year, you will no longer pay tax on your superannuation—it will all go into your superannuation.
It does not just stop there, though. We have now extended and developed the education tax refund, providing more help for families with the cost of educating their kids. the education tax refund has been extended to include school uniforms and a range of other incidental costs. These are the costs parents have, and they are DNA-hardwired to pay them for their kids because they want their kids to get the best start in life. What we are doing is helping them in that process of educating the kids.
Having said that we get the big calls right, that we balance the books, that we identify the existing problems and are fixing them, that we are into social justice and that we are making sure Australians have an opportunity to cope in an ever-changing world, we must look at some of the coalition myths. Getting criticism from the opposition about economic management seems a little rich when I look at their costing errors. In the election period last year they had a $10.6 billion costing black hole. The opposition need to know that taxpayers' money is not monopoly money; it is real money, and you should not have black hole. Some of their costing errors—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Perhaps if the member for Mayo spoke less and listened more there would be a chance that he would learn more. I apologise—I did not mean to imply he was learning! Their costing errors included spending $3.3 billion from the nation-building funds on local roads and not accounting for it in their numbers. They did not account for $356 million in their employment participation policy. They did not allow for $2.5 billion. They reduced what is known as the conservative bias allowance, which Treasury says does not realise any actual budgetary savings. Treasury and finance have identified literally hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I understand why the member for Goldstein attempts to interrupt me: he is embarrassed because he is in charge of this economic smash-up—this economic road crash.
Let us have a look at the final thing which, I would submit, shows that we are the party capable of economic management. We are the only party with an innovative and positive view of the future. If you have not been convinced already—by our balancing the books, by our working at fixing the problems, by our propositions of social justice and by the litany of opposition costing errors which are more like something done by Homer Simpson than by a serious opposition—then I submit to you three points among the collection of propositions that we are advancing for the future of Australia.
Firstly, we want to lift compulsory superannuation to 12 per cent. The opposition know it is a good idea—they get 15 per cent or defined benefit. The first rule of leadership is: don't just say it; practice what you preach. If they are willing to take 15 per cent for themselves, why can't the rest of Australia get 12 per cent?
It does not stop there. Secondly, we are now spending, as a down payment on the future, $3 billion on productivity through training apprentices and training trainees. Nearly half a million Australian people are on the path of apprenticeships and training.
There is a third idea which, I submit to you, demonstrates our capacity to manage the economy on behalf of the society as a whole. I think a lot of people on the Labor side know what that is: the proposition of a national disability insurance scheme.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: The opposition interjects on such a good idea—very heartless. A national disability insurance scheme is a long overdue proposition for this nation. Why should someone, because they are born with an impairment or acquire it in a blink of an eye, live a second-class life in Australia? Why should their carers live a second-class life? This party of government, this Labor Party, understand that it is now time to set right the wrong that has been occurring for a very long time in Australia. We are establishing the foundations for a national disability insurance scheme. We are working on a national injury insurance scheme. We are determined to make sure that two million Australians with profound or severe disability and their carers finally get included in Australian society on an equal basis. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:55): We have recently heard a litany of confusion and make-up. In recent weeks we have had to suffer the embarrassment of our Prime Minister and our Treasurer lecturing Europe about their economic woes. As we have just heard from the member for Maribyrnong, the lecturing of Europe has only served to highlight the incompetence of those opposite in managing our economy.
Overnight we heard more platitudes from our Prime Minister, who, speaking in Europe, admonished the Europeans for muddling through and urged them to get a plan. Can you believe it? It is the pot calling the kettle black. It comes from a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who have muddled from one train wreck to another. It is cringe worthy. They are lecturing the Europeans, yet it is looking increasingly likely that this government will once again have to raise the debt ceiling above the quarter of a trillion dollars that they raised it to only months ago from $70 billion when they took office. They have raised it now to a quarter of a trillion dollars, and it is looking likely that they will come back again into this place within 12 months and look for a further rise in that debt ceiling.
Their self-esteem is such that our Prime Minister and Treasurer are now offering to borrow more money to bail out Europe. This is a Europe which this year will again, after many years of doing the same thing, spend tens of billions of dollars subsidising their farmers so that our own farmers are locked out of their markets. They are going to spend tens of billions of dollars in Europe to lock our farmers out of their markets and disadvantage our farmers, yet we are going to help bail out Europe with tens of millions of dollars in aid. This is a nonsense, this is cringe worthy, this is embarrassing and, more importantly, this is sheer incompetence.
What do you think people who are struggling in small business out there—
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
Mr ROBB: So you are going to give them a carbon tax, and you are going to give business a mining tax. This is the sort of thinking we have to deal with. This is the absurd thinking and the economic illiteracy that is running our country. They are going to help the Europeans to lock our farmers out of their markets. They are going to help the Europeans spend our borrowed money—every cent of that money they give to the Europeans will be borrowed money—and that will be used to help subsidise their farmers to lock our own farmers out of Europe. This is just unbelievable.
But the biggest criticism that we have with this government—and we have had it for a long time—is their refusal to acknowledge the vulnerability of our economy. All of that vulnerability is not their fault, but they will not even acknowledge the vulnerability that is not even their own fault.
This is why there is a crisis of confidence. People know that there is something afoot—that there are dark clouds out there. People know that we are totally reliant on the pollyanna assumptions that this government made in their budget estimations. People know that, if resource prices come off just 15 or 20 per cent, we will have more and more deficits and higher and higher interest rates. People know this. They know that jobs will go backwards. People are concerned about losing their jobs. The trend is there, yet this government will not acknowledge the vulnerability of our economy. They refuse to act to restore the economic resilience that they inherited. Despite the mining boom, we have seen growth of debt—the third fastest in the developed world. There are only the economic powerhouses of Iceland and—
Mr Bradbury: Back it up.
Mr ROBB: Here he is! He looks confused. He does not even know the OECD figures that show that the Australian economy went from zero debt to, now, $210 billion of gross debt. We have gone to that level, and it is the third fastest in growth of any developed country in the world, apart from the powerhouses of Iceland and Ireland!
A government member interjecting—
Mr ROBB: What an embarrassment! What a statement! 'We got the big calls right,' said the member for Maribyrnong, and now we have confusion coming across the table—total confusion. Despite the mining boom we have had three record deficits. Not only that; we have had a structural deficit in this year's budget, which is twice Germany's structural deficit. We have, on a per capita basis compared with Italy—one of the big economies in the world and one of the shaky ones—a structural deficit which is 30 per cent greater.
So on a per capita basis we are twice as risky—twice as bad and twice as big—as Germany, and compared to Italy our structural deficit is 30 per cent greater on a per capita basis. This is the vulnerability that we have. This means that if there is any downturn in commodity prices we will be facing a $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion deficits for years and years. That means much higher debt, and all of the prosperity—all of the great blessings that we have had from this mining boom—will be squandered. This is irresponsibility. This is a government that will not acknowledge what is going on in our own country, much less the rest of the world.
The other thing about this vulnerability is the growth in government that we have seen in our lives over the last four years. It is the biggest growth in government in my life—and that includes the Whitlam era. This is the only government in the world that reregulated its labour market in the face of a global financial crisis. Those changes are now coming home to roost. We are now seeing the vulnerability and the repercussions.
Not only that; this is the only country in the world—the only government in the world—that is renationalising its telecommunications sector. What does the Economist magazine think of that? We heard about it earlier on. This is the only country in the world that is bringing in a nationwide carbon tax. What about that tax? It is crawling with thousands of bureaucrats. It is crawling with six new organisations. It is the most interventionist way you could ever try to deal with a price on carbon. It is the most socialist way you could deal with the price of carbon. No-one else has one; we are ahead of the rest of the world. That is a vulnerability. We are putting this carbon tax on everybody in this economy despite the fact that we are facing very vulnerable, very doubtful times.
We had the member for Maribyrnong up here a few minutes ago gloating that this government had created an efficient public service. If you go back to the first budget of the Treasurer of this Labor government you find that the budget predicted that, in 2011-12, the Public Service would grow to a cost of $16 billion. Have a look at the budget papers this year and you will see that the cost for 2011-12 is expected to be $19 billion. So there we had the member for Maribyrnong, who is supposed to be the Assistant Treasurer—what a goose!—who thinks his party has improved, refined and maintained a public service which is efficient. Yet it has grown $3 billion more in cost than they anticipated just three years ago—and that is in the face of a global financial crisis, for goodness sake!
This is a government that has failed Australians. We can give hope, growth and development, and we can open up the north; but this government has failed and will not deliver on those things. We offer hope, reward and opportunity.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:05): I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate about the management of the economy. The matter that has been raised by the member for North Sydney suggests that this government has not been capable in managing the economy; the facts tell a very different story. In fact, if we have a look at what has occurred over the last couple of years across the global economy we see that Australia stands out as one of the most outstanding success stories when it comes to economic management. I regularly host visits of individuals from all around the world, and when they come here they comment, almost universally, on how successful the economic management has been here in Australia through the troubled times of the global financial crisis.
To underline this point I will make a simple comparison of some figures. At the height of the global financial crisis, 30 million jobs were shed across the global economy; yet here in Australia we created over 700,000 jobs. We created over 700,000 jobs at a time when every other country was facing job losses. The initiatives that we put in place by acting decisively to stimulate the economy have been the difference. Those initiatives ensured that Australians were able to stay in employment through these difficult times.
We all know that the government has a very strong focus on jobs. When we talk about managing the economy, we talk about managing it for the many and not for the few. We talk about managing it so that working Australians continue to be in work. Had we adopted the so-called policy prescriptions of the opposition during the global financial crisis then lots of Australians—tens if not hundreds of thousands of Australians—would not have stayed in employment. The consequences of that would have been extremely detrimental to the national economy.
We all know that, when the debate in this place was occurring around the government's response to the global financial crisis, the Leader of the Opposition was not even in this chamber. Unlike most of his colleagues, he actually did not vote against the stimulus measures, because he failed to turn up to the chamber. We all recall the article in the Daily Telegraph that at great length identified the fact that the member for Warringah, before he was the Leader of the Opposition, did not even come into this chamber to vote; he slept through the vote. Is that the sort of person we want with their hands on the levers and the steering wheel of the national economy as we move into the next phase of economic development? Is that the person we want at the helm? He was asleep at the wheel when this government intervened to save all of those jobs.
Those on the other side seek to diminish the contribution of the government to the economy through the global financial crisis. They often say: 'It was not the government; it was the resources boom. That is all it was—the resources boom.' I am reminded of the comments that the then Secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, made to Senate estimates in May last year. He made the very valid point that if every sector across the Australian economy the Australian economy had shed jobs at that same rate as did the resources sector through the global financial crisis—and to recap for those who cannot recall, during the global financial crisis the mining industry shed 15 per cent of its jobs—the unemployment rate in Australia would have been 19 per cent. I would like to hear those who say the mining sector saved the Australian economy through the global financial crisis respond to that.
There are those who say that it was not just the mining sector; it was China. They say this as if to suggest that China was not around before this government came to power and that any of the revenue gains over the years which governments before us were able to achieve had nothing to do with China. All of a sudden China decided to industrialise when Labor came to power! They say that we only survived the global financial crisis as the economic success story we are because of China.
In the Leader of the Opposition's most recent pronouncements he said he has grave concerns about dealing with China. He thinks we need to be very cautious about a free trade agreement with China. In fact, I am sure his former leader, the former member for Bennelong, would be most concerned and disturbed to know that the very free trade negotiations he initiated back in 2005 have now become the source of such great concern to his old party. I think it is a further example of the complete lack of sensible economic thinking within the coalition at the moment.
You often hear those on the other side talk about taxation. We heard another bout of it from the member for North Sydney today. They say this government has introduced this tax and that tax: 'All they ever do is introduce new taxes.' Why would a government want to introduce taxes? Governments introduce taxes for various reasons. I would hazard a guess that some of the reasons we have introduced some of these initiatives might be the same reasons that the former government introduced all of the new taxes they chose to introduce, whether it be the sugar levy, the dairy levy, the tax on airfares after the Ansett collapse, the East Timor levy or the mother of all taxes they introduced: the goods and services tax. They come into this place and talk as though they are the only ones who ever cut taxes and we are the only ones who ever introduced them. They fail to acknowledge the fact that in our first three budgets we cut personal income tax by $47 billion. We have reduced personal income tax by $47 billion.
This is all a smokescreen to hide the real motives behind their decision to block and then repeal the mining tax. They are going to have to argue this in their communities. The Australian community is onboard with the mining tax. When I talk to people in the community, I find there is almost universal acceptance that this is what our nation requires. When BHP was announcing its record profits and when BlueScope Steel was laying off over 1,000 working Australians, most Australians could see that the nature of this patchwork economy meant that we needed to spread the benefits of the resources boom.
We need to ensure that all Australians get the benefit of the exploitation of our mineral resources. These are the resources we as Australian people own. As companies seek to exploit them to generate their own income and—as a result—national income, we need to ensure that the benefits are evenly spread. We are determined to do that. We are determined to do that to deliver a tax cut to small business, to reduce the company rate and to increase the ability of small businesses to instantly write off asset purchases of up to $5,000 and $6,000 to ensure that those purchasing motor vehicles are able to take an upfront deduction up to that amount.
We are also ensuring that working people are able to aspire to the retirement savings we all know they deserve. After toiling away for 40 years in the workforce, Australians expect that in retirement they will have a decent standard of living. We know that the compulsory superannuation levy at nine per cent will not deliver sufficient retirement savings; we want to make sure that all Australians are able to retire with a degree of comfort. These are measures that those on the other side oppose and will seek to repeal in government. They will increase taxes on small business. They will rip away superannuation for working Australians. They will give a massive windfall tax cut to the resource companies. That is their vision for the future. We are determined to build an economy that is resilient for the future, to tackle the challenge of an ageing population and to build the infrastructure that we need through a national broadband network. We are determined to ensure that our economy is a prosperous one and that the benefits of it are spread right across the economy. Most importantly, we want to make sure that working Australians get their fair share. It is all good and well for the big end of town to benefit; we want to make sure that working families and working Australians share in the fruits and the bounty of the prosperity that we will enjoy. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:15): We are here to speak on the government's failure to responsibly manage the economy, and we have heard from Admiral Bradbury that everything is shipshape—the economy is well anchored. But it is very difficult for me to know where to start to criticise the government on this front. How do you choose from the vast array of economic vandalism that this government has listed on its resume? It would be a laughable proposition if only it were not so serious.
The government's economic failure is extremely serious for those on the receiving end—for this country's forgotten families: the hardworking mums and dads out there who had to sit back and watch this government dive into the pool of money earned by the good people of this country and responsibly banked by the previous government. The families in my electorate of Dawson had to sit back and watch them splash it around, spilling billions of dollars here and billions of dollars there. They are a Labor government, so they are not so concerned about a bit of spillage or a bit of waste, because waste is their middle name. When the pool of money ran out, they borrowed more, and then they borrowed more, and then they borrowed even more money. They splash, they spill, they waste. They just keep borrowing and they just keep wasting. It is painful to watch for the families that have worked hard for that money and even more painful for the families who will spend the rest of their working lives without seeing an end to Labor's debt, if this lot stay in.
This economic mismanagement continues to destroy the economy. They are a bit like a kid in the lolly store—spoilt for choice—but I will choose just three things to focus on. They are big things that the government are responsible for. They have continued and will continue to waste money. They have cost and will cost families money. They have cost and will cost businesses money. They have cost and will cost jobs.
There can be no greater example of a government determined to destroy its own economy than the Labor-Greens government, who are imposing the biggest, the ugliest and the most destructive carbon tax in the world. The problem with this government is their complete isolation from the people they are supposed to represent. The Prime Minister and the Labor members in this place sought and got a mandate from the people not to impose a carbon tax. They did not listen then and they are certainly not listening now. They are not listening to businesspeople, who quite justifiably have very serious concerns about the impact that this carbon tax will have on their livelihood. This Labor government denies the legitimate anxiety that these businesses have, knowing this tax is about to come in and hit them very, very hard. This is what business and industry are saying out in the real world. The National Generators Forum, the peak body of Australia's power industry, said the carbon tax will:
… produce virtually no change in emissions from the generation sector while imposing huge costs on the community, trade-exposed industries and electricity generators.
After looking at the legislation that this government introduced and passed, the National Generators Forum said it would almost double the wholesale price of electricity to $100 per megawatt hour by 2020. The Labor government either does not listen or does not care—probably both—about what this will do to businesses and the families that are employed by them.
Businesses in my electorate of Dawson have already made decisions to halt investment. Take, for example, Werner Engineering, a business that has been around for three decades in the Mackay region servicing the agricultural and resource sectors. I spoke to their manager, Chris Geach, about his planned multimillion dollar relocation and expansion. They have had to put it on hold. The increased cost that his local, Australian based business will have to pay under the carbon tax will not be paid by his international competitors. You cannot blame business for being against this carbon tax. But it is not just business; it is the families and workers employed, or soon to be not employed, by businesses who hate it as well. It is no wonder that more than 94 per cent of people who returned a survey that I put out in my electorate say they are opposed to the carbon tax.
Mr McCormack: Ninety four per cent?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Six thousand people responded; 94 per cent were against. But, as big and as ugly and as economically destructive as the carbon tax is, it is just one method this government is using to bring the economy to its knees. Everything this government touches it stuffs up. As the Leader of the Opposition says, it is like the Midas touch in reverse; in fact, it is actually worse than the Midas touch in reverse because the government even manages to stuff up the economy with what it does not touch.
The one time they should have done something—the one time they should have stepped in—they did not. Qantas and the flying public needed the government to act and they did not act. They sat on their hands and did nothing. They were probably too scared to do anything because they know what happens when they do act. But doing nothing just punched another big, fat hole in the economy. It punched another big hole in business. In the Whitsundays, in the electorate of Dawson, times are already tough—as tough as they were during the pilots strike of 1989. They are suffering from the high Aussie dollar and the legacy of the summer of natural disasters. The Whitsundays relies on tourism and, by allowing the situation with the Qantas industrial dispute to get so out of control that the national carrier's entire fleet was grounded, this government knocked the stuffing out of even more Whitsunday businesses. QantasLink flights, thankfully, continued into the Whitsundays, but I have to tell you that there were a lot of empty seats. No connections means no passengers, and no passengers means no business, and that means someone is out of pocket—a family is out of pocket. How much more damage does the government want to do to the economy in the Whitsundays? They cannot wait for the carbon tax up there, I can tell you. They cannot wait!
Then there is the damage that has been caused to job-creating investment proposals in North Queensland by the rigid regulations of the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation approvals process. I point to one very big example of the damage: the multibillion dollar Abbot Point multicargo facility project. This project, which has the capacity to generate thousands of jobs and see an increase in population and services into the town of Bowen, has been held up by the federal environment department, awaiting EPBC approval, since December last year. Literally nothing has happened to what will be one of the biggest projects of all in Northern Australia. Each month the project proponents are told, 'Next month you will get the approval,' or 'The approval is coming; it is coming.' Well, so is Christmas—for a second time round for this proposal. Next month the project will have sat there stagnant for a year because of the federal government's delays.
Here is a little update that has been given by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; it came out during the Senate estimates. A bureaucrat from there, Barbara Jones, Assistant Secretary of the Environment Assessment Branch, said:
The proponent, North Queensland Bulk Ports, provided a final EIS document to the department on 6 December last year. The department is still considering the content of that document and assessing it.
The department has been assessing it for nearly a year. The proponents were advised that the application would be finalised in February—nine months ago—and it has been held up because of the onerous demands to offset perceived environmental damage. I have to tell you that that has Bob Brown's fingerprints all over it. The state government has already addressed the issue, and the proponents have agreed to a 100 per cent offset to all perceived environmental damage—100 per cent agreed. That was the original issue, and the agreement—you would think—would be the end of the issue.
But industry sources have told me that the department has now got UNESCO involved—UNESCO; would you believe it?—because the project is off the coast of the Great Barrier Reef. Now we have some bureaucrat in some United Nations office sitting over there in Paris with his little red pen, probably daydreaming about a holiday in the Bahamas or somewhere, and he is more concerned about that or what he is going to have for lunch than he is about creating jobs in North Queensland. The department basically confirmed this at Senate estimates. While they would not use the word 'referral' because of the connotations it has, they said that they were basically notifying UNESCO bureaucrats in Paris about job-creating projects in North Queensland.
Who is running this country? Is it the Labor Party, who quite clearly could not care less about business, investment or the economy? Is it the Greens, who want to completely shut it all down? If a Labor government is taking its economic policy from the Greens, it is just a matter of time before there is no economy in North Queensland—and the rest of the country will not be far behind.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:25): Deputy Speaker Slipper, may I congratulate you on your sartorial splendour this afternoon?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I thank the honourable member.
Dr LEIGH: The member for Dawson has been dancing around the matter of public importance today, which is that of the economy. It is surprising, therefore, that he does not raise the issue that he raised in his maiden speech. In his first speech to this place, the member for Dawson called for the scrapping of income tax—a bold proposal, to be sure, which I am sure that the member for Dawson is still committed to. Why is he not putting that forward? It might be something to do with the fact that the coalition are in a deep, deep black hole.
We know, of course, that in the last federal election they were a cool $11 billion down in their costings. But it has only got worse, and the hole is now $70 billion. It is kind of odd that at this point that the member for Dawson does not just say, 'Let's keep on digging and see what we find; let's scrap the income tax as well.' Why doesn't he say it? Maybe he is like his leader—maybe he is willing to say anything to any audience that will keep them happy.
In contrast, we on this side of the House have an economic record which includes keeping 200,000 people in employment in the global financial crisis and saving tens of thousands of small businesses from going to the wall. We have got rid of inefficient taxes like the dependant spouse tax offset, the entrepreneurs' tax offset and the fringe benefits tax arrangement for cars—which, perversely, was bad economics and bad environmental policy. We have done that so that we can put money where it is needed most—into the National Broadband Network, which will boost productivity, and into schools and hospital reforms that will lay the productivity agenda for the next generation.
We listened to economists when we put in place a minerals resource rent tax that taxes an immobile source of production in minerals and allows us to cut taxes on a mobile source of production—that is, corporate tax investment. When economists throughout the world told us, as the scientists do, that climate change is happening and that a price on carbon pollution is the right thing to do, we on this side of the House listened and put a price on carbon pollution; those on that side of the House just abuse economists when they do not like what they say.
We are putting in place a national disability insurance scheme—another pillar in Australia's social safety net—and we are boosting superannuation. Meanwhile, those opposite are opposing the boost to 12 per cent super. Fifteen per cent is good enough for them, and nine per cent is good enough for their constituents. They are like a duke living in a castle complaining about public housing investment.
We on this side of the House held a tax forum to look at new ideas; those on that side of the House were missing in action. Occasionally we get the odd idea from them. The members for Wentworth and Kooyong support a sovereign wealth fund. A sovereign wealth fund is like a piggybank in overseas currency, so it is useful if you have something to put in it. Do they want to put anything in it? No; they oppose the minerals resource rent tax. The members for Wentworth and Kooyong have a policy of an empty piggybank. That is their economic idea.
The member for Mayo wants a broad-based goods and services tax. He says he wants to broaden the goods and services tax but, in the next breath, he is says that he wants a narrow carbon price and attacks the notion of a broad based carbon price. Ours is not the broadest-based carbon price, but the principle is there. The member for Mayo wants to broaden the GST but to narrow the carbon price. What would the former Treasurer Peter Costello say if he could see these people now? We know what he would say, because they are opposing his own reforms. They are opposing the fuel tax reforms he brought into parliament in 2003. They are taking a position on the petroleum resource rent tax that is the opposite of what the Howard-Costello government pursued throughout the 1990s and 2000s in their litigation with Esso.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The discussion is now concluded.
The SPEAKER (15:24): I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to responsibly manage the economy
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:24): I noticed in the newspapers this morning a report that the Treasurer will resign from parliament should the member for Griffith be elected Leader of the Labor Party—and I suspect that after that question time the member doubled his numbers in the caucus. The Treasurer made a very feeble attempt to recover some level of economic integrity after yet again being exposed in his failure to address the details of all of his announcements—quite ably, I might say, by my colleague the member for Mackellar, who had picked up quite appropriately that the announcement in the government's second reading speech that there was no age limit on the Superannuation Guarantee contribution in fact totally contradicted what was in the law they were introducing, which put up a 75-year age limit.
This is a classic example of this government's performance and the fact that they are incompetent and pay no attention to detail. Even this morning they were still updating on the internet the explanatory memoranda for the 11 mining tax bills they introduced yesterday—and they expect this parliament to have a properly informed debate about the matter!
You would have thought that this week Australian households and small businesses would have been relieved at a decision by the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut the cash rate by 25 basis points. Three of the four major banks passed on that rate cut in full to the standard variable home loan. Of course, the National Australia Bank did not. I say it should have been good news because it will be some measure of relief for Australian households from some of the challenges they face with higher utility prices, higher food prices and so on. But the reduction in interest rates came about because the Reserve Bank is concerned about international movements—and rightly so—but also concerned about the moderation in economic growth. Economic growth is not travelling at the speed that the Reserve Bank expected. That means the economy is not performing as well as the Reserve Bank originally expected.
Consumers are also more cautious than the Reserve Bank expected. Why are consumers cautious? Every time this government sees a problem or challenge in the community it taxes it—'If there's a problem with teenage binge drinking, introduce an alcopops tax,' 'If there's a problem with people smoking too many cigarettes, introduce a cigarette tax,' 'If there's a problem with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, introduce a carbon tax,' and, 'If there's a challenge for the Australian car industry facing cheaper imports, introduce laws that increase the taxation rate on foreign made cars and more expensive motor vehicles.'
Of course, if you do well in Australia this government always wants to target you, no matter who you are. It was not that long ago, perhaps 14 years, that the mining industry in Australia was, relatively speaking, on its knees. But this government now says: 'Well, if you're doing well in Australia, we'll tax you. If you're not doing well in Australia, we'll still tax you. And if anyone is left, we'll regulate them.' That is what the Labor Party does.
I nearly fell off the green leather chair here today when the Treasurer said they had a great fiscal strategy and it is delivering a surplus. Unfortunately, it is not delivering a surplus; that is why it is a bad fiscal strategy. The budget deficit this year will be $22.6 billion, and it will be the fourth consecutive year of deficit. I said before, and I have said consistently, I do not expect Labor to ever deliver a surplus budget. Originally I said it about the member for Griffith, and I was absolutely right—he never did deliver a surplus budget. I say it emphatically about the Labor Party: they will not deliver a surplus budget. Bear this in mind, Mr Speaker: you will need to deliver surplus after surplus after surplus to start paying down the $110 billion of net debt. Bear in mind that, over the last four years, Labor have accrued a deficit of $154 billion. The only reason net debt is less than that is that we left money in the bank. We actually left the country with no net debt; in fact, there was a net surplus of assets. So they have spent the surplus of assets that we left them with four years ago and then they accrued $110 billion extra in net debt. The government are borrowing $62 million a day, at the moment, simply to meet day-to-day expenditure. It is no wonder that the Australian people reacted when the Prime Minister announced in the papers today that she wants to lend money to the IMF to lend money to the Eurozone to lend money to the Greeks. Under this proposal, Australia would be borrowing money to lend it to people who would lend it to people who would lend it to people who have a debt problem.
Of course, the Treasurer himself was tricking in question time. He knew exactly what we were getting at. First of all, he started the bluff and bluster about the coalition no longer supporting the IMF. We do support the IMF; we have always supported the IMF. We have done so on a number of occasions and we will continue to do so. But the IMF should not accept some of the suggestions from the Eurozone that it should form a partnership with the Eurozone for the European bailout fund. It is not part of the current mandate of the IMF. That is a very important point.
I quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, and I repeat it. He knows that the people of Britain will not cop British taxpayers' money being used to bail out the Greeks and the European currency. It is one thing to bail out an individual country. The IMF does that on regular occasions and it is appropriate that it does so. The strict rules that the IMF applies—and they are often criticised, as they were during the Asian financial crisis—are appropriate as a way of repaying those loans. The concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and our concern, is that this is about shoring up a currency. This is about shoring up the European Union.
The Prime Minister has gone into this issue like a wild bull in a china shop. Firstly, the Prime Minister arrives overseas and says, 'We stand ready to give more money to the IMF for this purpose,' yet the IMF has no deal with the Eurozone. Secondly, the concerns for everyday Australians are: what is the amount of money that is going to be put into this program and why is Australia leading the charge when the nearest neighbours to the Europeans—that is, the British—are not prepared to do the same? The third key factor is that the Europeans are trying to get the Greeks to agree to the current package on the table. They are trying desperately to get the Greeks across the line on the current package, saying, 'It is this package. You should accept it.' But along comes Julia Gillard and says, 'Hang on, there could be another pot of money.' So all the dissenters in Greece can turn to the words of the Prime Minister of Australia and say, 'Here's an alternative to accepting the existing European package.'
When the Prime Minister said she does not understand foreign affairs, she was damn right. The British know this, and other countries know this, but unfortunately we have a Prime Minister who is more interested in big-noting herself and going to the G20, when she is one of the weakest voices and trying to pretend to Australians that she is the strongest voice.
The challenge for Australia out of this is that, firstly, we should fix our own house. Our strength in our words comes from our actions. When Australia speaks, people listen, provided that we have the cash in our pocket, that we are not penalising our people, that we do not have to have austerity measures and that we as a nation are enhanced and empowered by having no debt, by having cash in our pocket. In a world where there is financial turmoil there is one truth: the person who has cash, the person who has no debt, and the person who can influence politics and influence outcomes is the one who has the most money in their pocket. That is the rule.
There is the emergence of China and the fact that the Europeans are now seeking out China for funding. The Chinese are not openly offering funding to the Eurozone like our Prime Minister. No, no, no. The Chinese are standing back and saying, 'You must prove that you are prepared to fix your house, and you come to me.' That is because they are the powerful ones, they have the money. But our Prime Minister feels the need to be generous at taxpayers' expense, after she has just delivered a $50 billion deficit, with a more than $22 billion deficit this year and with her incompetent Treasurer umming and ahhing about whether he actually can deliver a surplus.
You know what, the bottom line is this: the Prime Minister is promising what she cannot deliver. She is 'writing cheques her body cannot cash'—to quote from a great movie. The bottom line out of that is: Australians end up paying the price. Why do they end up paying the price? Because this is a government addicted to tax. On the same day that the Prime Minister offers money to help the Eurozone—the richest and largest economy in the world—when they did not even ask for it, Australians are having new taxes imposed on them by the government. A flood tax, a mining tax, a carbon tax, an alcopops tax, a cigarettes tax and new taxes on cars are all happening at the same time that our Prime Minister is beating her chest over in Europe, saying, 'We're going to lend you money.' My goodness! That is like a member of the gallery up there going along to the National Australia Bank and saying, 'Look, I can lend you 100 bucks'—
Mr Laming: 'And I've got a home loan with you!'
Mr HOCKEY: That is right: 'I'll offer you a home loan!'
The challenge in the Australian economy at the moment is that this government is not concerned about the fundamentals, which include improving productivity. This government has not lifted a finger on productivity. This week we have seen the government, the Labor Party, as the acting Prime Minister said, return to true form. They always look at the opportunity to engage in class war. They were so focused on the interests of the unions this week that they forgot the people out there that get on the planes. They were so focused on the unions this week that they forgot the interests of the miners that take the risk—invest the money to deliver the minerals to the marketplace that pay our bills.
The government was so focused on its own internal politics this week—the battle between the member for Griffith and the Prime Minister—that they did not recognise the signals from the Reserve Bank that the economy is not performing as well as was expected. Of course, the acting Prime Minister would say that this is the fault of the Europeans. Falling consumer confidence is not the fault of the Europeans. Falling consumer confidence comes when everyday Australians face higher bills—higher utility bills in electricity and water—higher transportation costs, higher health costs, higher rents, higher housing costs and construction costs. The falling building construction numbers and falling consumer confidence are alarming because they represent the fact that the Australian consumer has not got the confidence to go through. As far as I and the coalition are concerned, you do not build consumer confidence by introducing new taxes. You do not build Australian business confidence by taxing those that are most successful. You do not help the Australian economy by offering money, which Australia does not have, to a cause that Australia should not be involved in at this point of time. The fundamental point is that this is a directionless government that is focused on its own achievements of power and preservation of power rather than on the interests of the Australian people. And long may it continue until the day when we throw them out of government. (Time expired)
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (15:39): On the matter of public importance, I waited with my usual optimism to hear something constructive from the shadow Treasurer, but yet again nothing came out. If we are going to have a debate about the reasonable management of the economy, we need to set up the tests for that management. I would submit to the House that there is a number of reasonable tests: getting the big calls right; balancing the books; identifying existing problems in our economy and our society and fixing them; making sure that our economy grows fairly and inclusively; looking at the alternative management strategy, that is, of the opposition; and, most importantly, having innovative ideas and an optimistic vision for the future. These are the criteria. These, I submit, are the things Australians are interested in: getting the big calls right; balancing the books; identifying the major problems; seeing that the economy grows fairly and inclusively; examining if there are better alternative options; and making sure that we have an optimistic long-term view—not just for today or tomorrow, next week or next month or next year but for the next decade or the next two decades.
Returning to the submissions on the efficient and effective management of the economy, let us have a look at the big calls; let us look at the scoreboard for the government. On the global financial crisis: unlike most of the rest of the OECD, this nation managed to escape recession. Let us look at the big calls in the workplace: we reformed and abolished the unfair Work Choices laws of our predecessors which were leading us in a race to the bottom in wages and conditions. We abolished the minimum standards which would see our children and our grandchildren being paid inferior and unfair wages.
Let us look at another big call that we have got right: the information superhighway, the National Broadband Network, the innovation for the 21st century, which allows Australians to compete with the rest of the world. Let us look at another call we got right: flood reconstruction. No-one could have predicted these floods, but what options were available? Using the national economy, we set a levy and found the funds to help rebuild the terribly damaged infrastructure, mainly in Queensland but in other places too. We are also getting the big call right about finally acting on creating a sustainable economy by putting a price on carbon pollution. Indeed, have a look at the most immediate big call we had: dealing with the precipitous and over-the-top lockout at Qantas, stranding tens of thousands of passengers and travellers and grounding hundreds of aeroplanes. So there we go, we got the big calls right—the GFC, Work Choices, NBN, flood reconstruction, the carbon price and the most recent imbroglio and confusion created by Qantas shutting down its airline.
There is another submission which shows that we are managing the economy reasonably—that is, the need to balance the books. When you look at our net public sector debt in the Commonwealth to GDP, you see we are doing better than most of the rest of the world. It is going to peak at seven per cent; our interest payments are 0.4 per cent. Let us be very clear what the GFC did: the GFC absolutely slammed government revenue, but we have managed to engage in the fastest fiscal contraction since records began. That is $100 billion across four budgets. We have been winding back the Howard government's welfare creep. Indeed, when we came to power at the end of 2007, nearly 75 per cent of Australian families were receiving some family payment from the government. This was not sustainable and we have been winding that back. Look at the departmental efficiency dividend we have been applying to get our numbers back into the black—1.5 per cent. This I believe contrasts very favourably to the ill-thought-out opposition policies, which I will come to in a moment.
Having said that we get the big calls right and having said that we balance the books, we have also identified existing problems and we are in the process of fixing them. We do have a multispeed economy. You would have to live on another planet not to recognise that the mining boom, whilst it is good for some sections of the Australian economy, is causing dislocation in other parts of the economy. We have a very high dollar, which makes it hard for domestic tourism, domestic education services and local manufacturers to compete. So what are we doing? We have introduced the minerals resource rent tax so that we will share the prosperity that the richest companies in the world are enjoying from non-renewable resources—Australians' birthright—throughout the whole of the Australian Commonwealth; we are going to provide the 29 per cent corporate tax break; we are going to provide $1 billion in tax breaks for small business; we are going to build national infrastructure; and we are certainly going to lift compulsory superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
Never let it be forgotten that those opposite get 15 per cent super but would vote against 8½ million Australians getting 12 per cent. I look up the dictionary and that is coalition hypocrisy of the worst order. I note there are no interjections from them on that point because they know I am right. We also look at the unfair fees in superannuation—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Now they come up with interjections when they guiltily realise they have been caught out with their hand in the cookie jar of superannuation.
Mr Christensen: Play a different tune!
Mr SHORTEN: If the member for Dawson is bored, why doesn't he go and find something else to do? Dial a friend! Fees in superannuation are unfair, so we are going to have SuperStream and MySuper and make sure that we put downward pressure on fees and charges in superannuation. We are going to improve and reform the provision of financial advice in Australia.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I can hear the member for Mayo, the mini-me of Peter Reith, interjecting. We are the only people who will even listen to him—his own side keep gagging him. We have the Future of Financial Advice reforms, and we are going to reform financial planning. We are going to reduce the confusion around flood insurance and sort out a common definition so that never again will Australians have to go through fruitless and frustrating arguments with their insurer as to whether or not they are covered for flood. We are also making many more reforms in many other areas.
Having said that we are identifying existing problems and fixing them, that we are balancing the books and that we are getting the big calls right, I would submit in support of the proposition that we are managing the economy efficiently the fact that we are making sure that the economy grows fairly and inclusively. We understand that change is an inevitable part of Australian life, but we are determined to make sure that no-one gets left behind, as opposed to a coalition society where, if you cannot survive for yourself—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): It is Thursday afternoon and, while I admire the exuberance of the member for Bradfield, he should restrain himself at this point in time. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for pulling up the member for Bradfield. We are making sure that we do not forget social justice. Australia as a nation is in a process of change, but we can never forget people in that process of change. We have increased the pension. We have engaged in income tax cuts. Fortuitously, I have to hand some of the statistics on the personal income tax cuts that this government has delivered.
Someone earning $20,000 is paying $750 less this financial year than they were in 2007-08. Someone earning $30,000 is paying $750 less than they would have been in the last year of the Howard government. Someone earning $50,000 is paying $1,750 less this financial year than they would have been in the last year the Howard government.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members for Mayo and Bradfield will desist from continual interjections.
Mr SHORTEN: I get more sense off a bunch of crows on a power line than those two! The person earning $80,000 is paying $1,400 less this year, even including the flood levy, than they would have paid under the Howard government. So we have been delivering real change. For instance, a single person without children earning $39,000 in 2007-08 and $44,500 in 2010-11 has seen their tax wedge fall by 1.7 percentage points to 14.9 per cent in 2010-11. These are real numbers, and the real numbers are confronting to the opposition.
We are doing other things in the field of social justice which should not be overlooked. The most important thing you can do for social justice is create a job. If an Australian has a job they have a chance of engaging in the housing market and of educating their kids: they have a stake in society. Since Labor has been elected, 752,000 jobs have been created. When you look at what has been happening around the world in the global financial crisis, 30 million jobs have gone; yet in Australia under a Labor government 752,000 jobs have been created. We have increased the family payments for families with teenagers between 16 and 19. As any parent with a teenager between 16 and 19 knows, they do not get any cheaper the older they get.
The government is also proposing a particularly equitable piece of law, and we put the bill into the parliament yesterday, but the coalition is regrettably opposing it. There are 3½ million Australians who earn less than $37,000 a year, which means that they either pay no tax or 15 per cent in income tax. But what happens with their superannuation, since superannuation is taxed concessionally at 15 per cent? That 15 per cent concessional tax is all right if you pay a higher rate in income tax, because there is then an advantage to put your money in super at the lower tax rate. The problem is that, if you are one of the 3½ million lower income Australians, you do not get the benefit of that tax concession. So what are we going to do? We are going to abolish it. What will happen is that, if you earn less than $37,000 a year, you will no longer pay tax on your superannuation—it will all go into your superannuation.
It does not just stop there, though. We have now extended and developed the education tax refund, providing more help for families with the cost of educating their kids. the education tax refund has been extended to include school uniforms and a range of other incidental costs. These are the costs parents have, and they are DNA-hardwired to pay them for their kids because they want their kids to get the best start in life. What we are doing is helping them in that process of educating the kids.
Having said that we get the big calls right, that we balance the books, that we identify the existing problems and are fixing them, that we are into social justice and that we are making sure Australians have an opportunity to cope in an ever-changing world, we must look at some of the coalition myths. Getting criticism from the opposition about economic management seems a little rich when I look at their costing errors. In the election period last year they had a $10.6 billion costing black hole. The opposition need to know that taxpayers' money is not monopoly money; it is real money, and you should not have black hole. Some of their costing errors—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Perhaps if the member for Mayo spoke less and listened more there would be a chance that he would learn more. I apologise—I did not mean to imply he was learning! Their costing errors included spending $3.3 billion from the nation-building funds on local roads and not accounting for it in their numbers. They did not account for $356 million in their employment participation policy. They did not allow for $2.5 billion. They reduced what is known as the conservative bias allowance, which Treasury says does not realise any actual budgetary savings. Treasury and finance have identified literally hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I understand why the member for Goldstein attempts to interrupt me: he is embarrassed because he is in charge of this economic smash-up—this economic road crash.
Let us have a look at the final thing which, I would submit, shows that we are the party capable of economic management. We are the only party with an innovative and positive view of the future. If you have not been convinced already—by our balancing the books, by our working at fixing the problems, by our propositions of social justice and by the litany of opposition costing errors which are more like something done by Homer Simpson than by a serious opposition—then I submit to you three points among the collection of propositions that we are advancing for the future of Australia.
Firstly, we want to lift compulsory superannuation to 12 per cent. The opposition know it is a good idea—they get 15 per cent or defined benefit. The first rule of leadership is: don't just say it; practice what you preach. If they are willing to take 15 per cent for themselves, why can't the rest of Australia get 12 per cent?
It does not stop there. Secondly, we are now spending, as a down payment on the future, $3 billion on productivity through training apprentices and training trainees. Nearly half a million Australian people are on the path of apprenticeships and training.
There is a third idea which, I submit to you, demonstrates our capacity to manage the economy on behalf of the society as a whole. I think a lot of people on the Labor side know what that is: the proposition of a national disability insurance scheme.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: The opposition interjects on such a good idea—very heartless. A national disability insurance scheme is a long overdue proposition for this nation. Why should someone, because they are born with an impairment or acquire it in a blink of an eye, live a second-class life in Australia? Why should their carers live a second-class life? This party of government, this Labor Party, understand that it is now time to set right the wrong that has been occurring for a very long time in Australia. We are establishing the foundations for a national disability insurance scheme. We are working on a national injury insurance scheme. We are determined to make sure that two million Australians with profound or severe disability and their carers finally get included in Australian society on an equal basis. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (15:55): We have recently heard a litany of confusion and make-up. In recent weeks we have had to suffer the embarrassment of our Prime Minister and our Treasurer lecturing Europe about their economic woes. As we have just heard from the member for Maribyrnong, the lecturing of Europe has only served to highlight the incompetence of those opposite in managing our economy.
Overnight we heard more platitudes from our Prime Minister, who, speaking in Europe, admonished the Europeans for muddling through and urged them to get a plan. Can you believe it? It is the pot calling the kettle black. It comes from a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who have muddled from one train wreck to another. It is cringe worthy. They are lecturing the Europeans, yet it is looking increasingly likely that this government will once again have to raise the debt ceiling above the quarter of a trillion dollars that they raised it to only months ago from $70 billion when they took office. They have raised it now to a quarter of a trillion dollars, and it is looking likely that they will come back again into this place within 12 months and look for a further rise in that debt ceiling.
Their self-esteem is such that our Prime Minister and Treasurer are now offering to borrow more money to bail out Europe. This is a Europe which this year will again, after many years of doing the same thing, spend tens of billions of dollars subsidising their farmers so that our own farmers are locked out of their markets. They are going to spend tens of billions of dollars in Europe to lock our farmers out of their markets and disadvantage our farmers, yet we are going to help bail out Europe with tens of millions of dollars in aid. This is a nonsense, this is cringe worthy, this is embarrassing and, more importantly, this is sheer incompetence.
What do you think people who are struggling in small business out there—
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
Mr ROBB: So you are going to give them a carbon tax, and you are going to give business a mining tax. This is the sort of thinking we have to deal with. This is the absurd thinking and the economic illiteracy that is running our country. They are going to help the Europeans to lock our farmers out of their markets. They are going to help the Europeans spend our borrowed money—every cent of that money they give to the Europeans will be borrowed money—and that will be used to help subsidise their farmers to lock our own farmers out of Europe. This is just unbelievable.
But the biggest criticism that we have with this government—and we have had it for a long time—is their refusal to acknowledge the vulnerability of our economy. All of that vulnerability is not their fault, but they will not even acknowledge the vulnerability that is not even their own fault.
This is why there is a crisis of confidence. People know that there is something afoot—that there are dark clouds out there. People know that we are totally reliant on the pollyanna assumptions that this government made in their budget estimations. People know that, if resource prices come off just 15 or 20 per cent, we will have more and more deficits and higher and higher interest rates. People know this. They know that jobs will go backwards. People are concerned about losing their jobs. The trend is there, yet this government will not acknowledge the vulnerability of our economy. They refuse to act to restore the economic resilience that they inherited. Despite the mining boom, we have seen growth of debt—the third fastest in the developed world. There are only the economic powerhouses of Iceland and—
Mr Bradbury: Back it up.
Mr ROBB: Here he is! He looks confused. He does not even know the OECD figures that show that the Australian economy went from zero debt to, now, $210 billion of gross debt. We have gone to that level, and it is the third fastest in growth of any developed country in the world, apart from the powerhouses of Iceland and Ireland!
A government member interjecting—
Mr ROBB: What an embarrassment! What a statement! 'We got the big calls right,' said the member for Maribyrnong, and now we have confusion coming across the table—total confusion. Despite the mining boom we have had three record deficits. Not only that; we have had a structural deficit in this year's budget, which is twice Germany's structural deficit. We have, on a per capita basis compared with Italy—one of the big economies in the world and one of the shaky ones—a structural deficit which is 30 per cent greater.
So on a per capita basis we are twice as risky—twice as bad and twice as big—as Germany, and compared to Italy our structural deficit is 30 per cent greater on a per capita basis. This is the vulnerability that we have. This means that if there is any downturn in commodity prices we will be facing a $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion deficits for years and years. That means much higher debt, and all of the prosperity—all of the great blessings that we have had from this mining boom—will be squandered. This is irresponsibility. This is a government that will not acknowledge what is going on in our own country, much less the rest of the world.
The other thing about this vulnerability is the growth in government that we have seen in our lives over the last four years. It is the biggest growth in government in my life—and that includes the Whitlam era. This is the only government in the world that reregulated its labour market in the face of a global financial crisis. Those changes are now coming home to roost. We are now seeing the vulnerability and the repercussions.
Not only that; this is the only country in the world—the only government in the world—that is renationalising its telecommunications sector. What does the Economist magazine think of that? We heard about it earlier on. This is the only country in the world that is bringing in a nationwide carbon tax. What about that tax? It is crawling with thousands of bureaucrats. It is crawling with six new organisations. It is the most interventionist way you could ever try to deal with a price on carbon. It is the most socialist way you could deal with the price of carbon. No-one else has one; we are ahead of the rest of the world. That is a vulnerability. We are putting this carbon tax on everybody in this economy despite the fact that we are facing very vulnerable, very doubtful times.
We had the member for Maribyrnong up here a few minutes ago gloating that this government had created an efficient public service. If you go back to the first budget of the Treasurer of this Labor government you find that the budget predicted that, in 2011-12, the Public Service would grow to a cost of $16 billion. Have a look at the budget papers this year and you will see that the cost for 2011-12 is expected to be $19 billion. So there we had the member for Maribyrnong, who is supposed to be the Assistant Treasurer—what a goose!—who thinks his party has improved, refined and maintained a public service which is efficient. Yet it has grown $3 billion more in cost than they anticipated just three years ago—and that is in the face of a global financial crisis, for goodness sake!
This is a government that has failed Australians. We can give hope, growth and development, and we can open up the north; but this government has failed and will not deliver on those things. We offer hope, reward and opportunity.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:05): I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate about the management of the economy. The matter that has been raised by the member for North Sydney suggests that this government has not been capable in managing the economy; the facts tell a very different story. In fact, if we have a look at what has occurred over the last couple of years across the global economy we see that Australia stands out as one of the most outstanding success stories when it comes to economic management. I regularly host visits of individuals from all around the world, and when they come here they comment, almost universally, on how successful the economic management has been here in Australia through the troubled times of the global financial crisis.
To underline this point I will make a simple comparison of some figures. At the height of the global financial crisis, 30 million jobs were shed across the global economy; yet here in Australia we created over 700,000 jobs. We created over 700,000 jobs at a time when every other country was facing job losses. The initiatives that we put in place by acting decisively to stimulate the economy have been the difference. Those initiatives ensured that Australians were able to stay in employment through these difficult times.
We all know that the government has a very strong focus on jobs. When we talk about managing the economy, we talk about managing it for the many and not for the few. We talk about managing it so that working Australians continue to be in work. Had we adopted the so-called policy prescriptions of the opposition during the global financial crisis then lots of Australians—tens if not hundreds of thousands of Australians—would not have stayed in employment. The consequences of that would have been extremely detrimental to the national economy.
We all know that, when the debate in this place was occurring around the government's response to the global financial crisis, the Leader of the Opposition was not even in this chamber. Unlike most of his colleagues, he actually did not vote against the stimulus measures, because he failed to turn up to the chamber. We all recall the article in the Daily Telegraph that at great length identified the fact that the member for Warringah, before he was the Leader of the Opposition, did not even come into this chamber to vote; he slept through the vote. Is that the sort of person we want with their hands on the levers and the steering wheel of the national economy as we move into the next phase of economic development? Is that the person we want at the helm? He was asleep at the wheel when this government intervened to save all of those jobs.
Those on the other side seek to diminish the contribution of the government to the economy through the global financial crisis. They often say: 'It was not the government; it was the resources boom. That is all it was—the resources boom.' I am reminded of the comments that the then Secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, made to Senate estimates in May last year. He made the very valid point that if every sector across the Australian economy the Australian economy had shed jobs at that same rate as did the resources sector through the global financial crisis—and to recap for those who cannot recall, during the global financial crisis the mining industry shed 15 per cent of its jobs—the unemployment rate in Australia would have been 19 per cent. I would like to hear those who say the mining sector saved the Australian economy through the global financial crisis respond to that.
There are those who say that it was not just the mining sector; it was China. They say this as if to suggest that China was not around before this government came to power and that any of the revenue gains over the years which governments before us were able to achieve had nothing to do with China. All of a sudden China decided to industrialise when Labor came to power! They say that we only survived the global financial crisis as the economic success story we are because of China.
In the Leader of the Opposition's most recent pronouncements he said he has grave concerns about dealing with China. He thinks we need to be very cautious about a free trade agreement with China. In fact, I am sure his former leader, the former member for Bennelong, would be most concerned and disturbed to know that the very free trade negotiations he initiated back in 2005 have now become the source of such great concern to his old party. I think it is a further example of the complete lack of sensible economic thinking within the coalition at the moment.
You often hear those on the other side talk about taxation. We heard another bout of it from the member for North Sydney today. They say this government has introduced this tax and that tax: 'All they ever do is introduce new taxes.' Why would a government want to introduce taxes? Governments introduce taxes for various reasons. I would hazard a guess that some of the reasons we have introduced some of these initiatives might be the same reasons that the former government introduced all of the new taxes they chose to introduce, whether it be the sugar levy, the dairy levy, the tax on airfares after the Ansett collapse, the East Timor levy or the mother of all taxes they introduced: the goods and services tax. They come into this place and talk as though they are the only ones who ever cut taxes and we are the only ones who ever introduced them. They fail to acknowledge the fact that in our first three budgets we cut personal income tax by $47 billion. We have reduced personal income tax by $47 billion.
This is all a smokescreen to hide the real motives behind their decision to block and then repeal the mining tax. They are going to have to argue this in their communities. The Australian community is onboard with the mining tax. When I talk to people in the community, I find there is almost universal acceptance that this is what our nation requires. When BHP was announcing its record profits and when BlueScope Steel was laying off over 1,000 working Australians, most Australians could see that the nature of this patchwork economy meant that we needed to spread the benefits of the resources boom.
We need to ensure that all Australians get the benefit of the exploitation of our mineral resources. These are the resources we as Australian people own. As companies seek to exploit them to generate their own income and—as a result—national income, we need to ensure that the benefits are evenly spread. We are determined to do that. We are determined to do that to deliver a tax cut to small business, to reduce the company rate and to increase the ability of small businesses to instantly write off asset purchases of up to $5,000 and $6,000 to ensure that those purchasing motor vehicles are able to take an upfront deduction up to that amount.
We are also ensuring that working people are able to aspire to the retirement savings we all know they deserve. After toiling away for 40 years in the workforce, Australians expect that in retirement they will have a decent standard of living. We know that the compulsory superannuation levy at nine per cent will not deliver sufficient retirement savings; we want to make sure that all Australians are able to retire with a degree of comfort. These are measures that those on the other side oppose and will seek to repeal in government. They will increase taxes on small business. They will rip away superannuation for working Australians. They will give a massive windfall tax cut to the resource companies. That is their vision for the future. We are determined to build an economy that is resilient for the future, to tackle the challenge of an ageing population and to build the infrastructure that we need through a national broadband network. We are determined to ensure that our economy is a prosperous one and that the benefits of it are spread right across the economy. Most importantly, we want to make sure that working Australians get their fair share. It is all good and well for the big end of town to benefit; we want to make sure that working families and working Australians share in the fruits and the bounty of the prosperity that we will enjoy. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:15): We are here to speak on the government's failure to responsibly manage the economy, and we have heard from Admiral Bradbury that everything is shipshape—the economy is well anchored. But it is very difficult for me to know where to start to criticise the government on this front. How do you choose from the vast array of economic vandalism that this government has listed on its resume? It would be a laughable proposition if only it were not so serious.
The government's economic failure is extremely serious for those on the receiving end—for this country's forgotten families: the hardworking mums and dads out there who had to sit back and watch this government dive into the pool of money earned by the good people of this country and responsibly banked by the previous government. The families in my electorate of Dawson had to sit back and watch them splash it around, spilling billions of dollars here and billions of dollars there. They are a Labor government, so they are not so concerned about a bit of spillage or a bit of waste, because waste is their middle name. When the pool of money ran out, they borrowed more, and then they borrowed more, and then they borrowed even more money. They splash, they spill, they waste. They just keep borrowing and they just keep wasting. It is painful to watch for the families that have worked hard for that money and even more painful for the families who will spend the rest of their working lives without seeing an end to Labor's debt, if this lot stay in.
This economic mismanagement continues to destroy the economy. They are a bit like a kid in the lolly store—spoilt for choice—but I will choose just three things to focus on. They are big things that the government are responsible for. They have continued and will continue to waste money. They have cost and will cost families money. They have cost and will cost businesses money. They have cost and will cost jobs.
There can be no greater example of a government determined to destroy its own economy than the Labor-Greens government, who are imposing the biggest, the ugliest and the most destructive carbon tax in the world. The problem with this government is their complete isolation from the people they are supposed to represent. The Prime Minister and the Labor members in this place sought and got a mandate from the people not to impose a carbon tax. They did not listen then and they are certainly not listening now. They are not listening to businesspeople, who quite justifiably have very serious concerns about the impact that this carbon tax will have on their livelihood. This Labor government denies the legitimate anxiety that these businesses have, knowing this tax is about to come in and hit them very, very hard. This is what business and industry are saying out in the real world. The National Generators Forum, the peak body of Australia's power industry, said the carbon tax will:
… produce virtually no change in emissions from the generation sector while imposing huge costs on the community, trade-exposed industries and electricity generators.
After looking at the legislation that this government introduced and passed, the National Generators Forum said it would almost double the wholesale price of electricity to $100 per megawatt hour by 2020. The Labor government either does not listen or does not care—probably both—about what this will do to businesses and the families that are employed by them.
Businesses in my electorate of Dawson have already made decisions to halt investment. Take, for example, Werner Engineering, a business that has been around for three decades in the Mackay region servicing the agricultural and resource sectors. I spoke to their manager, Chris Geach, about his planned multimillion dollar relocation and expansion. They have had to put it on hold. The increased cost that his local, Australian based business will have to pay under the carbon tax will not be paid by his international competitors. You cannot blame business for being against this carbon tax. But it is not just business; it is the families and workers employed, or soon to be not employed, by businesses who hate it as well. It is no wonder that more than 94 per cent of people who returned a survey that I put out in my electorate say they are opposed to the carbon tax.
Mr McCormack: Ninety four per cent?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Six thousand people responded; 94 per cent were against. But, as big and as ugly and as economically destructive as the carbon tax is, it is just one method this government is using to bring the economy to its knees. Everything this government touches it stuffs up. As the Leader of the Opposition says, it is like the Midas touch in reverse; in fact, it is actually worse than the Midas touch in reverse because the government even manages to stuff up the economy with what it does not touch.
The one time they should have done something—the one time they should have stepped in—they did not. Qantas and the flying public needed the government to act and they did not act. They sat on their hands and did nothing. They were probably too scared to do anything because they know what happens when they do act. But doing nothing just punched another big, fat hole in the economy. It punched another big hole in business. In the Whitsundays, in the electorate of Dawson, times are already tough—as tough as they were during the pilots strike of 1989. They are suffering from the high Aussie dollar and the legacy of the summer of natural disasters. The Whitsundays relies on tourism and, by allowing the situation with the Qantas industrial dispute to get so out of control that the national carrier's entire fleet was grounded, this government knocked the stuffing out of even more Whitsunday businesses. QantasLink flights, thankfully, continued into the Whitsundays, but I have to tell you that there were a lot of empty seats. No connections means no passengers, and no passengers means no business, and that means someone is out of pocket—a family is out of pocket. How much more damage does the government want to do to the economy in the Whitsundays? They cannot wait for the carbon tax up there, I can tell you. They cannot wait!
Then there is the damage that has been caused to job-creating investment proposals in North Queensland by the rigid regulations of the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation approvals process. I point to one very big example of the damage: the multibillion dollar Abbot Point multicargo facility project. This project, which has the capacity to generate thousands of jobs and see an increase in population and services into the town of Bowen, has been held up by the federal environment department, awaiting EPBC approval, since December last year. Literally nothing has happened to what will be one of the biggest projects of all in Northern Australia. Each month the project proponents are told, 'Next month you will get the approval,' or 'The approval is coming; it is coming.' Well, so is Christmas—for a second time round for this proposal. Next month the project will have sat there stagnant for a year because of the federal government's delays.
Here is a little update that has been given by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; it came out during the Senate estimates. A bureaucrat from there, Barbara Jones, Assistant Secretary of the Environment Assessment Branch, said:
The proponent, North Queensland Bulk Ports, provided a final EIS document to the department on 6 December last year. The department is still considering the content of that document and assessing it.
The department has been assessing it for nearly a year. The proponents were advised that the application would be finalised in February—nine months ago—and it has been held up because of the onerous demands to offset perceived environmental damage. I have to tell you that that has Bob Brown's fingerprints all over it. The state government has already addressed the issue, and the proponents have agreed to a 100 per cent offset to all perceived environmental damage—100 per cent agreed. That was the original issue, and the agreement—you would think—would be the end of the issue.
But industry sources have told me that the department has now got UNESCO involved—UNESCO; would you believe it?—because the project is off the coast of the Great Barrier Reef. Now we have some bureaucrat in some United Nations office sitting over there in Paris with his little red pen, probably daydreaming about a holiday in the Bahamas or somewhere, and he is more concerned about that or what he is going to have for lunch than he is about creating jobs in North Queensland. The department basically confirmed this at Senate estimates. While they would not use the word 'referral' because of the connotations it has, they said that they were basically notifying UNESCO bureaucrats in Paris about job-creating projects in North Queensland.
Who is running this country? Is it the Labor Party, who quite clearly could not care less about business, investment or the economy? Is it the Greens, who want to completely shut it all down? If a Labor government is taking its economic policy from the Greens, it is just a matter of time before there is no economy in North Queensland—and the rest of the country will not be far behind.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:25): Deputy Speaker Slipper, may I congratulate you on your sartorial splendour this afternoon?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I thank the honourable member.
Dr LEIGH: The member for Dawson has been dancing around the matter of public importance today, which is that of the economy. It is surprising, therefore, that he does not raise the issue that he raised in his maiden speech. In his first speech to this place, the member for Dawson called for the scrapping of income tax—a bold proposal, to be sure, which I am sure that the member for Dawson is still committed to. Why is he not putting that forward? It might be something to do with the fact that the coalition are in a deep, deep black hole.
We know, of course, that in the last federal election they were a cool $11 billion down in their costings. But it has only got worse, and the hole is now $70 billion. It is kind of odd that at this point that the member for Dawson does not just say, 'Let's keep on digging and see what we find; let's scrap the income tax as well.' Why doesn't he say it? Maybe he is like his leader—maybe he is willing to say anything to any audience that will keep them happy.
In contrast, we on this side of the House have an economic record which includes keeping 200,000 people in employment in the global financial crisis and saving tens of thousands of small businesses from going to the wall. We have got rid of inefficient taxes like the dependant spouse tax offset, the entrepreneurs' tax offset and the fringe benefits tax arrangement for cars—which, perversely, was bad economics and bad environmental policy. We have done that so that we can put money where it is needed most—into the National Broadband Network, which will boost productivity, and into schools and hospital reforms that will lay the productivity agenda for the next generation.
We listened to economists when we put in place a minerals resource rent tax that taxes an immobile source of production in minerals and allows us to cut taxes on a mobile source of production—that is, corporate tax investment. When economists throughout the world told us, as the scientists do, that climate change is happening and that a price on carbon pollution is the right thing to do, we on this side of the House listened and put a price on carbon pollution; those on that side of the House just abuse economists when they do not like what they say.
We are putting in place a national disability insurance scheme—another pillar in Australia's social safety net—and we are boosting superannuation. Meanwhile, those opposite are opposing the boost to 12 per cent super. Fifteen per cent is good enough for them, and nine per cent is good enough for their constituents. They are like a duke living in a castle complaining about public housing investment.
We on this side of the House held a tax forum to look at new ideas; those on that side of the House were missing in action. Occasionally we get the odd idea from them. The members for Wentworth and Kooyong support a sovereign wealth fund. A sovereign wealth fund is like a piggybank in overseas currency, so it is useful if you have something to put in it. Do they want to put anything in it? No; they oppose the minerals resource rent tax. The members for Wentworth and Kooyong have a policy of an empty piggybank. That is their economic idea.
The member for Mayo wants a broad-based goods and services tax. He says he wants to broaden the goods and services tax but, in the next breath, he is says that he wants a narrow carbon price and attacks the notion of a broad based carbon price. Ours is not the broadest-based carbon price, but the principle is there. The member for Mayo wants to broaden the GST but to narrow the carbon price. What would the former Treasurer Peter Costello say if he could see these people now? We know what he would say, because they are opposing his own reforms. They are opposing the fuel tax reforms he brought into parliament in 2003. They are taking a position on the petroleum resource rent tax that is the opposite of what the Howard-Costello government pursued throughout the 1990s and 2000s in their litigation with Esso.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The discussion is now concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Casey Electorate: Mental Health Fun Run
Casey Electorate: Relay for Life
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:30): I would like to talk about two events in my electorate that exemplify the best of the Australian spirit. On a cold and rainy Sunday morning a couple of weekends ago, 245 people of all ages braved inclement weather to take part in the Mental Health Fun Run at Lillydale Lake. The fun run was organised by Yarra Ranges Youth Services and the Shire of Yarra Ranges 2011 Young Citizen of the Year, Sam Taylor. There were 71 people who completed the five-kilometre run and 174 people who completed the 2½-kilometre walk. A total of $2,680 was raised, with the proceeds being donated to beyondblue to fight depressive mental illness.
It is fantastic to see people coming together to raise awareness and much-needed money for such an important cause. Joining Sam Taylor in organising this event was Sharon Patton, who led a hardworking team from the Shire of Yarra Ranges Youth Services. I would like to salute all the volunteers from Yarra Ranges Youth Services for their vital help with this event.
Moving from things past to things future, the Yarra Ranges Relay for Life is going to be held this coming weekend at the Don Road Sporting Complex in Healesville, in the Casey electorate. Relay for Life is the world's biggest fundraising event for cancer research, but it is more than just the chance to collect money. It also provides the opportunity to remember friends and family who have been lost to this dreaded disease and to thank those who have helped care for cancer patients. The candlelight ceremony is perhaps the most poignant part of the relay. It includes tribute bags that line the course, with personal messages of love and support. Then, as dusk falls, memorial candles light up the memory of those cherished loved ones who are so dearly missed.
The Yarra Ranges event is just one of the Relays for Life held all year, all around our country. This weekend over 700 people from the Casey electorate will be walking and running throughout the night. Through lots of sweat and, of course, a few tears they will be making a real difference in the fight against cancer. There are 36 teams registered for the relay, with more expected to sign up before the event begins on Saturday. The names of those teams are as colourful as the spirits of those who belong to them. They include the Teenage Terrors, the Flying Purple Cancer Beaters and the Jungle Fever. It is also great to see some local football teams taking part in the action: the Junction Eagles and the Mount Evelyn veterans football team. And let us not forget the vital role played by the local businesses that have sponsored both the relay and its participating teams. We have local musicians as well, who have volunteered to entertain everyone in attendance. All in all, we expect a great weekend of celebration and remembrance and, of course, reflection—a weekend that will perhaps help bring closer the day when cancer will be spoken of like polio or smallpox as a terrible disease of the past.
I would also like to pay a special tribute to 14 young committee members who have volunteered so much of their time between work and study to organise this local fundraising event: Kaitlin Morrow, Samantha Morrow, Stacey Morrow, Julian Brennan, Megan Fleming, Hannah Urquhart, Isobel Urquhart, Prue Northey, Emily Slaney, Cathy Moore, Stephen Moore, Jean-Philippe Britt, Kaine Marsh and Kirsty Dryden. These are some really amazing people whose energy and commitment belie their youth. The average age of this committee is a mere 22 years, and they are chaired by the very talented and enthusiastic Kaitlin Morrow from Wandin, in the Casey electorate. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Kaitlin and her sisters, Samantha and Stacey, who are all working tirelessly to make the Yarra Ranges Relay for Life this weekend the fantastic success I am sure it will be.
Canberra Electorate: Order of Australia Recipients
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:35): I recently attended an investiture at Government House in Canberra where 33 proud Australians received their Order of Australia and other awards from Her Excellency the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce. Many of the recipients are from my electorate, including Richard Larter, who received an OAM for his work as a painter. Major General Elizabeth Cosson received an AM in the Military Division, and her award was announced on Australia Day this year. Her citation is one that makes me proud to be an Australian. I had the pleasure of meeting Major General Cosson when I was consulting with Defence, and she is an incredible woman. She has moved on from Defence now—I think she is with the Department of Veterans' Affairs—but she has had an exemplary career in the Australian Army and has driven reform in Defence Support Operations. She has had a difficult task to head reform processes, but Major General Cosson has rightly earned the AM for the way she has gone about this incredibly difficult role.
Others from the ACT area include Mrs Michelle McGrath, who received an OAM. Mrs McGrath is one of those hardworking women who you often find behind non-government organisations, working tirelessly for the good of their community. They work without any fuss or bother and just get on with the job. Mrs McGrath was executive director of Alzheimer's Australia ACT, a position that she held in a voluntary capacity for three years prior to her substantive appointment to that position for a further 10 years. Mrs McGrath is an example of the sort of Australian whose contribution should be celebrated through the Order of Australia. She is part of the fabric of society that we all so much depend upon. She makes a difference to the lives of ordinary Australians through her selfless work in an area that is not necessarily sexy or popular. Ms Helen Maxwell is another Australian who was appropriately recognised at the investiture ceremony recently. I also had the good fortune of working with Helen Maxwell last year when I was judging some paintings by the Advocacy for Inclusion group. We worked on judging those for a series of Christmas cards and posters. Helen Maxwell has volunteered and worked hard in the museum and galleries sector in the Canberra region for years. She was the founding Director of Australian Girls Own Gallery, a position she held for over 10 years. She had her eyes on the big picture as this was a gallery for the exhibition of works from females across the country. Helen Maxwell also received a Medal in the General Division, an OAM, for her enormous contribution to arts in this country.
It is worth remembering that awards under the Order of Australia are not made for merely doing your job. The intent is that they identify Australians who have made a unique contribution to the community at a local, national and international level, who have gone well beyond their paid work.
This brings me to the purpose of raising this issue today. Apart from lauding the achievements of those who did receive those awards at the investiture that day, I wonder how many members and senators actually take the time to organise for people in their electorates to be nominated for an award, particularly Indigenous people and people from multicultural backgrounds who contribute an enormous amount to their communities but who are sometimes not at the front and centre of our minds. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues and those in the Senate, when they return to their electorates, to start thinking about some of these particular and important contributors to our society and to assist in ensuring they are recognised by their country. I encourage them to take a proactive approach to identifying people worthy of these awards because there are plenty out there. We just need to look for them.
One such person recognised in the Queen's Birthday list this year is Dr Naren Chellappah. I love his story. He is a volunteer dental surgeon who spends a few months each year away from his dental practice here in Weston to volunteer as a dentist at his own cost in Laos and India. The citation for his OAM does not do his volunteer work justice. He also regularly visits local nursing homes to offer any support or stimulation he can to the elderly residents. He is a volunteer for Greening Australia from time to time and also routinely participates in other activities such as Clean Up Australia Day. He is very much true to the saying: if you want a job done, ask a busy person. He is an extraordinary man and I thank him for his contribution to the community.
In closing, I urge all members to encourage the nomination of people who are not normally considered or who fall under the radar. That is not to say that those who have been nominated so far are not worthy. They are. But there are plenty at the grassroots community level who need to be recognised for their work. It is easy. People just have to go to the Governor-General's website or the Its An Honour website. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that our great contributors are recognised, especially those who are not routinely on the front page of newspapers. (Time expired)
Small Business
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (16:40): Small business is doing it tough in many areas right around Australia and the south-west is suffering its fair share. A number of small business people have come to me recently looking for help. Manufacturing and retail businesses in particular have been facing financial hardship. Many have had to close as customers hold onto their money, either increasing their savings or paying down debt or simply because there is probably a lack of confidence in the way the government is managing this economy.
I have also had significant increases in people having trouble making their payments to the Australian Taxation Office. We know that everyone should ensure they meet their tax liabilities and obligations, but it concerns me that the ATO appears extremely punitive. A number of business owners have sought payment schedules to meet the entire tax liability that their businesses could afford, agreeing to pay at times over $100,000 or more. The ATO, however, seems determined that these schedules will have a 12-month time limit. When you are a small business in a regional area that is a major issue. This has in some cases attracted massive fines and compounding penalties. Some of these companies that could have traded out of trouble over a two-year period will be potentially bankrupted in just one.
I wonder whether the government is so desperate for revenue in 2012 to meet its promise—or a target or vague aim or whatever it is—to achieve a budget surplus in 2012-13 that it would prefer to get what it can in that year even if it means bankrupting these good businesses. These demands are causing great stress to business owners and their families who are trying desperately to trade their way out of financial trouble. They have kept workers on; they have tried everything they can to maintain a business in difficult times.
I have had great assistance in managing the stress for these people from local community support networks. These include the Small Business Centre Bunbury-Wellington where Alison Maughan and her staff are available to help whenever they can with financial and business advice. The team provides an excellent and vital service. The effects of business stress are not only financial, however, and this is where the pressure comes. They frequently have a major impact on the mental health of business owners and their families. Even though they are under massive financial pressure, it is the emotional pressure that really brings them down, with incredible stress sometimes driving people to consider desperate acts. I have dealt with people in these circumstances.
In this instance we have had to seek more help for them. Community support networks are vital. The Regional Men's Health Initiative has been invaluable in managing both the financial and the emotional issues faced by some of my constituents, particularly a number of men. Julian Krieg, Owen Catto, Andrew Grist and Graeme Chopping have provided a fantastic level of support for many of my constituents. I put on record in this place my thanks to them for assisting people when they are extremely desperate.
The community is also well served by the South West Women's Health and Information Centre in Bunbury. For the partners, those who do the books, those who have to deal with their husband, their partner or their family, the stress compounds on women in this situation as well. People are loath to ask for help often when they need it most. They are so desperate, they are so crowded by all the pressures they have, they simply cannot deal with them—they are overwhelmed.
I thank those in Bunbury giving the vital services that help to look after the mental and physical wellbeing of women and men in the south-west. They are vital cogs in my community in the south-west. I take this opportunity to commend and thank all of these groups and individuals and the many others who are assisting small business owners—be they retailers, manufacturers, processors or agricultural producers—to get through these difficult times. Without them our jobs as members would be much harder. I also really want to encourage anyone in my electorate who is finding themselves in this situation with the tax office or facing incredible stress to get in touch with me. We will give you every assistance we can to help you to manage your problems. We will direct you to the advice and support that you might need. Do not get to the point that those who have walked into my office in the last 12 to 18 months have got to; do not be that desperate. Come and ask for the help that you need. I would encourage you. This is a support network that I would particularly ask the men to take advantage of. (Time expired)
Western Australia: Manufacturing
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:45): I want to take this opportunity to speak about the understandable concern among Australian manufacturers and workers, and in the wider community, about the poor and declining local content component of major mining and petroleum projects.
This is a matter of importance in Western Australia, where it goes to the heart of the disconnect between the booming resources sector and other parts of the economy. And it is a matter of importance in my electorate of Fremantle, where manufacturing businesses in areas like the Australian Marine Complex are not sharing in the work that should logically flow from the scale of investment we are seeing.
It defies common sense that there are not greater benefits for Australian manufacturing and for Australian workers as a result of the massive investment that is occurring in resources projects. I am contacted regularly by business owners and by workers who cannot understand how 80 or 90 per cent of the fabrication involved in certain resources projects is taken offshore. At a time when steel-manufacturing workshops are running well below capacity, the newspaper headlines about the boom make bitter reading, and the television ads about the commitment of mining companies to local economies make for bitter viewing.
In recent years the Australian manufacturing industry has come under threat from offshore competitors that undercut Australian companies, often through lower standards of safety, poorer conditions of employment and lower production quality.
It is one thing to say that Australian industry must be internationally competitive, which is a project that Labor governments have successfully pursued over the last quarter century, but it is something else altogether when that so-called competition occurs in the absence of a level playing field.
And so the Prime Minister has been right to say that the Australian manufacturing industry deserves action now, and that is why this government has been right to act and to make federal grants of more than $20 million contingent on the provision of plans to maximise opportunities for Australian business.
This builds on other government programs that are designed to support a strong and sustainable manufacturing industry. As an example, when BlueScope Steel announced plans to close its doors the government was on the ground with $130 million in assistance, including $100 million from our $300 million Steel Transformation Plan, the first industry support program of its kind in almost 30 years.
I would also observe that, in my electorate of Fremantle, Austal Ships is benefiting from a $350 million government contract to build and service eight Cape Class patrol boats. The construction of these vessels will create new jobs and training opportunities for the young people of Fremantle and WA. What is more, the project will dovetail well with the new Maritime Trades Training Centre at South Fremantle High School, funded by this government.
These concrete and positive actions are in stark contrast to the approach taken by the current WA government, which appears to spend most of its time keeping the red carpet neat and tidy for huge mining companies and little time being concerned about small and medium sized Western Australian businesses.
In 2010 the local industry participation in West Australian mining and offshore petroleum and gas projects averaged only 53 per cent, down from a peak of 72 per cent. This disturbing trend needs to be reversed if we are to ensure job security for the tens of thousands of Australians employed in the manufacturing industry.
By 2013 business investment in the resources sector in Western Australia is expected to reach $62 billion, representing a significant opportunity to underwrite new jobs in a range of sectors. In my electorate of Fremantle there remains comparatively high youth unemployment in the south and south-east despite the resources boom. That is why the government has funded a historic jobs and training package, and that is why we have put in place the requirement of local participation plans. I also note that the West Australian Labor opposition recently tabled the Skilled Local Jobs Act, under which skilled work agreements were proposed to facilitate strong local content growth.
The federal Labor government has put in place measures that require project developers to publish extensive details of opportunities available to Australian business if they want the five per cent tariff exemption on imports for major projects. However, the WA Premier, Mr Barnett, is on record as saying legislation is not the answer. I wonder what he thinks the answer is. What is the WA government doing to ensure that the economic opportunities of a historic resources boom are spread widely, fairly and for the long-term structural benefit of the state and national economies?
Mr Perrett: Nothing!
Ms PARKE: I thank the member for Moreton for his contribution. As the representative of a Western Australian electorate, and an electorate with an established manufacturing, shipbuilding and fabrication industry profile, I know how important it is that we continue to work towards greater involvement of local businesses, especially manufacturing, in mining development projects. The federal Labor government regards a strong Australian manufacturing sector as an essential part of a sustainable, diverse and innovative economy, and an essential focus of jobs training and employment opportunities. We will continue to support a stronger manufacturing sector and a sustainable, diversified economy through our Clean Energy Future package, through our Defence procurement processes, through our Steel Transformation Plan and local content procurement policies, and through the implementation of the mining resources rent tax.
Murray Darling Basin
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:50): Reports yesterday suggested irrigators—they are the people who grow the food and fibre to feed and clothe this nation, in case those on that side are not aware—will be forced to deliver even more water to the Murray-Darling. This follows a decision by the Labor government to secretly undercut the value of irrigators' water.
Family farmers discovered only last week, much to their dismay, that the water minister had cut exchange rates on water bought under the government's $3.1 billion water purchasing program. Bureaucrats, it seems, slashed the average annual volume of water irrigators' high and general security entitlements delivered to the environment, yet failed to notify irrigators or even state governments. The reductions in the environmental value of water were 12 per cent for the Murrumbidgee and nine per cent for New South Wales Murray irrigators. Not only does this erode the value of water already recovered, it effectively means irrigators must now deliver even more to meet the basin plan of an additional 2,800 gigalitres for the environment.
As New South Wales Irrigators Council chief executive officer Andrew Gregson said:
Just like the Guide (to the basin plan), this was done entirely without consultation. Like the Guide, it will not be received well by the tens of thousands whose jobs rely on this, by the family farms that risk closure or by the fresh food buyer whose weekly shopping bill goes up.
The draft basin plan is due out this month. Its contents have already been deliberately leaked by the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Labor and the authority need to know that the communities I represent, especially Griffith, Coleambally and Leeton, will not sit idly by whilst they go about destroying the very reason for the existence of those wonderful and once booming towns.
Meanwhile, the report from the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia headed by the Independent member for New England, which was tabled on 2 June, still awaits formal recognition, and its 21 recommendations have not been acted upon.
Every day, despair and uncertainty grow in the Coleambally and Murrumbidgee irrigation areas. Every day, more investment is put on hold. Only this morning I was told of a significant Riverina development which has been held over—for who knows how long—because of genuine fears about future water availability and security. When will Labor stop kowtowing to the Greens, whose uncosted, irresponsible policies would destroy regional communities, place our ability to feed ourselves at real risk and ultimately do nothing for the environment?
This is not based on science. It is based on a Labor cover-up and a Greens con. The Gillard government has spent more than $4.5 million on water buybacks in the Murrumbidgee but does not expect those purchases to deliver any extra water to the environment, according to radically altered data on the basin buyback scheme. The data shows that the government has bought more than 20,821 megalitres of productive water from farmers in the Murrumbidgee at $218 a megalitre, which amounts to just over $4.5 million. But the new figures show the expected average annual volume of water available for the environment from that buyback is nothing—written down from a previous estimate of 2,915 gigalitres at the end of August. The government has changed the rules in the middle of the game for basin communities anxiously awaiting the MDBA's final draft plan. Senator Joyce has called for the Auditor-General to investigate the buybacks. This is the proper course of action. A full explanation is required. This government has abjectly failed on the water issue. It continues to hurt farming families and refuses to strive for a triple-bottom-line approach.
Two recent emails from Riverina constituents highlight just how much people in my electorate are suffering. Virginia Tropeano, of Hanwood, wrote: 'For some time now, MDBA Chair Craig Knowles has been publicly throwing around the figure of 2,800 gigalitres as his suspected sustainable diversion limits under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but he also says he has asked for modelling of 400 gigalitres each side of this figure. Therefore, it looks as though the lowest figure farmers in the basin can expect is 2,400 gigalitres. This is unbelievable. Did no-one listen at all? When Tony Windsor's report came out it looked as though someone had listened and maybe there would be some action. But what has happened? Nothing. Tony Burke is still continuing with his buybacks, and sham science is still being used to make preposterous claims about river health.'
Caroline Robertson, of Bilbul, had this say: 'My husband Chris and I were watching the Today show this morning, the 26th of October, and saw Julia Gillard in Western Australia announcing to the world that Australia is supporting developing nations by removing tariffs on imported products. I am sorry to admit it, but my eyes filled with tears. For many years now, we have faced the drought and alienation from Australians because we are those 'horrid rice farmers' who take all the water. How lucky at this stage we are such an affluent nation we do not have to rely on eating rice, but, oh, spare a though for the millions worldwide who do. Once we used to help feed these people. In the Griffith area, as I know you are well aware, morale is rock-bottom. How could a Prime Minister put sustainable food on an agenda and then ignore her own country? I am sorry to bother you with an emotional email from a very disheartened farmer's wife, but I would encourage you to continue to represent us as best you can so the nation sees we are part of it and once upon a time had a valuable contribution to make, even though it was using irrigation water.'
Those are heartfelt words indeed from people who not only care about their own futures but have the nation's best interests at heart, unlike those who would have all the water run wastefully, unused, down the rivers and eventually out to sea. (Time expired)
Qantas
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:55): At the end of a week when the parliament, like the nation, has been gripped by the extraordinary actions of Qantas in grounding its fleet and locking out its workforce, there are still many questions that remain to be answered. Perhaps some of those questions will be answered when members of the Senate conduct an inquiry going to some of those questions.
Much has been made about what the opposition did or did not know in the lead-up to the grounding of the aeroplanes and the locking out of the workforce. There are many in the community who are rightly critical of them, but the real bad guy in this story, as far as I am concerned—and many in my electorate have contacted me on this issue—is Qantas. Some questions really need to be answered, and the first is: why was the action taken? Why did they go to the extraordinary action of grounding their air fleet, doing such immense damage to themselves, their shareholders and their workforce—action which, as far as we can tell, is unprecedented in the world?
We know that on the Wednesday leading up to this extraordinary action the minister himself had the parties in his office, knocking heads together and attempting to broker a resolution of the dispute around wages and conditions. At the conclusion of those discussions, I am advised, not only was there no talk about locking out workers or grounding the aeroplanes but it was thought that a resolution to the dispute was at hand. In fact, this was a finding that even Fair Work Australia, when it conducted its hearing into the dispute on the application of the minister, concurred with. They found that paragraph 14 of their decision in this dispute indicates there are still real prospects for a satisfactory negotiated outcome in all three cases—the prospect of a negotiated resolution in relation to these three proposed enterprise agreements still remains.
Given this, you would have to question what changed between Friday, 28 September and Saturday, 29 September that made Qantas management and their board lock out the workforce and ground the airline. In the words of CEO Alan Joyce, it was unbelievable action—action that many people around the country are still finding it very difficult to understand. Qantas is not a factory or a mine; it is a service provider. It provides an essential service to the Australian community. They ambushed around 68,000 passengers because they could not get their way—they could not manage to convince the representatives of their employees about their plans for the future of the airline.
What is even more extraordinary about this story is that, at the time they locked out the workforce, only one of those unions was engaged, or planning to engage, in industrial action. That was the pilots' union, who were proposing to wear red ties to work in protest against the management actions. I can only say it is a good thing that the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, was not in the chamber today. If he saw all the red ties adorning members of this place, many members might have been very lucky to find their way back to their electorates because he might have seen that as some sort of coercive and concerted action by members in this place in union with the pilots!
The action by Qantas was absolutely extraordinary and the people of Australia deserve some explanation. Qantas did not ground its fleet because of safety concerns arising from maintenance. We know that they did not ground the fleet because of safety concerns. Qantas grounded the fleet because it had decided to lock out its workforce. In its words, it was concerned—quite understandably, I argue—about the way that its employees would react.
What is extraordinary, despite all that went on, is that, on the Sunday after workers were locked out of their workplace and the aeroplanes were grounded, the licensed engineers were hard at work—the very next day, after the decision of the commission, they were hard at work doing the maintenance to ensure that those planes could get in the air as quickly as possible. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
Casey Electorate: Mental Health Fun Run
Casey Electorate: Relay for Life
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:30): I would like to talk about two events in my electorate that exemplify the best of the Australian spirit. On a cold and rainy Sunday morning a couple of weekends ago, 245 people of all ages braved inclement weather to take part in the Mental Health Fun Run at Lillydale Lake. The fun run was organised by Yarra Ranges Youth Services and the Shire of Yarra Ranges 2011 Young Citizen of the Year, Sam Taylor. There were 71 people who completed the five-kilometre run and 174 people who completed the 2½-kilometre walk. A total of $2,680 was raised, with the proceeds being donated to beyondblue to fight depressive mental illness.
It is fantastic to see people coming together to raise awareness and much-needed money for such an important cause. Joining Sam Taylor in organising this event was Sharon Patton, who led a hardworking team from the Shire of Yarra Ranges Youth Services. I would like to salute all the volunteers from Yarra Ranges Youth Services for their vital help with this event.
Moving from things past to things future, the Yarra Ranges Relay for Life is going to be held this coming weekend at the Don Road Sporting Complex in Healesville, in the Casey electorate. Relay for Life is the world's biggest fundraising event for cancer research, but it is more than just the chance to collect money. It also provides the opportunity to remember friends and family who have been lost to this dreaded disease and to thank those who have helped care for cancer patients. The candlelight ceremony is perhaps the most poignant part of the relay. It includes tribute bags that line the course, with personal messages of love and support. Then, as dusk falls, memorial candles light up the memory of those cherished loved ones who are so dearly missed.
The Yarra Ranges event is just one of the Relays for Life held all year, all around our country. This weekend over 700 people from the Casey electorate will be walking and running throughout the night. Through lots of sweat and, of course, a few tears they will be making a real difference in the fight against cancer. There are 36 teams registered for the relay, with more expected to sign up before the event begins on Saturday. The names of those teams are as colourful as the spirits of those who belong to them. They include the Teenage Terrors, the Flying Purple Cancer Beaters and the Jungle Fever. It is also great to see some local football teams taking part in the action: the Junction Eagles and the Mount Evelyn veterans football team. And let us not forget the vital role played by the local businesses that have sponsored both the relay and its participating teams. We have local musicians as well, who have volunteered to entertain everyone in attendance. All in all, we expect a great weekend of celebration and remembrance and, of course, reflection—a weekend that will perhaps help bring closer the day when cancer will be spoken of like polio or smallpox as a terrible disease of the past.
I would also like to pay a special tribute to 14 young committee members who have volunteered so much of their time between work and study to organise this local fundraising event: Kaitlin Morrow, Samantha Morrow, Stacey Morrow, Julian Brennan, Megan Fleming, Hannah Urquhart, Isobel Urquhart, Prue Northey, Emily Slaney, Cathy Moore, Stephen Moore, Jean-Philippe Britt, Kaine Marsh and Kirsty Dryden. These are some really amazing people whose energy and commitment belie their youth. The average age of this committee is a mere 22 years, and they are chaired by the very talented and enthusiastic Kaitlin Morrow from Wandin, in the Casey electorate. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Kaitlin and her sisters, Samantha and Stacey, who are all working tirelessly to make the Yarra Ranges Relay for Life this weekend the fantastic success I am sure it will be.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:30): I would like to talk about two events in my electorate that exemplify the best of the Australian spirit. On a cold and rainy Sunday morning a couple of weekends ago, 245 people of all ages braved inclement weather to take part in the Mental Health Fun Run at Lillydale Lake. The fun run was organised by Yarra Ranges Youth Services and the Shire of Yarra Ranges 2011 Young Citizen of the Year, Sam Taylor. There were 71 people who completed the five-kilometre run and 174 people who completed the 2½-kilometre walk. A total of $2,680 was raised, with the proceeds being donated to beyondblue to fight depressive mental illness.
It is fantastic to see people coming together to raise awareness and much-needed money for such an important cause. Joining Sam Taylor in organising this event was Sharon Patton, who led a hardworking team from the Shire of Yarra Ranges Youth Services. I would like to salute all the volunteers from Yarra Ranges Youth Services for their vital help with this event.
Moving from things past to things future, the Yarra Ranges Relay for Life is going to be held this coming weekend at the Don Road Sporting Complex in Healesville, in the Casey electorate. Relay for Life is the world's biggest fundraising event for cancer research, but it is more than just the chance to collect money. It also provides the opportunity to remember friends and family who have been lost to this dreaded disease and to thank those who have helped care for cancer patients. The candlelight ceremony is perhaps the most poignant part of the relay. It includes tribute bags that line the course, with personal messages of love and support. Then, as dusk falls, memorial candles light up the memory of those cherished loved ones who are so dearly missed.
The Yarra Ranges event is just one of the Relays for Life held all year, all around our country. This weekend over 700 people from the Casey electorate will be walking and running throughout the night. Through lots of sweat and, of course, a few tears they will be making a real difference in the fight against cancer. There are 36 teams registered for the relay, with more expected to sign up before the event begins on Saturday. The names of those teams are as colourful as the spirits of those who belong to them. They include the Teenage Terrors, the Flying Purple Cancer Beaters and the Jungle Fever. It is also great to see some local football teams taking part in the action: the Junction Eagles and the Mount Evelyn veterans football team. And let us not forget the vital role played by the local businesses that have sponsored both the relay and its participating teams. We have local musicians as well, who have volunteered to entertain everyone in attendance. All in all, we expect a great weekend of celebration and remembrance and, of course, reflection—a weekend that will perhaps help bring closer the day when cancer will be spoken of like polio or smallpox as a terrible disease of the past.
I would also like to pay a special tribute to 14 young committee members who have volunteered so much of their time between work and study to organise this local fundraising event: Kaitlin Morrow, Samantha Morrow, Stacey Morrow, Julian Brennan, Megan Fleming, Hannah Urquhart, Isobel Urquhart, Prue Northey, Emily Slaney, Cathy Moore, Stephen Moore, Jean-Philippe Britt, Kaine Marsh and Kirsty Dryden. These are some really amazing people whose energy and commitment belie their youth. The average age of this committee is a mere 22 years, and they are chaired by the very talented and enthusiastic Kaitlin Morrow from Wandin, in the Casey electorate. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Kaitlin and her sisters, Samantha and Stacey, who are all working tirelessly to make the Yarra Ranges Relay for Life this weekend the fantastic success I am sure it will be.
Canberra Electorate: Order of Australia Recipients
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:35): I recently attended an investiture at Government House in Canberra where 33 proud Australians received their Order of Australia and other awards from Her Excellency the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce. Many of the recipients are from my electorate, including Richard Larter, who received an OAM for his work as a painter. Major General Elizabeth Cosson received an AM in the Military Division, and her award was announced on Australia Day this year. Her citation is one that makes me proud to be an Australian. I had the pleasure of meeting Major General Cosson when I was consulting with Defence, and she is an incredible woman. She has moved on from Defence now—I think she is with the Department of Veterans' Affairs—but she has had an exemplary career in the Australian Army and has driven reform in Defence Support Operations. She has had a difficult task to head reform processes, but Major General Cosson has rightly earned the AM for the way she has gone about this incredibly difficult role.
Others from the ACT area include Mrs Michelle McGrath, who received an OAM. Mrs McGrath is one of those hardworking women who you often find behind non-government organisations, working tirelessly for the good of their community. They work without any fuss or bother and just get on with the job. Mrs McGrath was executive director of Alzheimer's Australia ACT, a position that she held in a voluntary capacity for three years prior to her substantive appointment to that position for a further 10 years. Mrs McGrath is an example of the sort of Australian whose contribution should be celebrated through the Order of Australia. She is part of the fabric of society that we all so much depend upon. She makes a difference to the lives of ordinary Australians through her selfless work in an area that is not necessarily sexy or popular. Ms Helen Maxwell is another Australian who was appropriately recognised at the investiture ceremony recently. I also had the good fortune of working with Helen Maxwell last year when I was judging some paintings by the Advocacy for Inclusion group. We worked on judging those for a series of Christmas cards and posters. Helen Maxwell has volunteered and worked hard in the museum and galleries sector in the Canberra region for years. She was the founding Director of Australian Girls Own Gallery, a position she held for over 10 years. She had her eyes on the big picture as this was a gallery for the exhibition of works from females across the country. Helen Maxwell also received a Medal in the General Division, an OAM, for her enormous contribution to arts in this country.
It is worth remembering that awards under the Order of Australia are not made for merely doing your job. The intent is that they identify Australians who have made a unique contribution to the community at a local, national and international level, who have gone well beyond their paid work.
This brings me to the purpose of raising this issue today. Apart from lauding the achievements of those who did receive those awards at the investiture that day, I wonder how many members and senators actually take the time to organise for people in their electorates to be nominated for an award, particularly Indigenous people and people from multicultural backgrounds who contribute an enormous amount to their communities but who are sometimes not at the front and centre of our minds. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues and those in the Senate, when they return to their electorates, to start thinking about some of these particular and important contributors to our society and to assist in ensuring they are recognised by their country. I encourage them to take a proactive approach to identifying people worthy of these awards because there are plenty out there. We just need to look for them.
One such person recognised in the Queen's Birthday list this year is Dr Naren Chellappah. I love his story. He is a volunteer dental surgeon who spends a few months each year away from his dental practice here in Weston to volunteer as a dentist at his own cost in Laos and India. The citation for his OAM does not do his volunteer work justice. He also regularly visits local nursing homes to offer any support or stimulation he can to the elderly residents. He is a volunteer for Greening Australia from time to time and also routinely participates in other activities such as Clean Up Australia Day. He is very much true to the saying: if you want a job done, ask a busy person. He is an extraordinary man and I thank him for his contribution to the community.
In closing, I urge all members to encourage the nomination of people who are not normally considered or who fall under the radar. That is not to say that those who have been nominated so far are not worthy. They are. But there are plenty at the grassroots community level who need to be recognised for their work. It is easy. People just have to go to the Governor-General's website or the Its An Honour website. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that our great contributors are recognised, especially those who are not routinely on the front page of newspapers. (Time expired)
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:35): I recently attended an investiture at Government House in Canberra where 33 proud Australians received their Order of Australia and other awards from Her Excellency the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce. Many of the recipients are from my electorate, including Richard Larter, who received an OAM for his work as a painter. Major General Elizabeth Cosson received an AM in the Military Division, and her award was announced on Australia Day this year. Her citation is one that makes me proud to be an Australian. I had the pleasure of meeting Major General Cosson when I was consulting with Defence, and she is an incredible woman. She has moved on from Defence now—I think she is with the Department of Veterans' Affairs—but she has had an exemplary career in the Australian Army and has driven reform in Defence Support Operations. She has had a difficult task to head reform processes, but Major General Cosson has rightly earned the AM for the way she has gone about this incredibly difficult role.
Others from the ACT area include Mrs Michelle McGrath, who received an OAM. Mrs McGrath is one of those hardworking women who you often find behind non-government organisations, working tirelessly for the good of their community. They work without any fuss or bother and just get on with the job. Mrs McGrath was executive director of Alzheimer's Australia ACT, a position that she held in a voluntary capacity for three years prior to her substantive appointment to that position for a further 10 years. Mrs McGrath is an example of the sort of Australian whose contribution should be celebrated through the Order of Australia. She is part of the fabric of society that we all so much depend upon. She makes a difference to the lives of ordinary Australians through her selfless work in an area that is not necessarily sexy or popular. Ms Helen Maxwell is another Australian who was appropriately recognised at the investiture ceremony recently. I also had the good fortune of working with Helen Maxwell last year when I was judging some paintings by the Advocacy for Inclusion group. We worked on judging those for a series of Christmas cards and posters. Helen Maxwell has volunteered and worked hard in the museum and galleries sector in the Canberra region for years. She was the founding Director of Australian Girls Own Gallery, a position she held for over 10 years. She had her eyes on the big picture as this was a gallery for the exhibition of works from females across the country. Helen Maxwell also received a Medal in the General Division, an OAM, for her enormous contribution to arts in this country.
It is worth remembering that awards under the Order of Australia are not made for merely doing your job. The intent is that they identify Australians who have made a unique contribution to the community at a local, national and international level, who have gone well beyond their paid work.
This brings me to the purpose of raising this issue today. Apart from lauding the achievements of those who did receive those awards at the investiture that day, I wonder how many members and senators actually take the time to organise for people in their electorates to be nominated for an award, particularly Indigenous people and people from multicultural backgrounds who contribute an enormous amount to their communities but who are sometimes not at the front and centre of our minds. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues and those in the Senate, when they return to their electorates, to start thinking about some of these particular and important contributors to our society and to assist in ensuring they are recognised by their country. I encourage them to take a proactive approach to identifying people worthy of these awards because there are plenty out there. We just need to look for them.
One such person recognised in the Queen's Birthday list this year is Dr Naren Chellappah. I love his story. He is a volunteer dental surgeon who spends a few months each year away from his dental practice here in Weston to volunteer as a dentist at his own cost in Laos and India. The citation for his OAM does not do his volunteer work justice. He also regularly visits local nursing homes to offer any support or stimulation he can to the elderly residents. He is a volunteer for Greening Australia from time to time and also routinely participates in other activities such as Clean Up Australia Day. He is very much true to the saying: if you want a job done, ask a busy person. He is an extraordinary man and I thank him for his contribution to the community.
In closing, I urge all members to encourage the nomination of people who are not normally considered or who fall under the radar. That is not to say that those who have been nominated so far are not worthy. They are. But there are plenty at the grassroots community level who need to be recognised for their work. It is easy. People just have to go to the Governor-General's website or the Its An Honour website. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that our great contributors are recognised, especially those who are not routinely on the front page of newspapers. (Time expired)
Small Business
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (16:40): Small business is doing it tough in many areas right around Australia and the south-west is suffering its fair share. A number of small business people have come to me recently looking for help. Manufacturing and retail businesses in particular have been facing financial hardship. Many have had to close as customers hold onto their money, either increasing their savings or paying down debt or simply because there is probably a lack of confidence in the way the government is managing this economy.
I have also had significant increases in people having trouble making their payments to the Australian Taxation Office. We know that everyone should ensure they meet their tax liabilities and obligations, but it concerns me that the ATO appears extremely punitive. A number of business owners have sought payment schedules to meet the entire tax liability that their businesses could afford, agreeing to pay at times over $100,000 or more. The ATO, however, seems determined that these schedules will have a 12-month time limit. When you are a small business in a regional area that is a major issue. This has in some cases attracted massive fines and compounding penalties. Some of these companies that could have traded out of trouble over a two-year period will be potentially bankrupted in just one.
I wonder whether the government is so desperate for revenue in 2012 to meet its promise—or a target or vague aim or whatever it is—to achieve a budget surplus in 2012-13 that it would prefer to get what it can in that year even if it means bankrupting these good businesses. These demands are causing great stress to business owners and their families who are trying desperately to trade their way out of financial trouble. They have kept workers on; they have tried everything they can to maintain a business in difficult times.
I have had great assistance in managing the stress for these people from local community support networks. These include the Small Business Centre Bunbury-Wellington where Alison Maughan and her staff are available to help whenever they can with financial and business advice. The team provides an excellent and vital service. The effects of business stress are not only financial, however, and this is where the pressure comes. They frequently have a major impact on the mental health of business owners and their families. Even though they are under massive financial pressure, it is the emotional pressure that really brings them down, with incredible stress sometimes driving people to consider desperate acts. I have dealt with people in these circumstances.
In this instance we have had to seek more help for them. Community support networks are vital. The Regional Men's Health Initiative has been invaluable in managing both the financial and the emotional issues faced by some of my constituents, particularly a number of men. Julian Krieg, Owen Catto, Andrew Grist and Graeme Chopping have provided a fantastic level of support for many of my constituents. I put on record in this place my thanks to them for assisting people when they are extremely desperate.
The community is also well served by the South West Women's Health and Information Centre in Bunbury. For the partners, those who do the books, those who have to deal with their husband, their partner or their family, the stress compounds on women in this situation as well. People are loath to ask for help often when they need it most. They are so desperate, they are so crowded by all the pressures they have, they simply cannot deal with them—they are overwhelmed.
I thank those in Bunbury giving the vital services that help to look after the mental and physical wellbeing of women and men in the south-west. They are vital cogs in my community in the south-west. I take this opportunity to commend and thank all of these groups and individuals and the many others who are assisting small business owners—be they retailers, manufacturers, processors or agricultural producers—to get through these difficult times. Without them our jobs as members would be much harder. I also really want to encourage anyone in my electorate who is finding themselves in this situation with the tax office or facing incredible stress to get in touch with me. We will give you every assistance we can to help you to manage your problems. We will direct you to the advice and support that you might need. Do not get to the point that those who have walked into my office in the last 12 to 18 months have got to; do not be that desperate. Come and ask for the help that you need. I would encourage you. This is a support network that I would particularly ask the men to take advantage of. (Time expired)
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (16:40): Small business is doing it tough in many areas right around Australia and the south-west is suffering its fair share. A number of small business people have come to me recently looking for help. Manufacturing and retail businesses in particular have been facing financial hardship. Many have had to close as customers hold onto their money, either increasing their savings or paying down debt or simply because there is probably a lack of confidence in the way the government is managing this economy.
I have also had significant increases in people having trouble making their payments to the Australian Taxation Office. We know that everyone should ensure they meet their tax liabilities and obligations, but it concerns me that the ATO appears extremely punitive. A number of business owners have sought payment schedules to meet the entire tax liability that their businesses could afford, agreeing to pay at times over $100,000 or more. The ATO, however, seems determined that these schedules will have a 12-month time limit. When you are a small business in a regional area that is a major issue. This has in some cases attracted massive fines and compounding penalties. Some of these companies that could have traded out of trouble over a two-year period will be potentially bankrupted in just one.
I wonder whether the government is so desperate for revenue in 2012 to meet its promise—or a target or vague aim or whatever it is—to achieve a budget surplus in 2012-13 that it would prefer to get what it can in that year even if it means bankrupting these good businesses. These demands are causing great stress to business owners and their families who are trying desperately to trade their way out of financial trouble. They have kept workers on; they have tried everything they can to maintain a business in difficult times.
I have had great assistance in managing the stress for these people from local community support networks. These include the Small Business Centre Bunbury-Wellington where Alison Maughan and her staff are available to help whenever they can with financial and business advice. The team provides an excellent and vital service. The effects of business stress are not only financial, however, and this is where the pressure comes. They frequently have a major impact on the mental health of business owners and their families. Even though they are under massive financial pressure, it is the emotional pressure that really brings them down, with incredible stress sometimes driving people to consider desperate acts. I have dealt with people in these circumstances.
In this instance we have had to seek more help for them. Community support networks are vital. The Regional Men's Health Initiative has been invaluable in managing both the financial and the emotional issues faced by some of my constituents, particularly a number of men. Julian Krieg, Owen Catto, Andrew Grist and Graeme Chopping have provided a fantastic level of support for many of my constituents. I put on record in this place my thanks to them for assisting people when they are extremely desperate.
The community is also well served by the South West Women's Health and Information Centre in Bunbury. For the partners, those who do the books, those who have to deal with their husband, their partner or their family, the stress compounds on women in this situation as well. People are loath to ask for help often when they need it most. They are so desperate, they are so crowded by all the pressures they have, they simply cannot deal with them—they are overwhelmed.
I thank those in Bunbury giving the vital services that help to look after the mental and physical wellbeing of women and men in the south-west. They are vital cogs in my community in the south-west. I take this opportunity to commend and thank all of these groups and individuals and the many others who are assisting small business owners—be they retailers, manufacturers, processors or agricultural producers—to get through these difficult times. Without them our jobs as members would be much harder. I also really want to encourage anyone in my electorate who is finding themselves in this situation with the tax office or facing incredible stress to get in touch with me. We will give you every assistance we can to help you to manage your problems. We will direct you to the advice and support that you might need. Do not get to the point that those who have walked into my office in the last 12 to 18 months have got to; do not be that desperate. Come and ask for the help that you need. I would encourage you. This is a support network that I would particularly ask the men to take advantage of. (Time expired)
Western Australia: Manufacturing
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:45): I want to take this opportunity to speak about the understandable concern among Australian manufacturers and workers, and in the wider community, about the poor and declining local content component of major mining and petroleum projects.
This is a matter of importance in Western Australia, where it goes to the heart of the disconnect between the booming resources sector and other parts of the economy. And it is a matter of importance in my electorate of Fremantle, where manufacturing businesses in areas like the Australian Marine Complex are not sharing in the work that should logically flow from the scale of investment we are seeing.
It defies common sense that there are not greater benefits for Australian manufacturing and for Australian workers as a result of the massive investment that is occurring in resources projects. I am contacted regularly by business owners and by workers who cannot understand how 80 or 90 per cent of the fabrication involved in certain resources projects is taken offshore. At a time when steel-manufacturing workshops are running well below capacity, the newspaper headlines about the boom make bitter reading, and the television ads about the commitment of mining companies to local economies make for bitter viewing.
In recent years the Australian manufacturing industry has come under threat from offshore competitors that undercut Australian companies, often through lower standards of safety, poorer conditions of employment and lower production quality.
It is one thing to say that Australian industry must be internationally competitive, which is a project that Labor governments have successfully pursued over the last quarter century, but it is something else altogether when that so-called competition occurs in the absence of a level playing field.
And so the Prime Minister has been right to say that the Australian manufacturing industry deserves action now, and that is why this government has been right to act and to make federal grants of more than $20 million contingent on the provision of plans to maximise opportunities for Australian business.
This builds on other government programs that are designed to support a strong and sustainable manufacturing industry. As an example, when BlueScope Steel announced plans to close its doors the government was on the ground with $130 million in assistance, including $100 million from our $300 million Steel Transformation Plan, the first industry support program of its kind in almost 30 years.
I would also observe that, in my electorate of Fremantle, Austal Ships is benefiting from a $350 million government contract to build and service eight Cape Class patrol boats. The construction of these vessels will create new jobs and training opportunities for the young people of Fremantle and WA. What is more, the project will dovetail well with the new Maritime Trades Training Centre at South Fremantle High School, funded by this government.
These concrete and positive actions are in stark contrast to the approach taken by the current WA government, which appears to spend most of its time keeping the red carpet neat and tidy for huge mining companies and little time being concerned about small and medium sized Western Australian businesses.
In 2010 the local industry participation in West Australian mining and offshore petroleum and gas projects averaged only 53 per cent, down from a peak of 72 per cent. This disturbing trend needs to be reversed if we are to ensure job security for the tens of thousands of Australians employed in the manufacturing industry.
By 2013 business investment in the resources sector in Western Australia is expected to reach $62 billion, representing a significant opportunity to underwrite new jobs in a range of sectors. In my electorate of Fremantle there remains comparatively high youth unemployment in the south and south-east despite the resources boom. That is why the government has funded a historic jobs and training package, and that is why we have put in place the requirement of local participation plans. I also note that the West Australian Labor opposition recently tabled the Skilled Local Jobs Act, under which skilled work agreements were proposed to facilitate strong local content growth.
The federal Labor government has put in place measures that require project developers to publish extensive details of opportunities available to Australian business if they want the five per cent tariff exemption on imports for major projects. However, the WA Premier, Mr Barnett, is on record as saying legislation is not the answer. I wonder what he thinks the answer is. What is the WA government doing to ensure that the economic opportunities of a historic resources boom are spread widely, fairly and for the long-term structural benefit of the state and national economies?
Mr Perrett: Nothing!
Ms PARKE: I thank the member for Moreton for his contribution. As the representative of a Western Australian electorate, and an electorate with an established manufacturing, shipbuilding and fabrication industry profile, I know how important it is that we continue to work towards greater involvement of local businesses, especially manufacturing, in mining development projects. The federal Labor government regards a strong Australian manufacturing sector as an essential part of a sustainable, diverse and innovative economy, and an essential focus of jobs training and employment opportunities. We will continue to support a stronger manufacturing sector and a sustainable, diversified economy through our Clean Energy Future package, through our Defence procurement processes, through our Steel Transformation Plan and local content procurement policies, and through the implementation of the mining resources rent tax.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:45): I want to take this opportunity to speak about the understandable concern among Australian manufacturers and workers, and in the wider community, about the poor and declining local content component of major mining and petroleum projects.
This is a matter of importance in Western Australia, where it goes to the heart of the disconnect between the booming resources sector and other parts of the economy. And it is a matter of importance in my electorate of Fremantle, where manufacturing businesses in areas like the Australian Marine Complex are not sharing in the work that should logically flow from the scale of investment we are seeing.
It defies common sense that there are not greater benefits for Australian manufacturing and for Australian workers as a result of the massive investment that is occurring in resources projects. I am contacted regularly by business owners and by workers who cannot understand how 80 or 90 per cent of the fabrication involved in certain resources projects is taken offshore. At a time when steel-manufacturing workshops are running well below capacity, the newspaper headlines about the boom make bitter reading, and the television ads about the commitment of mining companies to local economies make for bitter viewing.
In recent years the Australian manufacturing industry has come under threat from offshore competitors that undercut Australian companies, often through lower standards of safety, poorer conditions of employment and lower production quality.
It is one thing to say that Australian industry must be internationally competitive, which is a project that Labor governments have successfully pursued over the last quarter century, but it is something else altogether when that so-called competition occurs in the absence of a level playing field.
And so the Prime Minister has been right to say that the Australian manufacturing industry deserves action now, and that is why this government has been right to act and to make federal grants of more than $20 million contingent on the provision of plans to maximise opportunities for Australian business.
This builds on other government programs that are designed to support a strong and sustainable manufacturing industry. As an example, when BlueScope Steel announced plans to close its doors the government was on the ground with $130 million in assistance, including $100 million from our $300 million Steel Transformation Plan, the first industry support program of its kind in almost 30 years.
I would also observe that, in my electorate of Fremantle, Austal Ships is benefiting from a $350 million government contract to build and service eight Cape Class patrol boats. The construction of these vessels will create new jobs and training opportunities for the young people of Fremantle and WA. What is more, the project will dovetail well with the new Maritime Trades Training Centre at South Fremantle High School, funded by this government.
These concrete and positive actions are in stark contrast to the approach taken by the current WA government, which appears to spend most of its time keeping the red carpet neat and tidy for huge mining companies and little time being concerned about small and medium sized Western Australian businesses.
In 2010 the local industry participation in West Australian mining and offshore petroleum and gas projects averaged only 53 per cent, down from a peak of 72 per cent. This disturbing trend needs to be reversed if we are to ensure job security for the tens of thousands of Australians employed in the manufacturing industry.
By 2013 business investment in the resources sector in Western Australia is expected to reach $62 billion, representing a significant opportunity to underwrite new jobs in a range of sectors. In my electorate of Fremantle there remains comparatively high youth unemployment in the south and south-east despite the resources boom. That is why the government has funded a historic jobs and training package, and that is why we have put in place the requirement of local participation plans. I also note that the West Australian Labor opposition recently tabled the Skilled Local Jobs Act, under which skilled work agreements were proposed to facilitate strong local content growth.
The federal Labor government has put in place measures that require project developers to publish extensive details of opportunities available to Australian business if they want the five per cent tariff exemption on imports for major projects. However, the WA Premier, Mr Barnett, is on record as saying legislation is not the answer. I wonder what he thinks the answer is. What is the WA government doing to ensure that the economic opportunities of a historic resources boom are spread widely, fairly and for the long-term structural benefit of the state and national economies?
Mr Perrett: Nothing!
Ms PARKE: I thank the member for Moreton for his contribution. As the representative of a Western Australian electorate, and an electorate with an established manufacturing, shipbuilding and fabrication industry profile, I know how important it is that we continue to work towards greater involvement of local businesses, especially manufacturing, in mining development projects. The federal Labor government regards a strong Australian manufacturing sector as an essential part of a sustainable, diverse and innovative economy, and an essential focus of jobs training and employment opportunities. We will continue to support a stronger manufacturing sector and a sustainable, diversified economy through our Clean Energy Future package, through our Defence procurement processes, through our Steel Transformation Plan and local content procurement policies, and through the implementation of the mining resources rent tax.
Murray Darling Basin
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:50): Reports yesterday suggested irrigators—they are the people who grow the food and fibre to feed and clothe this nation, in case those on that side are not aware—will be forced to deliver even more water to the Murray-Darling. This follows a decision by the Labor government to secretly undercut the value of irrigators' water.
Family farmers discovered only last week, much to their dismay, that the water minister had cut exchange rates on water bought under the government's $3.1 billion water purchasing program. Bureaucrats, it seems, slashed the average annual volume of water irrigators' high and general security entitlements delivered to the environment, yet failed to notify irrigators or even state governments. The reductions in the environmental value of water were 12 per cent for the Murrumbidgee and nine per cent for New South Wales Murray irrigators. Not only does this erode the value of water already recovered, it effectively means irrigators must now deliver even more to meet the basin plan of an additional 2,800 gigalitres for the environment.
As New South Wales Irrigators Council chief executive officer Andrew Gregson said:
Just like the Guide (to the basin plan), this was done entirely without consultation. Like the Guide, it will not be received well by the tens of thousands whose jobs rely on this, by the family farms that risk closure or by the fresh food buyer whose weekly shopping bill goes up.
The draft basin plan is due out this month. Its contents have already been deliberately leaked by the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Labor and the authority need to know that the communities I represent, especially Griffith, Coleambally and Leeton, will not sit idly by whilst they go about destroying the very reason for the existence of those wonderful and once booming towns.
Meanwhile, the report from the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia headed by the Independent member for New England, which was tabled on 2 June, still awaits formal recognition, and its 21 recommendations have not been acted upon.
Every day, despair and uncertainty grow in the Coleambally and Murrumbidgee irrigation areas. Every day, more investment is put on hold. Only this morning I was told of a significant Riverina development which has been held over—for who knows how long—because of genuine fears about future water availability and security. When will Labor stop kowtowing to the Greens, whose uncosted, irresponsible policies would destroy regional communities, place our ability to feed ourselves at real risk and ultimately do nothing for the environment?
This is not based on science. It is based on a Labor cover-up and a Greens con. The Gillard government has spent more than $4.5 million on water buybacks in the Murrumbidgee but does not expect those purchases to deliver any extra water to the environment, according to radically altered data on the basin buyback scheme. The data shows that the government has bought more than 20,821 megalitres of productive water from farmers in the Murrumbidgee at $218 a megalitre, which amounts to just over $4.5 million. But the new figures show the expected average annual volume of water available for the environment from that buyback is nothing—written down from a previous estimate of 2,915 gigalitres at the end of August. The government has changed the rules in the middle of the game for basin communities anxiously awaiting the MDBA's final draft plan. Senator Joyce has called for the Auditor-General to investigate the buybacks. This is the proper course of action. A full explanation is required. This government has abjectly failed on the water issue. It continues to hurt farming families and refuses to strive for a triple-bottom-line approach.
Two recent emails from Riverina constituents highlight just how much people in my electorate are suffering. Virginia Tropeano, of Hanwood, wrote: 'For some time now, MDBA Chair Craig Knowles has been publicly throwing around the figure of 2,800 gigalitres as his suspected sustainable diversion limits under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but he also says he has asked for modelling of 400 gigalitres each side of this figure. Therefore, it looks as though the lowest figure farmers in the basin can expect is 2,400 gigalitres. This is unbelievable. Did no-one listen at all? When Tony Windsor's report came out it looked as though someone had listened and maybe there would be some action. But what has happened? Nothing. Tony Burke is still continuing with his buybacks, and sham science is still being used to make preposterous claims about river health.'
Caroline Robertson, of Bilbul, had this say: 'My husband Chris and I were watching the Today show this morning, the 26th of October, and saw Julia Gillard in Western Australia announcing to the world that Australia is supporting developing nations by removing tariffs on imported products. I am sorry to admit it, but my eyes filled with tears. For many years now, we have faced the drought and alienation from Australians because we are those 'horrid rice farmers' who take all the water. How lucky at this stage we are such an affluent nation we do not have to rely on eating rice, but, oh, spare a though for the millions worldwide who do. Once we used to help feed these people. In the Griffith area, as I know you are well aware, morale is rock-bottom. How could a Prime Minister put sustainable food on an agenda and then ignore her own country? I am sorry to bother you with an emotional email from a very disheartened farmer's wife, but I would encourage you to continue to represent us as best you can so the nation sees we are part of it and once upon a time had a valuable contribution to make, even though it was using irrigation water.'
Those are heartfelt words indeed from people who not only care about their own futures but have the nation's best interests at heart, unlike those who would have all the water run wastefully, unused, down the rivers and eventually out to sea. (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:50): Reports yesterday suggested irrigators—they are the people who grow the food and fibre to feed and clothe this nation, in case those on that side are not aware—will be forced to deliver even more water to the Murray-Darling. This follows a decision by the Labor government to secretly undercut the value of irrigators' water.
Family farmers discovered only last week, much to their dismay, that the water minister had cut exchange rates on water bought under the government's $3.1 billion water purchasing program. Bureaucrats, it seems, slashed the average annual volume of water irrigators' high and general security entitlements delivered to the environment, yet failed to notify irrigators or even state governments. The reductions in the environmental value of water were 12 per cent for the Murrumbidgee and nine per cent for New South Wales Murray irrigators. Not only does this erode the value of water already recovered, it effectively means irrigators must now deliver even more to meet the basin plan of an additional 2,800 gigalitres for the environment.
As New South Wales Irrigators Council chief executive officer Andrew Gregson said:
Just like the Guide (to the basin plan), this was done entirely without consultation. Like the Guide, it will not be received well by the tens of thousands whose jobs rely on this, by the family farms that risk closure or by the fresh food buyer whose weekly shopping bill goes up.
The draft basin plan is due out this month. Its contents have already been deliberately leaked by the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Labor and the authority need to know that the communities I represent, especially Griffith, Coleambally and Leeton, will not sit idly by whilst they go about destroying the very reason for the existence of those wonderful and once booming towns.
Meanwhile, the report from the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia headed by the Independent member for New England, which was tabled on 2 June, still awaits formal recognition, and its 21 recommendations have not been acted upon.
Every day, despair and uncertainty grow in the Coleambally and Murrumbidgee irrigation areas. Every day, more investment is put on hold. Only this morning I was told of a significant Riverina development which has been held over—for who knows how long—because of genuine fears about future water availability and security. When will Labor stop kowtowing to the Greens, whose uncosted, irresponsible policies would destroy regional communities, place our ability to feed ourselves at real risk and ultimately do nothing for the environment?
This is not based on science. It is based on a Labor cover-up and a Greens con. The Gillard government has spent more than $4.5 million on water buybacks in the Murrumbidgee but does not expect those purchases to deliver any extra water to the environment, according to radically altered data on the basin buyback scheme. The data shows that the government has bought more than 20,821 megalitres of productive water from farmers in the Murrumbidgee at $218 a megalitre, which amounts to just over $4.5 million. But the new figures show the expected average annual volume of water available for the environment from that buyback is nothing—written down from a previous estimate of 2,915 gigalitres at the end of August. The government has changed the rules in the middle of the game for basin communities anxiously awaiting the MDBA's final draft plan. Senator Joyce has called for the Auditor-General to investigate the buybacks. This is the proper course of action. A full explanation is required. This government has abjectly failed on the water issue. It continues to hurt farming families and refuses to strive for a triple-bottom-line approach.
Two recent emails from Riverina constituents highlight just how much people in my electorate are suffering. Virginia Tropeano, of Hanwood, wrote: 'For some time now, MDBA Chair Craig Knowles has been publicly throwing around the figure of 2,800 gigalitres as his suspected sustainable diversion limits under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but he also says he has asked for modelling of 400 gigalitres each side of this figure. Therefore, it looks as though the lowest figure farmers in the basin can expect is 2,400 gigalitres. This is unbelievable. Did no-one listen at all? When Tony Windsor's report came out it looked as though someone had listened and maybe there would be some action. But what has happened? Nothing. Tony Burke is still continuing with his buybacks, and sham science is still being used to make preposterous claims about river health.'
Caroline Robertson, of Bilbul, had this say: 'My husband Chris and I were watching the Today show this morning, the 26th of October, and saw Julia Gillard in Western Australia announcing to the world that Australia is supporting developing nations by removing tariffs on imported products. I am sorry to admit it, but my eyes filled with tears. For many years now, we have faced the drought and alienation from Australians because we are those 'horrid rice farmers' who take all the water. How lucky at this stage we are such an affluent nation we do not have to rely on eating rice, but, oh, spare a though for the millions worldwide who do. Once we used to help feed these people. In the Griffith area, as I know you are well aware, morale is rock-bottom. How could a Prime Minister put sustainable food on an agenda and then ignore her own country? I am sorry to bother you with an emotional email from a very disheartened farmer's wife, but I would encourage you to continue to represent us as best you can so the nation sees we are part of it and once upon a time had a valuable contribution to make, even though it was using irrigation water.'
Those are heartfelt words indeed from people who not only care about their own futures but have the nation's best interests at heart, unlike those who would have all the water run wastefully, unused, down the rivers and eventually out to sea. (Time expired)
Qantas
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:55): At the end of a week when the parliament, like the nation, has been gripped by the extraordinary actions of Qantas in grounding its fleet and locking out its workforce, there are still many questions that remain to be answered. Perhaps some of those questions will be answered when members of the Senate conduct an inquiry going to some of those questions.
Much has been made about what the opposition did or did not know in the lead-up to the grounding of the aeroplanes and the locking out of the workforce. There are many in the community who are rightly critical of them, but the real bad guy in this story, as far as I am concerned—and many in my electorate have contacted me on this issue—is Qantas. Some questions really need to be answered, and the first is: why was the action taken? Why did they go to the extraordinary action of grounding their air fleet, doing such immense damage to themselves, their shareholders and their workforce—action which, as far as we can tell, is unprecedented in the world?
We know that on the Wednesday leading up to this extraordinary action the minister himself had the parties in his office, knocking heads together and attempting to broker a resolution of the dispute around wages and conditions. At the conclusion of those discussions, I am advised, not only was there no talk about locking out workers or grounding the aeroplanes but it was thought that a resolution to the dispute was at hand. In fact, this was a finding that even Fair Work Australia, when it conducted its hearing into the dispute on the application of the minister, concurred with. They found that paragraph 14 of their decision in this dispute indicates there are still real prospects for a satisfactory negotiated outcome in all three cases—the prospect of a negotiated resolution in relation to these three proposed enterprise agreements still remains.
Given this, you would have to question what changed between Friday, 28 September and Saturday, 29 September that made Qantas management and their board lock out the workforce and ground the airline. In the words of CEO Alan Joyce, it was unbelievable action—action that many people around the country are still finding it very difficult to understand. Qantas is not a factory or a mine; it is a service provider. It provides an essential service to the Australian community. They ambushed around 68,000 passengers because they could not get their way—they could not manage to convince the representatives of their employees about their plans for the future of the airline.
What is even more extraordinary about this story is that, at the time they locked out the workforce, only one of those unions was engaged, or planning to engage, in industrial action. That was the pilots' union, who were proposing to wear red ties to work in protest against the management actions. I can only say it is a good thing that the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, was not in the chamber today. If he saw all the red ties adorning members of this place, many members might have been very lucky to find their way back to their electorates because he might have seen that as some sort of coercive and concerted action by members in this place in union with the pilots!
The action by Qantas was absolutely extraordinary and the people of Australia deserve some explanation. Qantas did not ground its fleet because of safety concerns arising from maintenance. We know that they did not ground the fleet because of safety concerns. Qantas grounded the fleet because it had decided to lock out its workforce. In its words, it was concerned—quite understandably, I argue—about the way that its employees would react.
What is extraordinary, despite all that went on, is that, on the Sunday after workers were locked out of their workplace and the aeroplanes were grounded, the licensed engineers were hard at work—the very next day, after the decision of the commission, they were hard at work doing the maintenance to ensure that those planes could get in the air as quickly as possible. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:55): At the end of a week when the parliament, like the nation, has been gripped by the extraordinary actions of Qantas in grounding its fleet and locking out its workforce, there are still many questions that remain to be answered. Perhaps some of those questions will be answered when members of the Senate conduct an inquiry going to some of those questions.
Much has been made about what the opposition did or did not know in the lead-up to the grounding of the aeroplanes and the locking out of the workforce. There are many in the community who are rightly critical of them, but the real bad guy in this story, as far as I am concerned—and many in my electorate have contacted me on this issue—is Qantas. Some questions really need to be answered, and the first is: why was the action taken? Why did they go to the extraordinary action of grounding their air fleet, doing such immense damage to themselves, their shareholders and their workforce—action which, as far as we can tell, is unprecedented in the world?
We know that on the Wednesday leading up to this extraordinary action the minister himself had the parties in his office, knocking heads together and attempting to broker a resolution of the dispute around wages and conditions. At the conclusion of those discussions, I am advised, not only was there no talk about locking out workers or grounding the aeroplanes but it was thought that a resolution to the dispute was at hand. In fact, this was a finding that even Fair Work Australia, when it conducted its hearing into the dispute on the application of the minister, concurred with. They found that paragraph 14 of their decision in this dispute indicates there are still real prospects for a satisfactory negotiated outcome in all three cases—the prospect of a negotiated resolution in relation to these three proposed enterprise agreements still remains.
Given this, you would have to question what changed between Friday, 28 September and Saturday, 29 September that made Qantas management and their board lock out the workforce and ground the airline. In the words of CEO Alan Joyce, it was unbelievable action—action that many people around the country are still finding it very difficult to understand. Qantas is not a factory or a mine; it is a service provider. It provides an essential service to the Australian community. They ambushed around 68,000 passengers because they could not get their way—they could not manage to convince the representatives of their employees about their plans for the future of the airline.
What is even more extraordinary about this story is that, at the time they locked out the workforce, only one of those unions was engaged, or planning to engage, in industrial action. That was the pilots' union, who were proposing to wear red ties to work in protest against the management actions. I can only say it is a good thing that the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, was not in the chamber today. If he saw all the red ties adorning members of this place, many members might have been very lucky to find their way back to their electorates because he might have seen that as some sort of coercive and concerted action by members in this place in union with the pilots!
The action by Qantas was absolutely extraordinary and the people of Australia deserve some explanation. Qantas did not ground its fleet because of safety concerns arising from maintenance. We know that they did not ground the fleet because of safety concerns. Qantas grounded the fleet because it had decided to lock out its workforce. In its words, it was concerned—quite understandably, I argue—about the way that its employees would react.
What is extraordinary, despite all that went on, is that, on the Sunday after workers were locked out of their workplace and the aeroplanes were grounded, the licensed engineers were hard at work—the very next day, after the decision of the commission, they were hard at work doing the maintenance to ensure that those planes could get in the air as quickly as possible. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Mr KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for Parliament to approve the ratification of treaties, and for related purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Apple Imports
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (09:30): Recently I had the opportunity to participate in a coalition delegation to New Zealand to view firsthand the horticultural practices of apple orchards and packing houses. Members who took part included the shadow agriculture minister and the members for Murray and Wannon. The arrangements coordinated by Alistair Ferris of the New Zealand Visits and Ceremonial Office were first class. I must also thank Pipfruit New Zealand, particularly Chief Executive Officer, Peter Beaven, and Chairman, Ian Palmer, and the various orchards and onsite people who gave us an unfettered look at what they do and how they do it. The four members who took part in this largely self-funded trip went across the Tasman with open minds.
Australia is now importing apples from New Zealand for the first time in 90 years. There are concerns in Batlow, in my electorate, about our ability to remain disease- and pest-free as New Zealand has diseases and pests which do not exist in Australia. Batlow is the apple capital of Australia and should not have its future jeopardised by federal Labor, which puts trade before quarantine. Apple orchards have been vital to Batlow's economy for 120 years. These days 39 apple growers at Batlow provide employment directly and indirectly for 2,500 people—all hard workers; all taxpayers. That wonderful history and those jobs have been placed at risk by a government which could and should have done more to look after its own. Instead, as with most things agricultural and many things of importance to regional Australia, Labor either caved in or did nothing.
Australia is at present free of fireblight. Fireblight is a contagious disease that particularly affects apples, pears, quinces and some ornamental plants. An outbreak would devastate Australian horticulture, cause considerable environmental harm and be impossible to eradicate. Now that Labor has opened the way for apples to be imported from New Zealand, every possible precaution to protect Australia's disease- and pest-free status must be taken and vigorously maintained.
It is of grave concern that three out of the first 13 consignments of New Zealand apples were denied entry. Australia originally barred apple imports after discovering in 1919 the bacterial disease fireblight in fruit from New Zealand. By 18 August 2011, just a day after the all-clear was given, seven permits had already been issued to New Zealand orchardists. Later that same month a live-insect pathogen and potentially fireblight-carrying leaf matter had already been found in one of the first consignments of New Zealand apples bound for Australia.
The Australian government needs to urgently review its quarantine protocols to ensure our biosecurity measures are the tightest and toughest they can be. Too much is at stake not to do this. Australia's reputation as a fresh-food producer, thousands of livelihoods and the future of our own export markets are at risk. We cannot have our proud, sustainable and viable industries—indeed, whole towns—ruined because our federal government did not do more under World Trade Organisation rules which would have made quarantine protocols far more stringent than they are now. There is something to be said for states declaring quarantine areas similar to fruit fly exclusion zones in fruit-growing areas, such as around Batlow and the Murrumbidgee irrigation areas.
Shalit, Gilad
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:29): I rise to speak about the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 18 October. The news of Gilad Shalit's release brought joy and relief to all those who had hoped and prayed for his safe return. It had been 1,940 days of heartache and sorrow as the people of Israel intimately lived the story of Gilad Shalit's long wait for freedom, which was brought to the attention of Israel and the world through the determination of his parents, Noam and Aviva, to once again see their son.
Gilad Shalit was taken hostage by Hamas on 25 June 2006 when he was just 19 years old. He was held by Hamas for five years in a secret location in Gaza, without access to the Red Cross or the basic human rights of a prisoner of war. I can only guess the emotional toll on the Shalit family over these dreadful five years. I cannot imagine how I would have coped in the same situation if one of my children had been kidnapped. I am sure parents everywhere can sympathise.
For so many Israelis, Gilad Shalit became a symbol of Israel's struggle for peace, security and freedom. Israelis marked each anniversary of Gilad Shalit's kidnapping by calling on Hamas to release him. I too marked each anniversary by calling, in this House, for Gilad Shalit's release. The prisoner swap illustrates the stark contrast between Israel's commitment to human rights and the violence and brutality of the Hamas regime. Israel's willingness to release over 1,000 prisoners in exchange for the freedom of one Israeli demonstrates Israel's lasting commitment to the inalienable rights of each citizen. This is an example that negotiations can produce concrete outcomes and, as with every step towards peace, it is something we should build on in the ambition for peace and harmony with Palestinians. We should pause to remember that Hamas are a terrorist organisation that torture and murder opponents. The 1998 Hamas charter commits Hamas to the destruction of Israel and includes genocidal references aimed at Jews. Hamas glorifies suicide bombing and urges their people to commit acts of violence against their fellow citizens.
Australia has consistently confirmed its support for Israel and the family of Gilad Shalit. The Foreign Minister visited Gilad's parents Noam and Aviva in the tent where they were keeping a daily vigil for their son last year. I can only hope that Hamas are not encouraged by this act of clemency. Hamas's totalitarian stranglehold over the people of Gaza remains the main obstacle to peace that is the eternal hope of all Israelis and Palestinians. In synagogues around the world, empty chairs that were used to symbolise Gilad Shalit's absence, I am happy to say, are no longer needed. It is a great pleasure to record the release of Gilad Shalit. His freedom has brought joy to his family and his nation and encouragement to all those who oppose terrorism and violence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure that many honourable members would associate themselves with the excellent sentiments expressed by the Cabinet Secretary.
ACRES (Asia-Pacific)
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (09:36): In the last parliamentary sitting week I had the great privilege of hosting the launch of ACRES (Asia-Pacific). ACRES, the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society, is a pioneering Singaporean based charity founded in 2001 with the aim of promoting and improving animal welfare. ACRES (Asia-Pacific) was launched in parliament here in October as the Australian arm of the NGO with the aim of expanding the work, campaigns, projects and fundraising of the organisation. ACRES has improved the lives of thousands of animals throughout Asia by focusing on various programs including a zoo animal welfare program, wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, wildlife crime investigation, humane education and community outreach. Further, they influence and are respected by countries in the region because they emphasise working with developing countries, changing entrenched thinking and promoting economic benefits of protecting the environment through such opportunities as tourism.
The launch was honoured by the attendance of the former young Singaporean of the year Mr Louis Ng, the founder and director of ACRES. Louis delivered a compelling speech on ACRES's newest and most ambitious project to date, the bears and wildlife protection program, launched to phase out the cruel practice of bear bile farming in Laos, as used in traditional Chinese medicine. The practice of bear bile farming is the most cruel and inhumane in the animal world today. These bears spend their lives in cages little bigger than they are and are stabbed in the stomach daily while they eat so their bile can be collected. Louis showed a heart-wrenching video that he and his Australian colleague Michelle Minehan filmed in Laos. The stream of cruelty was painful to watch and the physical trauma caused to the bears was also obvious. Bears on bile farms are deprived of food, water and movement. They suffer chronic pain, illness and abuse and some live with a catheter or hole punched in their abdomen to have their gall bladders drained of the bile. The bears and wildlife protection program will demonstrate that promoting and improving animal welfare and economic growth can be complementary, creating both jobs and tourism.
I would like to note that work of Michelle Minehan, who established the Australian arm of ACRES. Michelle is a determined young woman and without her tireless work ACRES (Asia-Pacific) in Australia would simply not exist. I commend her and her team and wish them well in the future. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, the members for Mackellar, Macarthur, and Flynn, for coming along to support this wonderful young organisation. Of course, my deepest appreciation goes to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow foreign affairs minister Ms Julie Bishop, who was on hand to officially launch the ACRES (Asia-Pacific) Australian chapter.
Holt Electorate: Serious Tennis
Holt Electorate: Doveton Show
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:39): I rise today to update the House on some further recent achievements by my constituents, namely those from the Doveton community, of which I am very proud. One is the local youth tennis club, which recently received a Local Sporting Champions team grant through the Australian Sports Commission, and the other is the very famous Doveton Show, which was held on 25 September this year.
It is with great pleasure that I was able to attend the Serious Tennis Club in Doveton earlier this month to present the grant, worth $3,000, and certificates of achievement to the team members. Let me tell you, after having a friendly hit, that my return was no match for these up-and-comers. At the presentation I had a chance to congratulate head coach Justin Yeo, who was full of praise for his young tennis players. Justin said, 'There is never a guarantee in life, but we can guarantee that tennis will be a huge part of their lives. Each player has every chance at making a professional career.' It is important to invest in our local sporting champions. I wish all the budding tennis stars in this team, including Audrey Teo, Noellada Ah San, Zac Osbourne, Priscilla Dawson, Gabriela Sprague, Sara Kyriazopoulos, Alex Khreish, Daphne Mantzanidis, Vivian Fidantsis, Leo Khreish, Keeley Meijer, Jovanna Stanisic and Jordan Tichy, all the best in their tennis careers. The electorate of Holt has already produced NBA stars like Andrew Bogut and Socceroos stars such as Scott McDonald. Hopefully this grant will go towards producing a new Australian grand slam tennis star.
I would also like to pay tribute to an absolutely outstanding local success story, the Doveton Show. The seventh annual Doveton Show was held on Sunday, 25 September at Myuna Farm in Doveton. The show was organised and run solely by volunteers, led by the Doveton Show committee. This was the first year in which the Doveton and Eumemmerring renewal program was not directly involved in organising the event and assisting on the day. I am pleased to say that the committee did a tremendous job in taking up the reins, and it broke the attendance record of 12,000, set last year, with an estimated 15,000 people attending this year. Apart from the traditional fete atmospherics that I have mentioned in this place before such as show bags, rides and stalls, there were also educational and entertainment shows for everyone. These included traditional dances, reptile exhibitions, sheepshearing and art competitions. There was also a particularly impressive collection of vintage cars, in particular a pristine 1971 Ford Falcon GTHO. The Doveton Show is a testament to what can be achieved through local networks and the community at large. In particular, it is a home-grown success and it is something that, as the local federal member of parliament, I am extremely proud of.
Bennelong Electorate: Trilevel Government Meeting
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (09:42): Tomorrow I will be hosting another trilevel government meeting in my Bennelong office. The trilevel government meeting is an initiative that I introduced on my entry into parliament last August. It is designed to bring together all three levels of government in Bennelong on a regular basis. By looking past any of the partisan or personal differences that so often set back the ability to achieve real things as representatives, we can discuss and resolve issues of concern to the single most important party of all in our roles, our constituents.
Prior to entering politics I too often shared the frustration felt by so many in our community for the blame game between federal, state and local governments that is used as an excuse for inaction. Most people do not know which health, education or transport issue is covered by the state or federal minister, and they certainly do not care. If there is a pothole in the road, a leaking roof in a hospital or a train line to be completed, they want governments to work together to get it done. The trilevel government meeting is the best way to achieve real results, as it brings together all the major decision makers of the region at the table.
The agenda at tomorrow's trilevel government meeting will cover issues ranging from the redevelopment of the Ryde Civic Centre and Epping Town Centre to boarding houses surrounding Macquarie University and from the construction of the North West Rail Link and the Epping to Parramatta rail link to resolving the traffic congestion in a region that has some of the most clogged up road arteries in the state. If Bennelong was a living body it would be in cardiac arrest twice a day, five days a week. Directly related to this is a dire need for heavy rail infrastructure, which has been repeatedly promised over 13 years. The North West Rail Link and the Epping to Parramatta rail link are perfect examples of the stark difference between our two types of government. In March this year Premier Barry O' Farrell went to the state election with a 'no strings attached' promise to build the North West Rail Link, which is expected to cost over $7 billion. Within months of winning the election, preconstruction efforts are proceeding at pace.
In August last year, the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, went to the federal election with a $2.1 billion announcement to build the Epping to Parramatta rail link with a volume of out clauses. Funding was promised to commence in 2014-15 which is within the current forward estimates period, yet the project was nowhere to be found in this year's budget papers. Regardless, I have assured the people of Bennelong and my colleagues in the trilevel government meeting that I will hold this government to account for its promises. The trilevel government meeting includes three state government ministers—Greg Smith from Epping, Anthony Roberts from Lane Cove and Victor Dominello from Ryde—and three mayors—Artin Etmekdjian from Ryde, Nick Berman from Hornsby and Lorraine Wearne from Parramatta. I look forward to the meeting tomorrow and to pursuing our shared goal of achieving real results for all the people of Bennelong.
Bass Electorate: Defence Science and Technology Organisation Facilities
Mr LYONS (Bass) (09:45): I rise today to welcome the parliamentary approval of the $18.7 million upgrade of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation facilities in Scottsdale, in my electorate of Bass. This project will deliver modern, functional food science research facilities for the DSTO personnel and a new culture lab. This facility researches and manufactures freeze-dried components used in the Australian Defence Force patrol ration packs. It has been producing these components since the early seventies. In fact, Scottsdale is the only facility in Australia both producing food and undertaking research into the nutritional value of ration packs and rationing systems used by the Australian Defence Force.
This is great news for the people of north-east Tasmania. This approval shows Defence's commitment to remain in our local community, delivering jobs and providing a valuable boost for our economy. This decision puts to bed once and for all the misinformation and scaremongering that past Senator Guy Barnett spread within this community. He achieved nothing for the DSTO; in 10 years of Liberal government, not one piece of action. This community deserves the clarity that this commitment provides, not cheap political stunts that cause unnecessary concern within these communities. I would encourage local contractors to apply within the tendering process to maximise the benefit for our local community.
I again thank all of those involved in the parliamentary committee that visited Scottsdale in north-eastern Tasmania for the great work that they did and for bringing the community together to emphasise the importance of the DSTO centre in Scottsdale. This is an $18.7 million boost for the north-east of Tasmania in difficult economic times, with downturn in the forestry sector and in vegetable production and manufacture in this area. I thank the DSTO people for the great work they put into the recent review. I thank the Australian Labor government for committing to the people of the north-east of Tasmania.
Child Protection
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (09:48): I start these remarks by looking closely at the standing orders and reflecting upon the outfit that Deputy Speaker Slipper has on today. I thought there may be a red jacket, but he is resplendent in red. This is part of a campaign that he has led so well in this place. I congratulate him for this.
Today we acknowledge the terrible events surrounding the death of Daniel Morecambe and the impact this had on his family. His family has been through pain for so many years. A number of people in this place are wearing red today. The member for Shortland has outdone even the deputy speaker with her outfit. This is a great acknowledgement of a very important cause.
It highlights an issue which is close to so many of us in this place, child protection laws in Australia and ensuring that we have the strongest set of child protection regulations that we can have so that families can feel their children are safe in our society. It is very important to make sure we get these laws right. Another issue which has been brought to my attention by numerous constituents in the last short while is some of the rulings that have been made by the Family Court or the Magistrates Court in relation to family law matters. I think there are some concerning developments in relation to child protection. I think this is an area where the parliament must continue to ensure that we get the balance right. There were significant changes made by the former Howard government and I think that change has been very important. But that is not to say that we should ignore examples and cases because this is a difficult area of law. It is not always right, but we need to find the best balance we can to ensure that children who are caught up in these terrible family disputes and family breakdowns have full protection and are not being used as unfortunate pawns by the system. There are some recent examples, and I have engaged with the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, who I think is thinking deeply about these laws. He is talking to many on our side and many who have been affected by it, because at the end of the day this area obviously is solved if we can keep families together. But unfortunately too many families do not stay together and children suffer. I think we need to be very conscious that the laws need to be improved where they can be.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I call the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.
Tibet
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (09:51): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your extraordinary red outfit with red pinstripes. Earlier this year I visited the seat of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In the foothills of the Himalayas, Dharamsala is the headquarters of eight Tibetan exile settlements in India. Many young Tibetans starved of their culture and facing repression make the heroic trek across the Himalayas to India to the Tibetan community that lives in freedom there.
Since March this year, 10 young Tibetans, including seven monks from the Kirti Monastery in Ngaba, have set themselves alight to protest the Chinese government's restrictions on their religious and political freedom. Chinese authorities are using extreme force in the crackdown on the Kirti Monastery, where they are enforcing a 'patriotic re-education campaign' and have imposed an indefinite ban on religious activities at that critical monastery. The number of monks in the monastery has gone from 2,500 to around 400. Since March Ngaba has seen the presence of civilian and military personnel patrolling the area.
Yesterday the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion, Heiner Bielefeldt, said:
Intimidation of the lay and monastic community must be avoided, and the right of members of the monastic community and the wider community to freely practice their religion, should be fully respected by the Chinese Government.
The restrictive and repressive measures enforced on the monks at Kirti include security raids and surveillance with police presence inside and outside the monastery to monitor religious activities. Over 300 monks have been disappeared by the Chinese authorities for 'patriotic re-education' and many of them remain missing—unheard from by their families. A recent Human Rights Watch study found that per capita annual spending on public security in Ngaba was five times the average spent per person on public security in non-Tibetan areas of Sichuan.
The US State Department has called on China to respect human rights and the rights of Tibetans since the nine young Tibetans have set themselves on fire as a result of these restrictive Chinese practices. The US State Department said:
We urge Chinese leaders to address counterproductive policies in Tibetan areas that have created tensions; and to protect Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic identity.
The crackdown on Tibetan monks since 2008 has been brutal. Beijing continues to restrict foreign journalists from travelling to Tibetan areas, jam radio broadcasts of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia's Tibetan and Chinese language services. This is part of a strategy to eliminate the remnants of Tibetan identity and cultural heritage. The Chinese authorities continue to repress Tibetan culture.
On 19 October 2010, a decision was made to replace Tibetan with Mandarin as the main medium of instruction in Tibetan schools in the Qinghai province. Freedom of movement of monks and nuns is extremely limited within Lhasa and Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan. Last year in the Tibetan areas of Sichuan province, the Chinese government reportedly continued to remove monks under the age of 18, unregistered monks and monks and nuns from outside the Tibet Autonomous Region.
The process of eliminating Tibetan culture and the removal of monks and nuns is a direct violation of the freedom of religion. The Australian government is deeply concerned about reports of self-immolations by monks and nuns. Australian officials last week made renewed representations in Canberra and Beijing to their Chinese counterparts about these reports. Our embassy in Beijing has raised our concerns about reports of the continuing crackdown around the monastery and the province and increased security measures in the Tibetan areas. I entreat the Chinese authorities to respect the religious rights of Tibetan monks and to cease their repressive actions against those in the Kirti Monastery. (Time expired)
Penshurst Volcanoes Discovery Centre
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (09:55): I rise today to thank the Penshurst Volcanoes Discovery Centre for the very kind hospitality they showed me and my family during the school holidays. They hosted us at the discovery centre for an hour and then provided wonderful snacks for us. It was a terrific place to visit. It is a great centre which has plenty of interactive displays. The centre details the history of the volcanic activity which occurred in western Victoria over many centuries.
I would encourage as many people in the electorate of Wannon, in Victoria and Australia-wide to go to Penshurst, have a look at the Volcanoes Discovery Centre and also spend some time looking around at some of the wonderful volcanic legacies in western Victoria. They include the Byaduk Caves, which are situated in Harmans Valley lava flow. You can go down into one of these caves, have a look around and see the legacy from the lava flow. It is well worth doing and a great trip to take the family on. In going down into the caves there is a real sense of excitement and adventure, both for adults and for kids.
You can also visit Tower Hill, an inactive volcano on the south-west coast of Victoria just outside Warrnambool. It has developed into one of the most magnificent wetlands that you could come across anywhere in Australia, especially at the moment after two wet seasons. It is well worth a visit for the bird life alone that you can see. You can also spend some time climbing two of the volcanoes that we have—Mount Rouse, which is near Penshurst, and Mount Napier. The views across the western Victoria Plains when you climb these old volcanic sites are absolutely tremendous. You can spend a day or two days exploring the wonderful volcanic legacy which has been left in this area, which is called the Kanawinka Global Geopark.
I would use this opportunity to call on the government to support the Kanawinka Global Geopark. So far the government has been reluctant to do this. This is a wonderful geopark and it is something that the federal government should take on board and get behind.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Before calling the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, I congratulate the member for Wannon for his involvement in the Movember campaign.
Fusion Western Sydney
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:58): Last week I was privileged to attend the official opening of Fusion Western Sydney's new centre in St Mary's. I have had a long association with Fusion, officially opening their previous Western Sydney centre over 10 years ago when I was the Mayor of Penrith. Over the years I have watched Fusion grow from strength to strength, and the opening of this new centre marks a significant milestone for the people of Western Sydney. The centre was officially opened by 2011 Australian of the Year, Simon McKeon, who generously turned down an invitation to join the queen at a CHOGM event in Perth to accept my invitation to open the centre in St Mary's.
Fusion play an invaluable role in our local community, particularly through their work with youth, the elderly and the disabled. They provide training, accommodation and support, but most of all they offer hope to those in need. Fusion Western Sydney's new centre stands on the old St Mary's bowling club site in the heart of the St Mary's CBD. Fusion have a lease over the site, which has been vacant for a number of years and is owned by the St Mary's Band Club. I thank the board and management at the band club for the role they have played in supporting the centre's relocation. I wish to acknowledge and thank the vast number of people who worked tirelessly to deliver this project. Firstly I acknowledge Dave Hammond, the CEO of Fusion Western Sydney, and his wife, Sally, the manager of Fusion community development, who have both dedicated much of their lives to serving the most vulnerable. For Dave and Sally the centre marks a significant step forward in delivering on their vision for increasing Fusion's capacity to build a better community and improve the lives of thousands of people in Western Sydney.
Fusion Western Sydney has an army of volunteers and staff members who gave up countless hours of their days, nights and weekends to help build this project. I would particularly like to recognise Steve McNee, Ron Rademaker, Marg Cooke, Bruce Peel, Judy Tweeddale, Leizsha Clissold, Josh Shelley, Jeff Estanislao, Michael Mitchell and Peter Tasic. Each time I visited the centre during the construction process, including during the working bees, I was blown away by the progress that had been made, but more inspired by the passion and dedication of the Fusion team.
This project would not have been possible without the generous contributions of many businesses and individuals who offered their services and products at discounted rates or without charge. In a loaves-and-fishes story, the Fusion team turned $140,000 into a $1.2 million centre thanks to the generous contributions of cash, materials and services. I congratulate everyone who was involved in the relocation and development of the new Fusion Western Sydney centre. These brilliant facilities are the product of years of hard work and dedication. While I am impressed by these new facilities, it is the passion and dedication of those operating within the centre that has truly inspired me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Apple Imports
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (09:30): Recently I had the opportunity to participate in a coalition delegation to New Zealand to view firsthand the horticultural practices of apple orchards and packing houses. Members who took part included the shadow agriculture minister and the members for Murray and Wannon. The arrangements coordinated by Alistair Ferris of the New Zealand Visits and Ceremonial Office were first class. I must also thank Pipfruit New Zealand, particularly Chief Executive Officer, Peter Beaven, and Chairman, Ian Palmer, and the various orchards and onsite people who gave us an unfettered look at what they do and how they do it. The four members who took part in this largely self-funded trip went across the Tasman with open minds.
Australia is now importing apples from New Zealand for the first time in 90 years. There are concerns in Batlow, in my electorate, about our ability to remain disease- and pest-free as New Zealand has diseases and pests which do not exist in Australia. Batlow is the apple capital of Australia and should not have its future jeopardised by federal Labor, which puts trade before quarantine. Apple orchards have been vital to Batlow's economy for 120 years. These days 39 apple growers at Batlow provide employment directly and indirectly for 2,500 people—all hard workers; all taxpayers. That wonderful history and those jobs have been placed at risk by a government which could and should have done more to look after its own. Instead, as with most things agricultural and many things of importance to regional Australia, Labor either caved in or did nothing.
Australia is at present free of fireblight. Fireblight is a contagious disease that particularly affects apples, pears, quinces and some ornamental plants. An outbreak would devastate Australian horticulture, cause considerable environmental harm and be impossible to eradicate. Now that Labor has opened the way for apples to be imported from New Zealand, every possible precaution to protect Australia's disease- and pest-free status must be taken and vigorously maintained.
It is of grave concern that three out of the first 13 consignments of New Zealand apples were denied entry. Australia originally barred apple imports after discovering in 1919 the bacterial disease fireblight in fruit from New Zealand. By 18 August 2011, just a day after the all-clear was given, seven permits had already been issued to New Zealand orchardists. Later that same month a live-insect pathogen and potentially fireblight-carrying leaf matter had already been found in one of the first consignments of New Zealand apples bound for Australia.
The Australian government needs to urgently review its quarantine protocols to ensure our biosecurity measures are the tightest and toughest they can be. Too much is at stake not to do this. Australia's reputation as a fresh-food producer, thousands of livelihoods and the future of our own export markets are at risk. We cannot have our proud, sustainable and viable industries—indeed, whole towns—ruined because our federal government did not do more under World Trade Organisation rules which would have made quarantine protocols far more stringent than they are now. There is something to be said for states declaring quarantine areas similar to fruit fly exclusion zones in fruit-growing areas, such as around Batlow and the Murrumbidgee irrigation areas.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (09:30): Recently I had the opportunity to participate in a coalition delegation to New Zealand to view firsthand the horticultural practices of apple orchards and packing houses. Members who took part included the shadow agriculture minister and the members for Murray and Wannon. The arrangements coordinated by Alistair Ferris of the New Zealand Visits and Ceremonial Office were first class. I must also thank Pipfruit New Zealand, particularly Chief Executive Officer, Peter Beaven, and Chairman, Ian Palmer, and the various orchards and onsite people who gave us an unfettered look at what they do and how they do it. The four members who took part in this largely self-funded trip went across the Tasman with open minds.
Australia is now importing apples from New Zealand for the first time in 90 years. There are concerns in Batlow, in my electorate, about our ability to remain disease- and pest-free as New Zealand has diseases and pests which do not exist in Australia. Batlow is the apple capital of Australia and should not have its future jeopardised by federal Labor, which puts trade before quarantine. Apple orchards have been vital to Batlow's economy for 120 years. These days 39 apple growers at Batlow provide employment directly and indirectly for 2,500 people—all hard workers; all taxpayers. That wonderful history and those jobs have been placed at risk by a government which could and should have done more to look after its own. Instead, as with most things agricultural and many things of importance to regional Australia, Labor either caved in or did nothing.
Australia is at present free of fireblight. Fireblight is a contagious disease that particularly affects apples, pears, quinces and some ornamental plants. An outbreak would devastate Australian horticulture, cause considerable environmental harm and be impossible to eradicate. Now that Labor has opened the way for apples to be imported from New Zealand, every possible precaution to protect Australia's disease- and pest-free status must be taken and vigorously maintained.
It is of grave concern that three out of the first 13 consignments of New Zealand apples were denied entry. Australia originally barred apple imports after discovering in 1919 the bacterial disease fireblight in fruit from New Zealand. By 18 August 2011, just a day after the all-clear was given, seven permits had already been issued to New Zealand orchardists. Later that same month a live-insect pathogen and potentially fireblight-carrying leaf matter had already been found in one of the first consignments of New Zealand apples bound for Australia.
The Australian government needs to urgently review its quarantine protocols to ensure our biosecurity measures are the tightest and toughest they can be. Too much is at stake not to do this. Australia's reputation as a fresh-food producer, thousands of livelihoods and the future of our own export markets are at risk. We cannot have our proud, sustainable and viable industries—indeed, whole towns—ruined because our federal government did not do more under World Trade Organisation rules which would have made quarantine protocols far more stringent than they are now. There is something to be said for states declaring quarantine areas similar to fruit fly exclusion zones in fruit-growing areas, such as around Batlow and the Murrumbidgee irrigation areas.
Shalit, Gilad
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:29): I rise to speak about the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 18 October. The news of Gilad Shalit's release brought joy and relief to all those who had hoped and prayed for his safe return. It had been 1,940 days of heartache and sorrow as the people of Israel intimately lived the story of Gilad Shalit's long wait for freedom, which was brought to the attention of Israel and the world through the determination of his parents, Noam and Aviva, to once again see their son.
Gilad Shalit was taken hostage by Hamas on 25 June 2006 when he was just 19 years old. He was held by Hamas for five years in a secret location in Gaza, without access to the Red Cross or the basic human rights of a prisoner of war. I can only guess the emotional toll on the Shalit family over these dreadful five years. I cannot imagine how I would have coped in the same situation if one of my children had been kidnapped. I am sure parents everywhere can sympathise.
For so many Israelis, Gilad Shalit became a symbol of Israel's struggle for peace, security and freedom. Israelis marked each anniversary of Gilad Shalit's kidnapping by calling on Hamas to release him. I too marked each anniversary by calling, in this House, for Gilad Shalit's release. The prisoner swap illustrates the stark contrast between Israel's commitment to human rights and the violence and brutality of the Hamas regime. Israel's willingness to release over 1,000 prisoners in exchange for the freedom of one Israeli demonstrates Israel's lasting commitment to the inalienable rights of each citizen. This is an example that negotiations can produce concrete outcomes and, as with every step towards peace, it is something we should build on in the ambition for peace and harmony with Palestinians. We should pause to remember that Hamas are a terrorist organisation that torture and murder opponents. The 1998 Hamas charter commits Hamas to the destruction of Israel and includes genocidal references aimed at Jews. Hamas glorifies suicide bombing and urges their people to commit acts of violence against their fellow citizens.
Australia has consistently confirmed its support for Israel and the family of Gilad Shalit. The Foreign Minister visited Gilad's parents Noam and Aviva in the tent where they were keeping a daily vigil for their son last year. I can only hope that Hamas are not encouraged by this act of clemency. Hamas's totalitarian stranglehold over the people of Gaza remains the main obstacle to peace that is the eternal hope of all Israelis and Palestinians. In synagogues around the world, empty chairs that were used to symbolise Gilad Shalit's absence, I am happy to say, are no longer needed. It is a great pleasure to record the release of Gilad Shalit. His freedom has brought joy to his family and his nation and encouragement to all those who oppose terrorism and violence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure that many honourable members would associate themselves with the excellent sentiments expressed by the Cabinet Secretary.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:29): I rise to speak about the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 18 October. The news of Gilad Shalit's release brought joy and relief to all those who had hoped and prayed for his safe return. It had been 1,940 days of heartache and sorrow as the people of Israel intimately lived the story of Gilad Shalit's long wait for freedom, which was brought to the attention of Israel and the world through the determination of his parents, Noam and Aviva, to once again see their son.
Gilad Shalit was taken hostage by Hamas on 25 June 2006 when he was just 19 years old. He was held by Hamas for five years in a secret location in Gaza, without access to the Red Cross or the basic human rights of a prisoner of war. I can only guess the emotional toll on the Shalit family over these dreadful five years. I cannot imagine how I would have coped in the same situation if one of my children had been kidnapped. I am sure parents everywhere can sympathise.
For so many Israelis, Gilad Shalit became a symbol of Israel's struggle for peace, security and freedom. Israelis marked each anniversary of Gilad Shalit's kidnapping by calling on Hamas to release him. I too marked each anniversary by calling, in this House, for Gilad Shalit's release. The prisoner swap illustrates the stark contrast between Israel's commitment to human rights and the violence and brutality of the Hamas regime. Israel's willingness to release over 1,000 prisoners in exchange for the freedom of one Israeli demonstrates Israel's lasting commitment to the inalienable rights of each citizen. This is an example that negotiations can produce concrete outcomes and, as with every step towards peace, it is something we should build on in the ambition for peace and harmony with Palestinians. We should pause to remember that Hamas are a terrorist organisation that torture and murder opponents. The 1998 Hamas charter commits Hamas to the destruction of Israel and includes genocidal references aimed at Jews. Hamas glorifies suicide bombing and urges their people to commit acts of violence against their fellow citizens.
Australia has consistently confirmed its support for Israel and the family of Gilad Shalit. The Foreign Minister visited Gilad's parents Noam and Aviva in the tent where they were keeping a daily vigil for their son last year. I can only hope that Hamas are not encouraged by this act of clemency. Hamas's totalitarian stranglehold over the people of Gaza remains the main obstacle to peace that is the eternal hope of all Israelis and Palestinians. In synagogues around the world, empty chairs that were used to symbolise Gilad Shalit's absence, I am happy to say, are no longer needed. It is a great pleasure to record the release of Gilad Shalit. His freedom has brought joy to his family and his nation and encouragement to all those who oppose terrorism and violence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure that many honourable members would associate themselves with the excellent sentiments expressed by the Cabinet Secretary.
ACRES (Asia-Pacific)
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (09:36): In the last parliamentary sitting week I had the great privilege of hosting the launch of ACRES (Asia-Pacific). ACRES, the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society, is a pioneering Singaporean based charity founded in 2001 with the aim of promoting and improving animal welfare. ACRES (Asia-Pacific) was launched in parliament here in October as the Australian arm of the NGO with the aim of expanding the work, campaigns, projects and fundraising of the organisation. ACRES has improved the lives of thousands of animals throughout Asia by focusing on various programs including a zoo animal welfare program, wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, wildlife crime investigation, humane education and community outreach. Further, they influence and are respected by countries in the region because they emphasise working with developing countries, changing entrenched thinking and promoting economic benefits of protecting the environment through such opportunities as tourism.
The launch was honoured by the attendance of the former young Singaporean of the year Mr Louis Ng, the founder and director of ACRES. Louis delivered a compelling speech on ACRES's newest and most ambitious project to date, the bears and wildlife protection program, launched to phase out the cruel practice of bear bile farming in Laos, as used in traditional Chinese medicine. The practice of bear bile farming is the most cruel and inhumane in the animal world today. These bears spend their lives in cages little bigger than they are and are stabbed in the stomach daily while they eat so their bile can be collected. Louis showed a heart-wrenching video that he and his Australian colleague Michelle Minehan filmed in Laos. The stream of cruelty was painful to watch and the physical trauma caused to the bears was also obvious. Bears on bile farms are deprived of food, water and movement. They suffer chronic pain, illness and abuse and some live with a catheter or hole punched in their abdomen to have their gall bladders drained of the bile. The bears and wildlife protection program will demonstrate that promoting and improving animal welfare and economic growth can be complementary, creating both jobs and tourism.
I would like to note that work of Michelle Minehan, who established the Australian arm of ACRES. Michelle is a determined young woman and without her tireless work ACRES (Asia-Pacific) in Australia would simply not exist. I commend her and her team and wish them well in the future. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, the members for Mackellar, Macarthur, and Flynn, for coming along to support this wonderful young organisation. Of course, my deepest appreciation goes to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow foreign affairs minister Ms Julie Bishop, who was on hand to officially launch the ACRES (Asia-Pacific) Australian chapter.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (09:36): In the last parliamentary sitting week I had the great privilege of hosting the launch of ACRES (Asia-Pacific). ACRES, the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society, is a pioneering Singaporean based charity founded in 2001 with the aim of promoting and improving animal welfare. ACRES (Asia-Pacific) was launched in parliament here in October as the Australian arm of the NGO with the aim of expanding the work, campaigns, projects and fundraising of the organisation. ACRES has improved the lives of thousands of animals throughout Asia by focusing on various programs including a zoo animal welfare program, wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, wildlife crime investigation, humane education and community outreach. Further, they influence and are respected by countries in the region because they emphasise working with developing countries, changing entrenched thinking and promoting economic benefits of protecting the environment through such opportunities as tourism.
The launch was honoured by the attendance of the former young Singaporean of the year Mr Louis Ng, the founder and director of ACRES. Louis delivered a compelling speech on ACRES's newest and most ambitious project to date, the bears and wildlife protection program, launched to phase out the cruel practice of bear bile farming in Laos, as used in traditional Chinese medicine. The practice of bear bile farming is the most cruel and inhumane in the animal world today. These bears spend their lives in cages little bigger than they are and are stabbed in the stomach daily while they eat so their bile can be collected. Louis showed a heart-wrenching video that he and his Australian colleague Michelle Minehan filmed in Laos. The stream of cruelty was painful to watch and the physical trauma caused to the bears was also obvious. Bears on bile farms are deprived of food, water and movement. They suffer chronic pain, illness and abuse and some live with a catheter or hole punched in their abdomen to have their gall bladders drained of the bile. The bears and wildlife protection program will demonstrate that promoting and improving animal welfare and economic growth can be complementary, creating both jobs and tourism.
I would like to note that work of Michelle Minehan, who established the Australian arm of ACRES. Michelle is a determined young woman and without her tireless work ACRES (Asia-Pacific) in Australia would simply not exist. I commend her and her team and wish them well in the future. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, the members for Mackellar, Macarthur, and Flynn, for coming along to support this wonderful young organisation. Of course, my deepest appreciation goes to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow foreign affairs minister Ms Julie Bishop, who was on hand to officially launch the ACRES (Asia-Pacific) Australian chapter.
Holt Electorate: Serious Tennis
Holt Electorate: Doveton Show
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:39): I rise today to update the House on some further recent achievements by my constituents, namely those from the Doveton community, of which I am very proud. One is the local youth tennis club, which recently received a Local Sporting Champions team grant through the Australian Sports Commission, and the other is the very famous Doveton Show, which was held on 25 September this year.
It is with great pleasure that I was able to attend the Serious Tennis Club in Doveton earlier this month to present the grant, worth $3,000, and certificates of achievement to the team members. Let me tell you, after having a friendly hit, that my return was no match for these up-and-comers. At the presentation I had a chance to congratulate head coach Justin Yeo, who was full of praise for his young tennis players. Justin said, 'There is never a guarantee in life, but we can guarantee that tennis will be a huge part of their lives. Each player has every chance at making a professional career.' It is important to invest in our local sporting champions. I wish all the budding tennis stars in this team, including Audrey Teo, Noellada Ah San, Zac Osbourne, Priscilla Dawson, Gabriela Sprague, Sara Kyriazopoulos, Alex Khreish, Daphne Mantzanidis, Vivian Fidantsis, Leo Khreish, Keeley Meijer, Jovanna Stanisic and Jordan Tichy, all the best in their tennis careers. The electorate of Holt has already produced NBA stars like Andrew Bogut and Socceroos stars such as Scott McDonald. Hopefully this grant will go towards producing a new Australian grand slam tennis star.
I would also like to pay tribute to an absolutely outstanding local success story, the Doveton Show. The seventh annual Doveton Show was held on Sunday, 25 September at Myuna Farm in Doveton. The show was organised and run solely by volunteers, led by the Doveton Show committee. This was the first year in which the Doveton and Eumemmerring renewal program was not directly involved in organising the event and assisting on the day. I am pleased to say that the committee did a tremendous job in taking up the reins, and it broke the attendance record of 12,000, set last year, with an estimated 15,000 people attending this year. Apart from the traditional fete atmospherics that I have mentioned in this place before such as show bags, rides and stalls, there were also educational and entertainment shows for everyone. These included traditional dances, reptile exhibitions, sheepshearing and art competitions. There was also a particularly impressive collection of vintage cars, in particular a pristine 1971 Ford Falcon GTHO. The Doveton Show is a testament to what can be achieved through local networks and the community at large. In particular, it is a home-grown success and it is something that, as the local federal member of parliament, I am extremely proud of.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:39): I rise today to update the House on some further recent achievements by my constituents, namely those from the Doveton community, of which I am very proud. One is the local youth tennis club, which recently received a Local Sporting Champions team grant through the Australian Sports Commission, and the other is the very famous Doveton Show, which was held on 25 September this year.
It is with great pleasure that I was able to attend the Serious Tennis Club in Doveton earlier this month to present the grant, worth $3,000, and certificates of achievement to the team members. Let me tell you, after having a friendly hit, that my return was no match for these up-and-comers. At the presentation I had a chance to congratulate head coach Justin Yeo, who was full of praise for his young tennis players. Justin said, 'There is never a guarantee in life, but we can guarantee that tennis will be a huge part of their lives. Each player has every chance at making a professional career.' It is important to invest in our local sporting champions. I wish all the budding tennis stars in this team, including Audrey Teo, Noellada Ah San, Zac Osbourne, Priscilla Dawson, Gabriela Sprague, Sara Kyriazopoulos, Alex Khreish, Daphne Mantzanidis, Vivian Fidantsis, Leo Khreish, Keeley Meijer, Jovanna Stanisic and Jordan Tichy, all the best in their tennis careers. The electorate of Holt has already produced NBA stars like Andrew Bogut and Socceroos stars such as Scott McDonald. Hopefully this grant will go towards producing a new Australian grand slam tennis star.
I would also like to pay tribute to an absolutely outstanding local success story, the Doveton Show. The seventh annual Doveton Show was held on Sunday, 25 September at Myuna Farm in Doveton. The show was organised and run solely by volunteers, led by the Doveton Show committee. This was the first year in which the Doveton and Eumemmerring renewal program was not directly involved in organising the event and assisting on the day. I am pleased to say that the committee did a tremendous job in taking up the reins, and it broke the attendance record of 12,000, set last year, with an estimated 15,000 people attending this year. Apart from the traditional fete atmospherics that I have mentioned in this place before such as show bags, rides and stalls, there were also educational and entertainment shows for everyone. These included traditional dances, reptile exhibitions, sheepshearing and art competitions. There was also a particularly impressive collection of vintage cars, in particular a pristine 1971 Ford Falcon GTHO. The Doveton Show is a testament to what can be achieved through local networks and the community at large. In particular, it is a home-grown success and it is something that, as the local federal member of parliament, I am extremely proud of.
Bennelong Electorate: Trilevel Government Meeting
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (09:42): Tomorrow I will be hosting another trilevel government meeting in my Bennelong office. The trilevel government meeting is an initiative that I introduced on my entry into parliament last August. It is designed to bring together all three levels of government in Bennelong on a regular basis. By looking past any of the partisan or personal differences that so often set back the ability to achieve real things as representatives, we can discuss and resolve issues of concern to the single most important party of all in our roles, our constituents.
Prior to entering politics I too often shared the frustration felt by so many in our community for the blame game between federal, state and local governments that is used as an excuse for inaction. Most people do not know which health, education or transport issue is covered by the state or federal minister, and they certainly do not care. If there is a pothole in the road, a leaking roof in a hospital or a train line to be completed, they want governments to work together to get it done. The trilevel government meeting is the best way to achieve real results, as it brings together all the major decision makers of the region at the table.
The agenda at tomorrow's trilevel government meeting will cover issues ranging from the redevelopment of the Ryde Civic Centre and Epping Town Centre to boarding houses surrounding Macquarie University and from the construction of the North West Rail Link and the Epping to Parramatta rail link to resolving the traffic congestion in a region that has some of the most clogged up road arteries in the state. If Bennelong was a living body it would be in cardiac arrest twice a day, five days a week. Directly related to this is a dire need for heavy rail infrastructure, which has been repeatedly promised over 13 years. The North West Rail Link and the Epping to Parramatta rail link are perfect examples of the stark difference between our two types of government. In March this year Premier Barry O' Farrell went to the state election with a 'no strings attached' promise to build the North West Rail Link, which is expected to cost over $7 billion. Within months of winning the election, preconstruction efforts are proceeding at pace.
In August last year, the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, went to the federal election with a $2.1 billion announcement to build the Epping to Parramatta rail link with a volume of out clauses. Funding was promised to commence in 2014-15 which is within the current forward estimates period, yet the project was nowhere to be found in this year's budget papers. Regardless, I have assured the people of Bennelong and my colleagues in the trilevel government meeting that I will hold this government to account for its promises. The trilevel government meeting includes three state government ministers—Greg Smith from Epping, Anthony Roberts from Lane Cove and Victor Dominello from Ryde—and three mayors—Artin Etmekdjian from Ryde, Nick Berman from Hornsby and Lorraine Wearne from Parramatta. I look forward to the meeting tomorrow and to pursuing our shared goal of achieving real results for all the people of Bennelong.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (09:42): Tomorrow I will be hosting another trilevel government meeting in my Bennelong office. The trilevel government meeting is an initiative that I introduced on my entry into parliament last August. It is designed to bring together all three levels of government in Bennelong on a regular basis. By looking past any of the partisan or personal differences that so often set back the ability to achieve real things as representatives, we can discuss and resolve issues of concern to the single most important party of all in our roles, our constituents.
Prior to entering politics I too often shared the frustration felt by so many in our community for the blame game between federal, state and local governments that is used as an excuse for inaction. Most people do not know which health, education or transport issue is covered by the state or federal minister, and they certainly do not care. If there is a pothole in the road, a leaking roof in a hospital or a train line to be completed, they want governments to work together to get it done. The trilevel government meeting is the best way to achieve real results, as it brings together all the major decision makers of the region at the table.
The agenda at tomorrow's trilevel government meeting will cover issues ranging from the redevelopment of the Ryde Civic Centre and Epping Town Centre to boarding houses surrounding Macquarie University and from the construction of the North West Rail Link and the Epping to Parramatta rail link to resolving the traffic congestion in a region that has some of the most clogged up road arteries in the state. If Bennelong was a living body it would be in cardiac arrest twice a day, five days a week. Directly related to this is a dire need for heavy rail infrastructure, which has been repeatedly promised over 13 years. The North West Rail Link and the Epping to Parramatta rail link are perfect examples of the stark difference between our two types of government. In March this year Premier Barry O' Farrell went to the state election with a 'no strings attached' promise to build the North West Rail Link, which is expected to cost over $7 billion. Within months of winning the election, preconstruction efforts are proceeding at pace.
In August last year, the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, went to the federal election with a $2.1 billion announcement to build the Epping to Parramatta rail link with a volume of out clauses. Funding was promised to commence in 2014-15 which is within the current forward estimates period, yet the project was nowhere to be found in this year's budget papers. Regardless, I have assured the people of Bennelong and my colleagues in the trilevel government meeting that I will hold this government to account for its promises. The trilevel government meeting includes three state government ministers—Greg Smith from Epping, Anthony Roberts from Lane Cove and Victor Dominello from Ryde—and three mayors—Artin Etmekdjian from Ryde, Nick Berman from Hornsby and Lorraine Wearne from Parramatta. I look forward to the meeting tomorrow and to pursuing our shared goal of achieving real results for all the people of Bennelong.
Bass Electorate: Defence Science and Technology Organisation Facilities
Mr LYONS (Bass) (09:45): I rise today to welcome the parliamentary approval of the $18.7 million upgrade of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation facilities in Scottsdale, in my electorate of Bass. This project will deliver modern, functional food science research facilities for the DSTO personnel and a new culture lab. This facility researches and manufactures freeze-dried components used in the Australian Defence Force patrol ration packs. It has been producing these components since the early seventies. In fact, Scottsdale is the only facility in Australia both producing food and undertaking research into the nutritional value of ration packs and rationing systems used by the Australian Defence Force.
This is great news for the people of north-east Tasmania. This approval shows Defence's commitment to remain in our local community, delivering jobs and providing a valuable boost for our economy. This decision puts to bed once and for all the misinformation and scaremongering that past Senator Guy Barnett spread within this community. He achieved nothing for the DSTO; in 10 years of Liberal government, not one piece of action. This community deserves the clarity that this commitment provides, not cheap political stunts that cause unnecessary concern within these communities. I would encourage local contractors to apply within the tendering process to maximise the benefit for our local community.
I again thank all of those involved in the parliamentary committee that visited Scottsdale in north-eastern Tasmania for the great work that they did and for bringing the community together to emphasise the importance of the DSTO centre in Scottsdale. This is an $18.7 million boost for the north-east of Tasmania in difficult economic times, with downturn in the forestry sector and in vegetable production and manufacture in this area. I thank the DSTO people for the great work they put into the recent review. I thank the Australian Labor government for committing to the people of the north-east of Tasmania.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (09:45): I rise today to welcome the parliamentary approval of the $18.7 million upgrade of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation facilities in Scottsdale, in my electorate of Bass. This project will deliver modern, functional food science research facilities for the DSTO personnel and a new culture lab. This facility researches and manufactures freeze-dried components used in the Australian Defence Force patrol ration packs. It has been producing these components since the early seventies. In fact, Scottsdale is the only facility in Australia both producing food and undertaking research into the nutritional value of ration packs and rationing systems used by the Australian Defence Force.
This is great news for the people of north-east Tasmania. This approval shows Defence's commitment to remain in our local community, delivering jobs and providing a valuable boost for our economy. This decision puts to bed once and for all the misinformation and scaremongering that past Senator Guy Barnett spread within this community. He achieved nothing for the DSTO; in 10 years of Liberal government, not one piece of action. This community deserves the clarity that this commitment provides, not cheap political stunts that cause unnecessary concern within these communities. I would encourage local contractors to apply within the tendering process to maximise the benefit for our local community.
I again thank all of those involved in the parliamentary committee that visited Scottsdale in north-eastern Tasmania for the great work that they did and for bringing the community together to emphasise the importance of the DSTO centre in Scottsdale. This is an $18.7 million boost for the north-east of Tasmania in difficult economic times, with downturn in the forestry sector and in vegetable production and manufacture in this area. I thank the DSTO people for the great work they put into the recent review. I thank the Australian Labor government for committing to the people of the north-east of Tasmania.
Child Protection
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (09:48): I start these remarks by looking closely at the standing orders and reflecting upon the outfit that Deputy Speaker Slipper has on today. I thought there may be a red jacket, but he is resplendent in red. This is part of a campaign that he has led so well in this place. I congratulate him for this.
Today we acknowledge the terrible events surrounding the death of Daniel Morecambe and the impact this had on his family. His family has been through pain for so many years. A number of people in this place are wearing red today. The member for Shortland has outdone even the deputy speaker with her outfit. This is a great acknowledgement of a very important cause.
It highlights an issue which is close to so many of us in this place, child protection laws in Australia and ensuring that we have the strongest set of child protection regulations that we can have so that families can feel their children are safe in our society. It is very important to make sure we get these laws right. Another issue which has been brought to my attention by numerous constituents in the last short while is some of the rulings that have been made by the Family Court or the Magistrates Court in relation to family law matters. I think there are some concerning developments in relation to child protection. I think this is an area where the parliament must continue to ensure that we get the balance right. There were significant changes made by the former Howard government and I think that change has been very important. But that is not to say that we should ignore examples and cases because this is a difficult area of law. It is not always right, but we need to find the best balance we can to ensure that children who are caught up in these terrible family disputes and family breakdowns have full protection and are not being used as unfortunate pawns by the system. There are some recent examples, and I have engaged with the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, who I think is thinking deeply about these laws. He is talking to many on our side and many who have been affected by it, because at the end of the day this area obviously is solved if we can keep families together. But unfortunately too many families do not stay together and children suffer. I think we need to be very conscious that the laws need to be improved where they can be.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I call the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (09:48): I start these remarks by looking closely at the standing orders and reflecting upon the outfit that Deputy Speaker Slipper has on today. I thought there may be a red jacket, but he is resplendent in red. This is part of a campaign that he has led so well in this place. I congratulate him for this.
Today we acknowledge the terrible events surrounding the death of Daniel Morecambe and the impact this had on his family. His family has been through pain for so many years. A number of people in this place are wearing red today. The member for Shortland has outdone even the deputy speaker with her outfit. This is a great acknowledgement of a very important cause.
It highlights an issue which is close to so many of us in this place, child protection laws in Australia and ensuring that we have the strongest set of child protection regulations that we can have so that families can feel their children are safe in our society. It is very important to make sure we get these laws right. Another issue which has been brought to my attention by numerous constituents in the last short while is some of the rulings that have been made by the Family Court or the Magistrates Court in relation to family law matters. I think there are some concerning developments in relation to child protection. I think this is an area where the parliament must continue to ensure that we get the balance right. There were significant changes made by the former Howard government and I think that change has been very important. But that is not to say that we should ignore examples and cases because this is a difficult area of law. It is not always right, but we need to find the best balance we can to ensure that children who are caught up in these terrible family disputes and family breakdowns have full protection and are not being used as unfortunate pawns by the system. There are some recent examples, and I have engaged with the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, who I think is thinking deeply about these laws. He is talking to many on our side and many who have been affected by it, because at the end of the day this area obviously is solved if we can keep families together. But unfortunately too many families do not stay together and children suffer. I think we need to be very conscious that the laws need to be improved where they can be.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I call the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.
Tibet
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (09:51): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your extraordinary red outfit with red pinstripes. Earlier this year I visited the seat of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In the foothills of the Himalayas, Dharamsala is the headquarters of eight Tibetan exile settlements in India. Many young Tibetans starved of their culture and facing repression make the heroic trek across the Himalayas to India to the Tibetan community that lives in freedom there.
Since March this year, 10 young Tibetans, including seven monks from the Kirti Monastery in Ngaba, have set themselves alight to protest the Chinese government's restrictions on their religious and political freedom. Chinese authorities are using extreme force in the crackdown on the Kirti Monastery, where they are enforcing a 'patriotic re-education campaign' and have imposed an indefinite ban on religious activities at that critical monastery. The number of monks in the monastery has gone from 2,500 to around 400. Since March Ngaba has seen the presence of civilian and military personnel patrolling the area.
Yesterday the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion, Heiner Bielefeldt, said:
Intimidation of the lay and monastic community must be avoided, and the right of members of the monastic community and the wider community to freely practice their religion, should be fully respected by the Chinese Government.
The restrictive and repressive measures enforced on the monks at Kirti include security raids and surveillance with police presence inside and outside the monastery to monitor religious activities. Over 300 monks have been disappeared by the Chinese authorities for 'patriotic re-education' and many of them remain missing—unheard from by their families. A recent Human Rights Watch study found that per capita annual spending on public security in Ngaba was five times the average spent per person on public security in non-Tibetan areas of Sichuan.
The US State Department has called on China to respect human rights and the rights of Tibetans since the nine young Tibetans have set themselves on fire as a result of these restrictive Chinese practices. The US State Department said:
We urge Chinese leaders to address counterproductive policies in Tibetan areas that have created tensions; and to protect Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic identity.
The crackdown on Tibetan monks since 2008 has been brutal. Beijing continues to restrict foreign journalists from travelling to Tibetan areas, jam radio broadcasts of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia's Tibetan and Chinese language services. This is part of a strategy to eliminate the remnants of Tibetan identity and cultural heritage. The Chinese authorities continue to repress Tibetan culture.
On 19 October 2010, a decision was made to replace Tibetan with Mandarin as the main medium of instruction in Tibetan schools in the Qinghai province. Freedom of movement of monks and nuns is extremely limited within Lhasa and Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan. Last year in the Tibetan areas of Sichuan province, the Chinese government reportedly continued to remove monks under the age of 18, unregistered monks and monks and nuns from outside the Tibet Autonomous Region.
The process of eliminating Tibetan culture and the removal of monks and nuns is a direct violation of the freedom of religion. The Australian government is deeply concerned about reports of self-immolations by monks and nuns. Australian officials last week made renewed representations in Canberra and Beijing to their Chinese counterparts about these reports. Our embassy in Beijing has raised our concerns about reports of the continuing crackdown around the monastery and the province and increased security measures in the Tibetan areas. I entreat the Chinese authorities to respect the religious rights of Tibetan monks and to cease their repressive actions against those in the Kirti Monastery. (Time expired)
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (09:51): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your extraordinary red outfit with red pinstripes. Earlier this year I visited the seat of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In the foothills of the Himalayas, Dharamsala is the headquarters of eight Tibetan exile settlements in India. Many young Tibetans starved of their culture and facing repression make the heroic trek across the Himalayas to India to the Tibetan community that lives in freedom there.
Since March this year, 10 young Tibetans, including seven monks from the Kirti Monastery in Ngaba, have set themselves alight to protest the Chinese government's restrictions on their religious and political freedom. Chinese authorities are using extreme force in the crackdown on the Kirti Monastery, where they are enforcing a 'patriotic re-education campaign' and have imposed an indefinite ban on religious activities at that critical monastery. The number of monks in the monastery has gone from 2,500 to around 400. Since March Ngaba has seen the presence of civilian and military personnel patrolling the area.
Yesterday the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion, Heiner Bielefeldt, said:
Intimidation of the lay and monastic community must be avoided, and the right of members of the monastic community and the wider community to freely practice their religion, should be fully respected by the Chinese Government.
The restrictive and repressive measures enforced on the monks at Kirti include security raids and surveillance with police presence inside and outside the monastery to monitor religious activities. Over 300 monks have been disappeared by the Chinese authorities for 'patriotic re-education' and many of them remain missing—unheard from by their families. A recent Human Rights Watch study found that per capita annual spending on public security in Ngaba was five times the average spent per person on public security in non-Tibetan areas of Sichuan.
The US State Department has called on China to respect human rights and the rights of Tibetans since the nine young Tibetans have set themselves on fire as a result of these restrictive Chinese practices. The US State Department said:
We urge Chinese leaders to address counterproductive policies in Tibetan areas that have created tensions; and to protect Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic identity.
The crackdown on Tibetan monks since 2008 has been brutal. Beijing continues to restrict foreign journalists from travelling to Tibetan areas, jam radio broadcasts of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia's Tibetan and Chinese language services. This is part of a strategy to eliminate the remnants of Tibetan identity and cultural heritage. The Chinese authorities continue to repress Tibetan culture.
On 19 October 2010, a decision was made to replace Tibetan with Mandarin as the main medium of instruction in Tibetan schools in the Qinghai province. Freedom of movement of monks and nuns is extremely limited within Lhasa and Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan. Last year in the Tibetan areas of Sichuan province, the Chinese government reportedly continued to remove monks under the age of 18, unregistered monks and monks and nuns from outside the Tibet Autonomous Region.
The process of eliminating Tibetan culture and the removal of monks and nuns is a direct violation of the freedom of religion. The Australian government is deeply concerned about reports of self-immolations by monks and nuns. Australian officials last week made renewed representations in Canberra and Beijing to their Chinese counterparts about these reports. Our embassy in Beijing has raised our concerns about reports of the continuing crackdown around the monastery and the province and increased security measures in the Tibetan areas. I entreat the Chinese authorities to respect the religious rights of Tibetan monks and to cease their repressive actions against those in the Kirti Monastery. (Time expired)
Penshurst Volcanoes Discovery Centre
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (09:55): I rise today to thank the Penshurst Volcanoes Discovery Centre for the very kind hospitality they showed me and my family during the school holidays. They hosted us at the discovery centre for an hour and then provided wonderful snacks for us. It was a terrific place to visit. It is a great centre which has plenty of interactive displays. The centre details the history of the volcanic activity which occurred in western Victoria over many centuries.
I would encourage as many people in the electorate of Wannon, in Victoria and Australia-wide to go to Penshurst, have a look at the Volcanoes Discovery Centre and also spend some time looking around at some of the wonderful volcanic legacies in western Victoria. They include the Byaduk Caves, which are situated in Harmans Valley lava flow. You can go down into one of these caves, have a look around and see the legacy from the lava flow. It is well worth doing and a great trip to take the family on. In going down into the caves there is a real sense of excitement and adventure, both for adults and for kids.
You can also visit Tower Hill, an inactive volcano on the south-west coast of Victoria just outside Warrnambool. It has developed into one of the most magnificent wetlands that you could come across anywhere in Australia, especially at the moment after two wet seasons. It is well worth a visit for the bird life alone that you can see. You can also spend some time climbing two of the volcanoes that we have—Mount Rouse, which is near Penshurst, and Mount Napier. The views across the western Victoria Plains when you climb these old volcanic sites are absolutely tremendous. You can spend a day or two days exploring the wonderful volcanic legacy which has been left in this area, which is called the Kanawinka Global Geopark.
I would use this opportunity to call on the government to support the Kanawinka Global Geopark. So far the government has been reluctant to do this. This is a wonderful geopark and it is something that the federal government should take on board and get behind.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Before calling the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, I congratulate the member for Wannon for his involvement in the Movember campaign.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (09:55): I rise today to thank the Penshurst Volcanoes Discovery Centre for the very kind hospitality they showed me and my family during the school holidays. They hosted us at the discovery centre for an hour and then provided wonderful snacks for us. It was a terrific place to visit. It is a great centre which has plenty of interactive displays. The centre details the history of the volcanic activity which occurred in western Victoria over many centuries.
I would encourage as many people in the electorate of Wannon, in Victoria and Australia-wide to go to Penshurst, have a look at the Volcanoes Discovery Centre and also spend some time looking around at some of the wonderful volcanic legacies in western Victoria. They include the Byaduk Caves, which are situated in Harmans Valley lava flow. You can go down into one of these caves, have a look around and see the legacy from the lava flow. It is well worth doing and a great trip to take the family on. In going down into the caves there is a real sense of excitement and adventure, both for adults and for kids.
You can also visit Tower Hill, an inactive volcano on the south-west coast of Victoria just outside Warrnambool. It has developed into one of the most magnificent wetlands that you could come across anywhere in Australia, especially at the moment after two wet seasons. It is well worth a visit for the bird life alone that you can see. You can also spend some time climbing two of the volcanoes that we have—Mount Rouse, which is near Penshurst, and Mount Napier. The views across the western Victoria Plains when you climb these old volcanic sites are absolutely tremendous. You can spend a day or two days exploring the wonderful volcanic legacy which has been left in this area, which is called the Kanawinka Global Geopark.
I would use this opportunity to call on the government to support the Kanawinka Global Geopark. So far the government has been reluctant to do this. This is a wonderful geopark and it is something that the federal government should take on board and get behind.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Before calling the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, I congratulate the member for Wannon for his involvement in the Movember campaign.
Fusion Western Sydney
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:58): Last week I was privileged to attend the official opening of Fusion Western Sydney's new centre in St Mary's. I have had a long association with Fusion, officially opening their previous Western Sydney centre over 10 years ago when I was the Mayor of Penrith. Over the years I have watched Fusion grow from strength to strength, and the opening of this new centre marks a significant milestone for the people of Western Sydney. The centre was officially opened by 2011 Australian of the Year, Simon McKeon, who generously turned down an invitation to join the queen at a CHOGM event in Perth to accept my invitation to open the centre in St Mary's.
Fusion play an invaluable role in our local community, particularly through their work with youth, the elderly and the disabled. They provide training, accommodation and support, but most of all they offer hope to those in need. Fusion Western Sydney's new centre stands on the old St Mary's bowling club site in the heart of the St Mary's CBD. Fusion have a lease over the site, which has been vacant for a number of years and is owned by the St Mary's Band Club. I thank the board and management at the band club for the role they have played in supporting the centre's relocation. I wish to acknowledge and thank the vast number of people who worked tirelessly to deliver this project. Firstly I acknowledge Dave Hammond, the CEO of Fusion Western Sydney, and his wife, Sally, the manager of Fusion community development, who have both dedicated much of their lives to serving the most vulnerable. For Dave and Sally the centre marks a significant step forward in delivering on their vision for increasing Fusion's capacity to build a better community and improve the lives of thousands of people in Western Sydney.
Fusion Western Sydney has an army of volunteers and staff members who gave up countless hours of their days, nights and weekends to help build this project. I would particularly like to recognise Steve McNee, Ron Rademaker, Marg Cooke, Bruce Peel, Judy Tweeddale, Leizsha Clissold, Josh Shelley, Jeff Estanislao, Michael Mitchell and Peter Tasic. Each time I visited the centre during the construction process, including during the working bees, I was blown away by the progress that had been made, but more inspired by the passion and dedication of the Fusion team.
This project would not have been possible without the generous contributions of many businesses and individuals who offered their services and products at discounted rates or without charge. In a loaves-and-fishes story, the Fusion team turned $140,000 into a $1.2 million centre thanks to the generous contributions of cash, materials and services. I congratulate everyone who was involved in the relocation and development of the new Fusion Western Sydney centre. These brilliant facilities are the product of years of hard work and dedication. While I am impressed by these new facilities, it is the passion and dedication of those operating within the centre that has truly inspired me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:58): Last week I was privileged to attend the official opening of Fusion Western Sydney's new centre in St Mary's. I have had a long association with Fusion, officially opening their previous Western Sydney centre over 10 years ago when I was the Mayor of Penrith. Over the years I have watched Fusion grow from strength to strength, and the opening of this new centre marks a significant milestone for the people of Western Sydney. The centre was officially opened by 2011 Australian of the Year, Simon McKeon, who generously turned down an invitation to join the queen at a CHOGM event in Perth to accept my invitation to open the centre in St Mary's.
Fusion play an invaluable role in our local community, particularly through their work with youth, the elderly and the disabled. They provide training, accommodation and support, but most of all they offer hope to those in need. Fusion Western Sydney's new centre stands on the old St Mary's bowling club site in the heart of the St Mary's CBD. Fusion have a lease over the site, which has been vacant for a number of years and is owned by the St Mary's Band Club. I thank the board and management at the band club for the role they have played in supporting the centre's relocation. I wish to acknowledge and thank the vast number of people who worked tirelessly to deliver this project. Firstly I acknowledge Dave Hammond, the CEO of Fusion Western Sydney, and his wife, Sally, the manager of Fusion community development, who have both dedicated much of their lives to serving the most vulnerable. For Dave and Sally the centre marks a significant step forward in delivering on their vision for increasing Fusion's capacity to build a better community and improve the lives of thousands of people in Western Sydney.
Fusion Western Sydney has an army of volunteers and staff members who gave up countless hours of their days, nights and weekends to help build this project. I would particularly like to recognise Steve McNee, Ron Rademaker, Marg Cooke, Bruce Peel, Judy Tweeddale, Leizsha Clissold, Josh Shelley, Jeff Estanislao, Michael Mitchell and Peter Tasic. Each time I visited the centre during the construction process, including during the working bees, I was blown away by the progress that had been made, but more inspired by the passion and dedication of the Fusion team.
This project would not have been possible without the generous contributions of many businesses and individuals who offered their services and products at discounted rates or without charge. In a loaves-and-fishes story, the Fusion team turned $140,000 into a $1.2 million centre thanks to the generous contributions of cash, materials and services. I congratulate everyone who was involved in the relocation and development of the new Fusion Western Sydney centre. These brilliant facilities are the product of years of hard work and dedication. While I am impressed by these new facilities, it is the passion and dedication of those operating within the centre that has truly inspired me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HAYES: I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Cowan Electorate: Elections
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (10:02): In Western Australia we recently had local government elections, and I thought I would take this opportunity today to speak about what happened within and around the area of the federal electorate of Cowan. Fortunately, I have three local governments that affect parts of Cowan: the City of Joondalup, the City of Wanneroo and the City of Swan. It was particularly gratifying to see a number of people elected who certainly will be defined in their terms in local government by their commitment to the best interests of the community rather than political posturing or opportunity. I thought I would run through some of the elected members who have come up.
First is the city of Joondalup. In the Central Ward Geoff Amphlett was re-elected. It is great to see Geoff back. In North Ward Tom McLean, a good local councillor, has been returned. In North Central Ward Sam Thomas was elected. In South Ward, where I live, Teresa Ritchie was elected, and I congratulate her on her election. In the South-East Ward I congratulate Brian Corr for his re-election. I do that despite the fact that he has endorsed for the Labor Party in all of my three elections. I nevertheless congratulate him on his election. In the South-West Ward Mike Norman has also been re-elected unopposed, an endorsement of his position and standing in the community. With regard to the city of Joondalup, I also congratulate new Deputy Mayor John Chester, a resident of Kingsley. He is very prominent on environmental issues and is a great member of the Friends of Yellagonga. He does a great job for the people in that ward, and I am sure he will across the whole of the city. I also look forward to working more closely with them in the future as we work through and develop the Warwick sports club rooms at Hawker Park, which the mayor and I have had a number of talks about.
Over in the City of Swan there was no election because there were only two vacancies and only two stood. Maria Haynes was re-elected, and I congratulate Maria. Although she has always been endorsed for the Labor Party, I nevertheless congratulate her. I also congratulate Mel Congerton. Mel is defined as a local Ballajura resident who is characterised by great leadership and great hard work on his plan of having an aged care facility in Ballajura. He is certainly working very hard rather than just going for the photo opportunities, as his local opponents are defined by. That is good news for the City of Swan.
Finally, I would like to take the remainder of my time to talk about the City of Wanneroo. After quite a few years in the City of Wanneroo a former opponent of mine—he was the endorsed candidate for a little while—retired as mayor. He had been the endorsed Labor Party candidate in the electorate of Cowan for a few weeks. Now Tracey Roberts has been elected mayor. I congratulate Tracey. Again, it is great to see a genuine Independent running the City of Wanneroo.
Also, Norm Hewer was re-elected in the North Ward. I congratulate Norm. Bob Smithson was re-elected on Coastal Ward and Russell Driver was also elected. In Central Ward Frank Cviten has returned to the council after being out for a couple of years. It is great to see Frank back again. He is a genuine local guy in Central Ward.
In South Ward, Anh Truong, from the Vietnamese community was re-elected. Alan Blencowe was re-elected as well, along with a new councillor, Mr Denis Hayden. I know his wife, Judy, from Ballajura Primary School. He has a long history doing great welfare work in the police union. So that is all very good.
I would also like to say that even though Councillor Ian Goodenough of the City of Wanneroo was not up for re-election, he is known for his great work in the northern suburbs of Perth and in the City of Wanneroo. So I congratulate him for everything he does.
I also congratulate the City of Wanneroo for the final completion of the Ocean Reef Road. I was involved with organising $7 million from the Howard government for that. It was a bit overdue, but it is good to see it finally completed.
Carers Week
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:07): I rise to speak about the twin issues of caring and disability. It was my pleasure on 14 October to attend the launch of Carers Week, which was officially launched by the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler. It was a moving event at Parliament House, where Carers Australia President, Tim Moore, spoke about his sister Amy. Amy has struggled with mental illness since she was 17 years old and Tim spoke about her in wonderfully moving terms, and about the fact that recently Amy had the great achievement of turning 30. With the care of her family and friends she has managed to keep her demons at bay.
Tania Hayes spoke about her husband Warren who, when they were both in their early twenties, had an eight-centimetre brain tumour removed. Tania spoke about sitting by his bedside in the hospital for more than 400 days. At the end of that time she was told that the option available to him would be an aged-care home. She was not willing to accept that and took him home to be cared for at home. She taught him to eat and to talk, and now the couple has a little boy, Josh.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Jan McLucas, also spoke, as did Carers Australia CEO, Ara Creswell. The event was one of the most moving that I have attended in this building in my brief time in parliament. The issues of carers touch us all. I remember that when I was a whippersnapper at university I tutored a boy by the name of Jonathan Wilson-Fuller, best known as 'the boy in the bubble'. Jonathan is now a man of 33. He lives in Baulkham Hills, in a house with a positive internal air purification system that purifies all the air in the room seven times every hour in order to keep his allergies at bay. His parents, Yvonne and Kevin Wilson-Fuller, have sacrificed their professional careers because of the love and dedication they have for Jonathan. I pay tribute to Jonathan and to his parents. I urge all members to have a look at Jonathan's terrific book Will you please listen: I have something to say.
Judy Woolstencroft came to my electorate office on 7 October. Judy is a carer for her partner, Chris, who suffers from early onset dementia. Judy and Chris came in with Ellen Skladzien, a tireless campaigner in this area, to speak with me about the challenges faced by those with early onset dementia.
I also held a National Disability Insurance Scheme roundtable in my electorate office on 7 October. I would like to thank Simon Rosenberg, Luke Jones, Bob Buckley, Kerry Bargas, Trish and Glenn Mowbray, Susan Healy, Mary Webb, Kerrie Langford, Robert Altamore, Fiona May, Eileen Jerga, Adrian Nicholls, Christina Ryan, Brooke McKail, Sally Richards and others for attending that event. It helped me better understand the issues around a National Disability Insurance Scheme and why Australian people with disabilities and their carers so much need this scheme. That was followed by a public forum at the Belconnen Community Service building on 25 October. Daniel Kyriacou from Every Australian Counts and members of the ACT Labor Party's community services and social justice committee joined a discussion about what a NDIS means and how people can work with the campaign to bring about a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
A NDIS will not be cheap and will not be straightforward but this government is committed to doing the preparatory work to see it happen. That is complicated work with the states and territories but it is vital to resolve some of these anomalies. If you become a paraplegic in a car accident, you are more likely to get looked after than if you fall off your roof while cleaning the gutters. If you are born with a disability you often receive insufficient care. These are things that many of us in this place feel uncomfortable about. We in the Gillard government are committed to bringing about the National Disability Insurance Scheme and helping those who care for their loved ones.
Child Care
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (10:12): I rise today to again express my concern in relation to the federal government's decision to cut $12.6 million from the Take a Break program, which funds occasional care. In Victoria some 220 community centres that operate occasional care may now need to close down their programs. Thousands of parents will be affected by this and thousands of children will no longer have the opportunity to participate in an early learning environment.
There are two occasional care programs in Knox. The first is Orana Neighbourhood House's occasional care program and the second is the Coonara Community House's program in Upper Ferntree Gully, which is just outside my electorate. Both offer terrific services for young children. However, what will happen if this funding is cut? What will happen if it is not continued next year, because the funding comes to an end at the end of this year? Time is running out. It will mean that in many cases occasional care will stop altogether.
I want to take this opportunity today to provide examples of what some parents have said in relation to this decision. In the past you have heard from me, the member for Wannon and other members on this side of the chamber in terms of what this means. But I want to read out what some parents in my electorate have said in relation to the decision. Sally Mitchell from Wantirna South says:
At present, I take my 3½ year old daughter to Orana two days a week for three hours at a time. In this time, I am able to work from home as a part-time Credit Controller for my family business. Without this break, I would be unable to perform my light, but very important work duties ...
Mrs Gerardine Hickmott writes:
My reason for choosing occasional care was primarily the introduction of regular short-term separation for my child. I was new to the area, and in fact new to Australia. Without any friends or family to help out, there was no avenue to give me any relief and also any separation for my son.
A further comment is from Anu Chandra from Wantirna, who writes:
It is never going to be easy starting our son anywhere away from home. His tendency of separation anxiety was high and influenced all parts of his life—and mine.
That was 6 months ago. There were tears for weeks, but since then his confidence socially, his ability to take direction from another adult and mostly, his ability to accept and enjoy time away from me has been invaluable.
It is terrific for the kids, as the member for Wannon pointed out. Katherine Ward writes:
The Take a Break program allows local families the chance to have structured, regular break from their child in a professional stimulating childcare environment.
Myra Jowett says:
It would devastate this community to lose Orana House occasional care programs.
Finally, Julie Harris says:
I would be absolutely devastated if this was to close down due to government cutbacks. I know of many parents who feel the same.
I think these comments are indicative of the feelings of dozens and dozens of parents across my electorate and, indeed, across the state of Victoria in relation to this decision to cut funding for the Take a Break program which may lead to the loss of occasional care altogether.
I acknowledge that occasional care is jointly funded by the state and federal governments. It traditionally has been funded 30 per cent by the state government and 70 per cent by the federal government. The state government has picked up the slack on a short-term basis, but all it is asking for is that the federal government continues to maintain its share of the funding. If it does so then the state government will continue to fund its share. The coalition has committed to restoring the $12.6 million if we are elected to government, but I am concerned that that might not come fast enough. We call on the government, we plead with them, to restore the funding for occasional care.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 10:30
Bass Electorate: Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre
Mr LYONS (Bass) (10:30): I rise today to speak about an exciting new facility that I recently had the pleasure of opening in Launceston in my electorate of Bass—the the Tasmanian Polytechnic's Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre. This was a very significant project for the electorate, with the Australian Labor government committing more than $5.8 million towards its completion from the Teaching and Learning Capital Fund. The completed works will provide Tasmanian Polytechnic and Northern Tasmania with a new facility that supports trainees to become part of a highly skilled workforce of tomorrow.
The Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre is designed to meet the needs of the growing tourism and hospitality industry in Northern Tasmania. The centre will promote growth of the food industry by supporting highly trained students to take up hospitality and tourism industry jobs as well as creating a better community understanding of the link between food and wellbeing. The new training facility will be of considerable benefit to the industry as it addresses skills shortages by providing students with relevant training in a timely manner.
The new facilities at the Tasmanian Polytechnic will enhance the training capacity at this facility and will benefit over 450 students. The centre includes nods to the building's past as a jail with areas displaying the original stone wall and has excellent use of natural lighting throughout the facility in contrast to the old classrooms, which were the old LGH kitchens. There are several varieties of espresso machines for students to work on in the classroom, ensuring that they can quickly adapt to any cafe work environment. The kitchen classrooms back onto functional commercial kitchens, which are put to use every Thursday night and open to the public.
Through this project, the Tasmanian Polytechnic is better placed to support the local industry and meet the specific needs of the region. The centre is home to an eclectic mix of students from various walks of life ranging from students of St Patrick's College and Launceston Church Grammar School participating in the 'Taste of Polytechnic' or TOPS course to older students returning from the workforce in order to further their education. It is a great benefit to the community to have an organisation that meets the critical local industry and business needs.
One of my daughters, Bianca, trained in Tasmania and I have since witnessed her managing a tavern in Western Australian where she single-handedly catered for nearly 300 people with an a la carte menu. She used the skills she acquired by studying at the Tasmanian Polytechnic which are a great asset to her in her working life. This project is an excellent example of what can be achieved by governments and industry working in partnership. It is also proof of how the government's investment in VET infrastructure is helping improve training facilities across the country. As I mentioned earlier, the money for this project came from our teaching and learning capital fund. This fund provides eligible VET providers with the dollars to modernise or build new trade training centres. Over the last two years the government has invested $500 million in training and skills infrastructure projects through this fund, the $500 million being committed to community training providers that offer job-ready accreditation, vocational education and training.
Everyone deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential and make a productive contribution to society. That is why the government is committed to improving the quality of our VET sector and ensuring graduates have the skills they need to support a strong economy. That is why we have invested $3 billion in skills training initiatives in this year's budget.
It was great to be able to meet with teachers and students at the opening. They were thrilled with the new learning environment. I am sure that both teachers and students will thoroughly enjoy making the most of this facility. I have nothing but praise for the Tasmanian Polytechnic and the way it has used the funding to offer better education to the people of northern Tasmania, and I was thrilled to officially open the building. I also congratulate them on supporting the Clifford Craig Medical Research Trust and their Melbourne Cup function.
School Chaplains
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:36): The National School Chaplaincy Program is an important part of our school education system, providing vital support in an environment that places ever-increasing pressure on both students and teachers. In the lead-up to the 2010 federal election, Prime Minister Gillard promised that the program would not be secularised; yet recent government announcements on the program do exactly that. The truth of the matter is that the chaplaincy program is not a religious program. I have spoken previously in this place about chaplaincy—in particular, the journey of a teacher who transitioned into chaplaincy as she saw the importance of helping students with deeper issues.
The merits of chaplaincy have not changed. Yet it was February when I last spoke about this issue and now we are in November and the question mark still remains. Tim Mander, probably better known as an NRL referee but, more importantly, the CEO of Scripture Union Queensland, has estimated that, should funding of the school chaplaincy program be cut, up to half of school chaplains would be lost overnight. There are more than 500 'chappies' operating in 600 state schools across my home state of Queensland, and the initiative is strongly supported by parents, teachers and students alike. As of August this year, Mr Mander had already received 30,000 statements of support for the chaplaincy program, and hearing the stories of students who are currently benefiting and have benefited from chaplaincy programs in our schools makes it easy to see why chaplaincy contributes so much to society.
Chaplaincy and pastoral care have long been adopted and accepted by schools and the wider community as services that transcend religion. They provide support and lend a listening ear to students in need. We all went through high school; we all know the troubles we faced then. But there are a myriad of further pressures placed on students today. Furthermore, more and more is being expected of teachers, who are already overworked. Chaplains provide an extra service in our schools to help deal with these pressures and have the opportunity to support students with deeper issues.
Chaplains have a distinct and defined role, and it is such an important one: they are there to provide comfort and support at a critical time in a child's life. It is far better and more effective to have resources in our schools to try to address youth issues when they are prevalent and to have programs in place to prevent larger problems and more serious ones from developing. Let us not be short-sighted. Remember: the right help at a crucial moment in a child's or teenager's life can prevent a lifetime of problems which can be much more costly to our society in the long term. Furthermore, chaplaincy is not limited to schools. Chaplains have long held roles with emergency service organisations, defence forces, hospitals and professional sporting teams. The notion of pastoral care for development of a young person is highly valued by our community, with schools and university residential colleges in particular proudly promoting this service as a benefit of their institution. It is also important to note that the national chaplaincy program is optional for schools and that federal funding is only $20,000 per school. That is not enough to fund a chaplain. Therefore, a great deal of support for a chaplain in a school must come from the community, as only approximately two-thirds are covered by the government. This has led to a type of government-community partnership for local chaplains and has provided a great deal of community cohesion around the chaplaincy program. From this, it is easy to see why in 2009 a national survey noted that 98 per cent of responding school principals who had a chaplain on campus said that they wanted their program to continue.
Chaplains provide a vital support service at a time when mental health issues are causing huge concerns around Australia. While suicide contributes to just 1.5 per cent of deaths in Australia, it is disproportionately high in our youth. In 2009, 24 per cent of male deaths of those aged 15 to 24 were suicide. This statistic is heartbreaking and it is a worrying sign that we are failing our youth—the future of our nation.
School chaplaincy testimonials from students around the country have attributed chappies to helping them to beat their demons and to grow into the successful, contributing and, most importantly, happy young people that they are today. I have heard their stories and I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my ongoing support for chaplaincy services.
Qantas
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:41): I want to associate myself with the comments of the member for Ryan. I too am a very great supporter of school chaplaincy and I am very familiar with the very good work that they do in my electorate. I also want to speak about the current Qantas dispute and to preface my comments by saying that Melbourne Airport is located in my seat of Calwell. It is the largest employer in my electorate, and any disruption to employment emanating from industrial action or job losses at Melbourne Airport has an immediate and significant impact on my constituents and their families.
Many of my constituents are currently employed at Qantas, and their futures are very much at stake in this dispute. In a letter sent to Qantas employees yesterday, CEO Allan Joyce, when referring to the three unions involved in the dispute, said:
Throughout the negotiations these unions have made demands that we cannot agree to, because they are unrealistic and unsustainable demands that would cost jobs across the company and threaten the survival of Qantas.
Mr Joyce is desperate to pin the blame on his workers for threatening Qantas's survival and to alleviate himself of his responsibility to protect Qantas's future.
For the record, I want to mention some of the things my constituents, Mr Joyce's workers, think of the situation currently at Qantas. They include workers who at no stage took any form of industrial action. They speak of a boys club running Qantas without transparency. They speak of a lack of investment in tools and training that would be adequate to maintain the engineering and maintenance capacity of Qantas planes here in Australia. They speak of a lack of job security and the deliberately opaque manner in which the company is being managed. They say that it is so opaque that, by stealth, Mr Joyce and his boys club presented Australia with the grounding of the airline last weekend as a fait accompli.
The Qantas workforce is proud of the Qantas brand, because generations of Australian workers have built that brand. Mr Joyce is, for all intents and purposes, a Johnny-come-lately—a here today, gone tomorrow CEO reaping the rewards of excessive executive pay packets. As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport aptly put it:
This is a service industry that relies upon its workforce and the relationship with its workforce to deliver good, positive service on the ground. You do not get met by Allan Joyce when you book into a Qantas flight. When you sit on the flight you do not get served by Allan Joyce and the plane is not fixed and made safe by Allan Joyce.
A $3 million pay rise, amounting to a $5 million annual salary, seems obscene to most Australians, especially when compared with workers' salaries. While workers are condemned for wanting progression on their entitlements, Mr Joyce delivers himself a 71 per cent increase in his pay package. That is more than 62 times the average wage of the very same Qantas cabin crew members he shut the doors on last weekend. After scoring his cash grab—and my constituents and many Australians see it as a cash grab—Mr Joyce proceeded, as we have learnt and as we experienced, to lock out his workers without warning, without notice and, above all other considerations, disrupting the Australian economy and the Australian travelling public. While the government has acted in the national interest, it has to be said that the opposition have very much supported Mr Joyce's actions without any condemnation. The opposition speak of unions as some evil entity, ignoring the fact that unions have working memberships that keep the engine of our economy running. The extreme actions of the executive board and the militancy of the management that is running the airline not as it should be—not as an Australian asset vital to our airline industry and vital to workers and vital to tourism but as a boys club—seem to have escaped the condemnation of the opposition. For all their rhetoric, the opposition do not really value a productive economy that includes the rights of workers in a developing industry. This is not surprising given the opposition's record on industrial relations. This is the party of Work Choices, which was resoundingly defeated in the 2007 election by Australian working men and women who were not going to cop an attack on their right to better wages and better working conditions. So, in refusing to condemn Qantas for its action, the opposition prove that in reality they do not understand the hopes and aspirations of working Australians, and the Qantas workers in my electorate have a right to expect support from their political leaders. (Time expired)
Woodlawn Bioreactor
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (10:46): Last week I had the pleasure of touring the Woodlawn Bioreactor facility at Tarago, just a 1½-hour drive from Nowra or three-quarters of an hour from Canberra. It is operated by Veolia Environmental Services, which runs the Veolia Environmental Trust, a philanthropic interest that provides funding grants for projects that assist the environment. For instance, the Veolia Mulwaree Trust funded $5,883 towards a water tank and creating vegetable gardens at the Crookwell Preschool. They also contributed $17-odd thousand towards the cost of installing a new kitchen in the Breadalbane hall. I was delighted to learn that the Sussex Inlet Men's Shed, in my electorate of Gilmore, had also received a grant of $8½ thousand for a project to provide a loan pool of equipment to support cancer patients, and there was a contribution as well as to the Milton-Ulladulla Preschool.
There are copious other examples of Veolia's generosity but I would be safe in describing the organisation as a responsible corporate citizen. Veolia has over 30 years of industry experience in implementing effective, innovative and sustainable waste management and Woodlawn provides what I would describe as a contemporary role model for the industry—which is why I took along my staff, who could see firsthand, and gain an appreciation of, what an effective and comprehensive system the Woodlawn operation is. The Woodlawn Bioreactor and its support transfer infrastructure in Sydney is a $120 million investment developed to generate renewable electricity from general waste materials. The plant takes municipal waste from the Sydney metropolitan area and is the largest bioreactor landfill of its type in the world. The Woodlawn Bioreactor is differentiated from normal landfills by the investment in purpose-built infrastructure to break down the waste material rapidly and to enhance the collection of gas for production of power. The site has been visited by a number of eminent international experts in the field of organic conversion and has won a number of industry awards. To date the landfill has offset just under 200,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent, from the destruction of methane gas, which is equivalent to almost 50,000 cars being taken off Australia's roads.
Despite these real environmental wins, and the investment in the facility, Woodlawn will shortly have to address the requirements of the Carbon Price Mechanism, CPM, and all it entails. For the landfill sector, this scheme is an extremely clumsy mechanism—as the emissions for landfill occur into the future for up to 50 years in some cases—making the measurement of gas emissions difficult. Veolia and many other landfill owners have long been advocates for a direct action approach, such as provided under the Carbon Farming Initiative, that credits the environmental improvements achieved at each site in preference to the penalty approach adopted by the CPM. Unfortunately, with landfills being covered by the CPM, site operators will be exposed to the complexities of the modelling of these long-term emissions and the commercial risks that may result from modelling irregularities. With a carbon price of $30 tonne on waste received in the first year and current annual emissions of just under 150,000 tonnes per year, even a small error in modelling could have serious commercial consequences for some companies. The technical difficulty of measuring emissions is a stumbling block to a fair and equitable CPM for the landfill sector. This issue, and the uncertainty over carbon price into the future are likely to create a multitude of unintended consequences when it is rolled out next year.
The waste market is but two per cent of Australia's emissions, and yet the government has insisted on covering the waste sector under the CPM when coverage of all waste under the CFI would create the same abatement without any of the uncertainties created by modelling. It is somewhat premature to cover the sector under the CPM if one cannot measure what one is trying to tax. A company that has been doing the right thing for the environment, long before the idiocy of the carbon tax was dreamed up, is now going to be the victim of a double jeopardy. There is no relief for them because they are among the top 500 carbon dioxide emitters targeted. It is more than an irony; it is a travesty and the blame for this must be laid squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister, who promised there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. You just cannot believe this government.
Coal Seam Gas
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:50): This week the parliament is seized of a package of bills which gives us the opportunity to revisit the way we are managing our natural resource bounty. The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill and associated bills are all about ensuring that we manage our natural resources in a way that provides benefit to all Australians, not just those who happen to be working in or involved with the minerals and mining industry but all Australians, now and into the future.
The nature of this debate has also brought with it a focus on how we deal with the future exploitation of coal seam gas. I know this is of interest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, as it is to many people in my electorate of Throsby and within the broader Illawarra region. Coal seam gas is a naturally occurring methane gas in and around coal seams. It is produced by drilling a well into a coal seam and allowing the release of that naturally occurring gas. Sometimes that release is induced by reducing the water pressure and using a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Coal seam gas is not a new industry. We have been exploiting coal seam gas for close on 30 years. There has been commercial exploitation of methane gas in coal mines around the Illawarra for over 20 years. However, the rapid pace at which coal seam gas is being exploited, particularly in your home state, Madam Deputy Speaker, has given rise to many concerns, and the prospect that it will be further expanded in my electorate and in the broader Illawarra region has given rise to even greater concern. I was a supporter of a recent community gathering where several thousand people gathered in the northern Illawarra to express their concern about the exploitation of coal seam gas reserves in the Illawarra region.
Coalmining has been at the centre of economic development and jobs growth in the Illawarra region for well over 100 years, so it is not as though the local residents are opposed to coalmining—they simply are not—but we are concerned that the coal seam gas industry be developed in a way that does not damage irreparably our water tables and so cause damage to other parts of the natural environment. The rapid development of this industry and the coal industry in general is bringing into sharp relief competition around land-use strategies. State governments of all political persuasions are going to have to do a far better job than they have done in the recent past. They simply cannot kick this can down the road, and we are going to have to intervene to ensure that we are exploiting our natural resources in a way that does not damage irreparably our natural environment and that we still have land set aside for agricultural purposes well into the future.
Mr Tehan: Have a talk to state Labor.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I would be very interested to hear some of the solutions proposed by those opposite. They would be as aware as people in my electorate that coal seam gas cannot be wished away. It currently provides around 30 per cent of natural gas supplies for eastern Australia. For those members representing electorates in and around South-East Queensland, around 90 per cent of the natural gas supply for Brisbane and surrounding areas comes from coal seam gas. It is the concern of people in my electorate that, as we exploit these natural resources, as we continue to look for ways of abating methane gas within coalmines around the Illawarra region and as we look for new and alternative less carbon intensive sources of energy, we do it in a way that manages both the energy security interests and the land use interests. I look forward to engaging in this debate on behalf of the constituents that I represent in the electorate of Throsby.
Rowe, Mr Louis
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:55): Today I rise to talk about Louis Rowe, a young Australian who I met recently. I feel his story must be told. I will continue to update parliament on his story while I am still in this place. The information I am giving you has come from Louis's website and from my discussions with him. Louis began primary school at St Joseph's in Warrnambool in Australia in 1990. After year 6 he graduated to Emmanuel College in 1997. After two years at Emmanuel, Louis attended St Patrick's College as a boarder. Sadly, boarding was phased out there so Louis entered Xavier College at Kew in Victoria in 2000, where he completed years 10, 11 and 12. Footy was the sport that Louis loved and played during the winter. The boarders had quite a strong team in the school league. Louis was accepted to the Australian Catholic University.
On 26 January 2007 Louis and three of his best mates from school days embarked on a well-planned trip to Thailand. The boys had purchased the appropriate travel insurance. The day they arrived in Phuket they found some accommodation, where they spent three days. Then they got on a ferry to the island of Ko Samui. The next day they decided they would hire some scooters to check out the whole island and rented them through the hotel. They offered their Australian drivers licences but were just asked to sign a waiver and hand over their passports. There were no questions asked. They were away.
Louis was cut off by a car that lost control and he fell off his scooter. At the Ko Samui Hospital they found his injuries included a damaged spinal cord. The message from Louis on this is do not hire a motor vehicle of any sort unless you have the appropriate licence and check your insurance contracts.
Louis lost the use of his lower body and was told by a Victorian hospital that there was nothing that could be done for him. On 11 March 2008 Louis went to India to try some stem cell treatment with Dr Shroff, who featured in a 60 Minutes program with Sonya Smith from Brisbane. Louis was away for nine weeks. Sonya is a young mother of two and had the same complete cut spinal injury as Louis. She is now standing with the aid of callipers and slowly walking with aids. She is improving daily.
Louis has returned to India a few times and he has steadily improved. The treatment he has been having is human embryonic stem cell, HESC, therapy, which is changing the face of modern medicine as we know it. Dr Geeta Shroff has developed the technology to isolate human embryonic stem cells, culture them, prepare them for clinical application and store them in a ready to use form with a shelf life of six months.
Further, this technology is being used clinically to treat patients suffering from various conditions all presently characterised as incurable—spinal cord injury, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, cardiac conditions and many more. In more than five years of clinical applications in over 500 patients the results are nothing short of astounding. Patients paralysed from the neck downwards have resumed function of their arms and are taking steps and diabetics on high doses of insulin are now leading lives insulin free.
Dr Geeta Shroff has developed the only purely human embryonic stem cell lines that do not show any immune reaction in the body. Embryonic stem cells do not have any antigenic proteins on their surface and thus do not require immunosuppressant drugs. Dr Shroff's technology involved the use of just one embryo. During her laboratory research she only used surplus embryos from an IVF donor who underwent a barrage of tests, including a complex medical history and genetic history.
In conclusion, Louis left the Talbot Rehabilitation Centre in Melbourne unable to stand and feel anything below his waist. They trained him to manage life in a wheelchair and offered no other hope. Today Louis Rowe can walk slowly but surely. He can stand for at least two hours at a time. When he stands he can feel the pressure on the soles of his feet. Louis can swim the length of a pool. He can lie on his side and lift his leg from the hip and move it back and forward from the knee down. He is able to slightly wriggle the toes of his left foot. Every day he regains more feeling in his feet and his legs. One of the most successful results is that Louis can now use his bladder. He has that control.
Louis, God bless you. I know you are listening. I wish you all the best in the future with the treatment. It is unfortunate that young Australians such as Louis have to leave our shores and travel to countries overseas to get treatment that should be available in Australia. As the Australian community look at the number of people who do travel overseas to get that type of medical treatment, it is something we should put on the agenda and start talking about again. I wish Louis all the best. Another constituent of mine, Allison Somers of Lynwood, is going through the same problems in getting the correct cancer treatment in Australia due to the delay by TGA—another issue that has been raised.
Learn Earn Legend! Program
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (11:00): I am very grateful to have a chance to speak on a special program that I participated in recently. A few weeks ago, under the Learn Earn Legend! program, about 100 Indigenous students from all over Australia had an opportunity to spend a week in Canberra undertaking work experience in parliament and in other jobs related to government. Under the program, the students had an induction to the workplace and they got to see what staff work on and the practical aspects of working here, with the staff discussing with the students their understanding of the political system and any aspirations that they might have. They accompanied me and people from my office to observe scheduled events for parliamentarians. You could also organise a lunch. In my case, we had a great afternoon tea. They observed a range of work activities and also talked within the office about what is involved in the role.
Learn Earn Legend! is clearly a great program. It encourages and supports young Indigenous Australians to stay at school and to get employment. The theme of the program is to be a legend for themselves, their families and their communities. I had the great pleasure of having in my office a year 11 student from Nyngan High School, from Nyngan in New South Wales—Demi Jeffery, from the Wongaibon tribe. She said:
The program is great and allows me along with other students to experience life as a parliamentarian and it's a fantastic way to meet new people and make new friends.
I believe it was a fantastic experience for the young Indigenous students, encouraging them to continue in school and strive for the job that they dream about. Most of the students were excited about the well-known ambassadors: NRL Titans star Scott Prince and tennis legend Evonne Goolagong. Not only are they both proud Aboriginal people but they are also role models for the students. Even though they were only with the students for a short time, the experience impacted on the students and drummed into them that they should always follow their dreams.
Demi undertook a range of tasks such as writing speeches and touring Parliament House. She got to sit through question time and was lucky enough to go on the floor of the Senate. Demi informed us that the highlight of her time with us was the tour of Parliament House, when she was able to go onto the Senate floor. I hope that this has given Demi one of the most rewarding life experiences that she has had, being able to work at Parliament House. It was certainly a terrific experience for me to host someone who has such a great deal to offer and a lot of dreams that she wants to follow, particularly recognising the importance of education in her life. I reckon she gained a great understanding of life in parliament and, as I said, it was a pleasure to host someone as mature, thoughtful and engaging as Demi. I hope to see this program continue to run and help close the gap for Aboriginal people.
Men's Sheds
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:03): This week I had the pleasure of attending the Parliamentary Friends of Men's Sheds Group function, where we took the opportunity to meet with delegates from all around Australia who had come to raise the profile of the Men's Sheds organisation in this country and share some of the wonderful stories not only of achievements in their own communities but of how they are helping a sector of the market. The Parliamentary Friends of Men's Sheds Group is co-hosted by Mark Coulton and Chris Hayes. Chris was here in the chamber before and I acknowledge the great work that he does.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:04 to 11:16
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Representatives in the room were from each of the states around Australia. Each give their time voluntarily to an organisation. They were accompanied by the executive assistant manager, Melissa White, who does a great job in coordinating each of the requests of Men's Sheds from around Australia. Some of the activities that Men's Sheds, such a worthy organisation, contribute to in the community are restoring furniture, where they turn up legs of chairs that are donated to them and then give them to organisations. They will fix pushbikes for children from lower socioeconomic homes or that are found at the dump. I am aware of one Men's Sheds organisation that is taking the wheels off pushbikes, making up makeshift wheelchairs and exporting them to Fiji and those countries where wheelchairs are scarce. They fix lawnmowers for older people and for those who do not have the capacity to get that done by other means.
Often in a Men's Sheds room you will a see coffee table, which symbolises the ethos of Men's Sheds, which is sharing communication and sharing those problems you may not have anyone else to share them with. I hear from my electorate the wives are extremely happy with Men's Sheds because it gets the old boy out of the house for a couple of hours in the day and takes stress off relationships. The wives are very happy that the Men's Sheds organisation exists. The men also learn about good health. I know of some in my area that have learned additional computer skills. That may sound blasé, but one of the great things about elderly gentlemen learning how to use a computer and, in particular, how to use email is that it allows them to re-engage via Facebook and email with family, siblings or children they may have lost contact with over the years.
Currently, there are about 600 Men's Sheds in Australia. The organisation is forecasting that will grow to about 1,200 over the next 12 months to two years. In my area of Wright, I am very proud to say that I have no fewer than four Men's Sheds. There is one at Gatton, which did a magnificent job during the floods when many pumps, tractors and pieces of mechanical equipment were inundated with water. The Men's Shed have taken on the role of receiving that equipment, going through it, changing the filters and redoing the motors at their own expense, and then donating them back. They are donating their time and then giving the equipment back so that that part of the horticultural sector is able to get back on its feet.
A couple of weeks ago Boonah Men's Shed had a sausage sizzle outside the Mitre 10, raising the profile of their organisation and trying to attract new numbers. I was lucky enough to be in a situation to help them out financially so that they were able to attend the national conference. Beaudesert Men's Shed is also very active in the community. They are currently making toys for Christmas gifts. There is also a Men's Shed at Mount Tamborine, up on the hill. Each of my Men's Sheds is at a vastly different stage of development. At the moment the one at Mount Tamborine, which I had the opportunity to speak to on the phone a couple of times, has limited resources—only a shipping container. As I alluded to, it is at a totally different stage of its development. Age is no barrier to entering the Men's Shed. I encourage each of the members in this House to get behind their Men's Sheds in their areas and develop them, as they are a worthwhile cause.
Werriwa Electorate: Glenquarie Anglican Church
Werriwa Electorate: Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections
Lawn Bowls
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:21): I associate myself with the comments of the member for Wright, who spoke previously. I was also present at that launch earlier this week. Coincidentally, last week I was at the Glenquarie Anglican Church property, where a Men's Shed opening occurred. That has been funded, to some degree, by the previous state government. It was pleasing to see on the premises Dr Andrew McDonald, who played a role in that. The Anglican Church in that suburb is particularly active and runs a number of other programs, such as a breakfast facility. In conjunction with TAFE, it also trains people in horticulture and cooking. Once again I say that I associate myself with the previous member's positive comments about Men's Sheds. On that front, I particularly recognise the Reverend Swanepoel, who in recent years has been the driving force in regard to those matters.
More importantly, today I talk about the Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections group. It stems from a foundation from 20 years ago, the Liverpool Neighbourhood Centre. At the recent relaunch of the Cumberland Newspapers in my region, I met the coordinator, Pat Hall. It is worth putting on the public record the efforts of that particular organisation. It currently runs 65 programs and employs 18 people. During our conversation, Pat Hall particularly thanked the federal government for the stimulus money that went into its operation and which has now allowed it to run far more classes, seminars and training sessions for our region.
In a sense, this centre works in three federal electorates, Hughes, Werriwa and Fowler, because the area of Liverpool City Council is spread between those electorates. Amongst the programs conducted in my electorate are the Right Side of Fifties seniors group, playgroups, the ROSES weight management group, Homework Help, and beginners TAFE outreach computer classes, all at the George Bates Hall in Lurnea. The other facility utilised in the federal electorate of Werriwa is the Casula community centre in Ingham Drive. The programs conducted there are tai chi, Active Over 50s, the Active Mums group and the Casula Seniors Group. Those suburbs are both somewhat distant from the major CBD of Liverpool. Despite reasonable public transport, it is very praiseworthy that the group is holding these operations at those particular centres. The group also runs a social enterprise coffee shop. It is particularly active around the socially deprived suburb of Warwick Farm. For those who are not familiar with it, that is where one of Sydney's major racecourses is. It is not in my electorate, but it is worth noting that they do very praiseworthy work in that particular suburb.
On the broader front—outside my electorate—they conduct a number of other programs. There is HeartSmart, for women in particular because of the high prevalence of death from heart disease in women. The Sydney South West Health Area conducts women's health clinics with them. They run transcultural counselling and, with the Salvation Army, counselling of a generalist nature. Lifeline is on the local front, working with financial counselling for the area, and a chiropractor is also available. So the 18 staff do indeed operate a variety of programs. Last year's figures indicate that over 23,000 people throughout the municipality of Liverpool were assisted.
I will briefly refer also to the decision of the ABC to scrap its bowls program. I have been in correspondence, as would have been many other members on both sides of parliament, in regard to this decision. There have been estimates that over 300,000 Australians watch this program every weekend and more watch at peak periods: in the area of 470,000 people watched the Moama International test series. A petition has been circulating amongst clubs. The demographic of those playing the game is over 60 years of age. Despite commercial challenges to some clubs, it is still a popular pastime. I know from personal discussions with people who do not even play bowls that this program is watched widely. I do not for a moment condemn the ABC's decision to switch to women's sport and to some other alternatives, but, quite frankly, I question its claim that its dollars cannot stretch to cover a sport with so much support in this country. I note Ingleburn Bowling Club's work on this issue. It was established in 1952 with 2,000 players. It is one of many clubs in this country that are very concerned with this decision by ABC management which should be revisited.
Gippsland Electorate: Wetland Rehabilitation Project
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (11:26): I rise to commend a wetland rehabilitation project that is underway in my community at the Heart Morass near Sale. I recently had the opportunity to inspect the Heart Morass project at the invitation of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority. This is an outstanding example of practical environmental work involving a vast array of community organisations, including the West Gippsland CMA; Field and Game Australia, through its WET Trust; the Hugh DT Williamson Foundation and its Bug Blitz program; and also Watermark, which is a group of concerned local residents that was formed about 10 to 15 years ago and which is interested in protecting and enhancing the Gippsland Lakes catchment.
The WET Trust and the Williamson foundation contributed the bulk of the $1.1 million used to purchase private land in 2006, which was the first stage of the restoration project. The project was formally launched in 2007. As I said, this is a great example of a community driven initiative. This was not government funding; the main funds came from philanthropic sources and also through a user group, Field and Game Australia. They were able to purchase some previously degraded farmland on the shores of the La Trobe River near the mouth of Lake Wellington and rehabilitate that to become a thriving wetland. The weather gods, I must confess, have been very kind. In the ensuing four years we have had a return to more normal seasons in the Gippsland area, so with the addition of some environmental flows of fresh water into the new wetland system the growth over the four-year period has been quite spectacular. We have seen bird species return to the Heart Morass, and there is a great sense of energy, enthusiasm and passion for the future amongst the groups that are involved in this outstanding project.
As I indicated, the partners in the project have come from quite diverse backgrounds, which reflects the opportunity for multiple use of environmental assets such as this outstanding natural asset. To really value a wetland like this you need to give people the opportunity to get out there and enjoy it, to walk in it, you should not just lock it up and leave it. There are hunters who are very interested in a sustainable and conservation based approach to the wetlands to make sure that their sport can continue into the future. They are very committed environmentalists in their own right and they obviously have a vested interest in ensuring that their sport has a future for future generations. There are also bird watchers and bushwalkers who are interested in enjoying those natural environs and appreciating the great natural beauty of the La Trobe River and the wetland area as it meanders its way down towards the Gippsland Lakes. Of course, there are also the natural resource managers, the West Gippsland CMA, who see real value in the capacity of the wetland to strip away some of the nutrients that would otherwise have ended up in the Gippsland Lakes system and be a source of future algal blooms.
This is a great example of a wetland project that has rehabilitated land that was very marginal at best and that is being actively managed. The community is really engaged in the project and understands how viable and vibrant a wetland can be. The classic example of how the community has engaged in this project is that from the day the contracts to purchase the land were signed they were able to get large earthmoving equipment on the site free of charge from people who were interested in the project. About $1½ million worth of earthmoving equipment was there on the first day of the project to start the process.
In terms of the project's future, what we have seen in the past few years has been outstanding, but there is a lot more work to be done. I believe there are opportunities here for governments to partner with community organisations. The community has shown the way by purchasing this marginal agricultural land and rehabilitating it, but there are opportunities for state and federal governments to take part in future land buybacks. I have written to both state and federal ministers in the past about opportunities to look at some of this degraded land, which is marginal at best. There are landholders down there who understand it is salt-affected land which probably should not have been drained in the first place and may have no real future as viable agricultural land. They are interested in buybacks and ways they can retire from the land in a dignified way. When I wrote to the ministers in 2009, the former environment minister indicated that the Caring for our Country program does consider land purchases. I intend to work with my community, to work with the groups which already have runs on the board on this project, to look at ways the federal government can make a contribution in the future. As I said, these groups have runs on the board and are already doing an outstanding job in the Gippsland community. I encourage both state and federal ministers, if they are in Gippsland, to take the time to come down to Heart Morass to see what my community has been doing. It is a project of national significance which is happening at a very local scale and has great potential to be expanded to other parts of our region. This is now an outstanding national asset which will benefit the entire community and also will help to restore the Gippsland Lakes and biodiversity which we value so highly.
There are educational opportunities with this project. The Williamson Foundation, with its Bug Blitz program, has been involved with bringing hundreds of school children together to learn in an outdoor classroom, to get a better appreciation of wetlands and how it all fits together in that package. So I commend the Heart Morass wetland project. It is a model of community partnerships and practical environmental work. I commend all the individuals and organisations involved. (Time expired)
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:31): Today I rise to report to the House on the great work being undertaken by the Cabramatta Community Centre throughout my electorate in the south-west of Sydney. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the 32nd annual general meeting of the Cabramatta Community Centre and also to speak at the farewell of the CEO, Jan Collie.
The Cabramatta Community Centre—or 'CCC', as it is affectionately known—is the hub of local activity. It provides many services and programs to the elderly, the young, children, women, Indigenous Australians, migrants and newly arrived refugees. It also advocates on behalf of individuals and groups, particularly those which are socially marginalised. It has recently participated in International Women's Day, equal pay rallies, Youth Week and Refugee Week, all of which I have spoken about in this parliament over the past few months. CCC also participates in White Ribbon Day. As a White Ribbon ambassador, I am very proud to work closely with the centre to help put an end to violence against women.
The centre employs over 250 staff members in the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre, Cabramatta Youth Team, The Heights Community Services, Multicultural Community Care Services, the CCC Preschool and the Fairfield Area Home Modification and Maintenance Outreach Service. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of all the staff members and volunteers at the centre, who do an excellent job on a day-to-day basis. Among them, can I pay tribute to executive committee members President Julio Gruttulini and Treasurer Edna Peceros, whom have I befriended over the past year, and Adrian Wong, who works for me and has been a volunteer for CCC over many years. Other executive members include Catherine Cranny, Gary Cachia, Dorothy Cole and Holly O'Donnell. I also pay tribute to the managers of the different services and projects, among them Barbara Hillman, Ricci Bartels, Clement Meru, Dr Simon Emsley, Estela Torredimare, Juana Reinoso, Danh Dang, Gary Lee, Debra Rose and Suji Upasena. I thank them very much for helping residents in my community to find solutions to their difficulties and assisting them in any way they can. Their work is totally admirable.
At the AGM, the new Youth Sponsorship Program was also launched by Adrian Wong on behalf of the Cabramatta Community Centre Youth Team. This new initiative will allow young people to apply for financial support and assistance with their activities.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the CEO, Jan Collie, who is retiring at the end of this year. I congratulate her on the passion, dedication and commitment she has shown, and the long service she has given to her local community where she has served at the Cabramatta Community Centre since February 1985. She has held many positions over that period but she has guided the Cabramatta Community Centre for an extended period of time and we are all deeply indebted to her commitment. It is indeed a great honour to have people like Jan who are only too willing to devote so much of their time in helping disadvantaged residents and ensuring that they enjoy the life and opportunities experienced by other Australians.
Jan is leaving the centre in a very strong and vibrant position. You may be interested also to know that, apart from her own attributes and what she has brought to the community, Jan is actually the sister of Jon English, one of the most famous rock singers we have. We claim him to be Australian but I think both of them actually came from the Old Dart.
I would like to personally thank Jan and many others like her for their hard work in furthering the interests of people through delivering quality services in south-west Sydney. Multiculturalism in Australia is about building a shared sense of nationhood forged through mutual respect, common values and commitment to fairness. This did not happen by chance in south-west Sydney; it happened through the commitment of places such as the Cabramatta Community Centre and people such as Jan Collie who worked hard to achieve this. This is a tribute to their hard work, and their respect for others, in helping others to work together as a community.
Australian Industry
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (11:36): Governments and public servants in this country must give Australian industry a fair go. A recent disturbing example is that of Victoria Police's recent decision to lock out Australian manufacturers from a contract worth almost $1 million to supply police uniforms—uniforms that, I am told, could have been produced in Australia at a significantly cheaper price and of superior quality. When government departments sneakily gift government contracts to foreign companies and seek exemption to prevent open competition and lock out local firms, there are many questions that need to be answered.
This was a decision made by the bureaucracy and trying to get answers out of them was like hitting your head against a brick wall. I did try to get answers from the minister's office. I am sure he shares my recollection that his office would provide full answers to my queries about why and how the police shirt tender was secretly given to a foreign company without an option for locals to tender. Just as I criticised the federal Labor Party for awarding contracts that facilitated Australia's Defence Force camouflage fabric to be made overseas, so too I am concerned about this particular government tender. I had no option but to pursue answers through the FOI process.
As the shadow minister for industry, I have been fighting to give Australian industry a fair go, to cut regulation, to stop the carbon tax and to apply the same standards to foreign companies as we apply to Australian companies. Although governments cannot control the state of their economy, government actions can severely affect Australian business. Government procurement is a significant area where governments can put into practice what they preach—that is, operate in an open market with equal access and fair competition. The bureaucracy is there to serve the people and the parliament is the voice of the people. Policy cannot and should not be dictated to by the bureaucrats. There are clear and inherent problems with the procurement processes within Victoria Police that I believe only a political solution will solve.
Suspicions were raised that something was not quite right when my FOI request arrived some 20 days after Victoria Police's own deadline as stated in their own FOI policy. The delay was blamed on the basis that they were seeking legal advice, but 64 days seems like a long time to seek legal advice. The response is deficient and raises more questions than it answers. Some statements made in the certificate to exempt Victoria Police from standard procurement processes are questionable, some are inaccurate and some are just plain wrong. For example, why did Victoria Police procurement inform local manufacturers Bruck Textiles on or about 5 July that there were no contracts for the interim supply of shirts, when a certificate of exemption was sought and approved on 15 April, almost three months earlier? Victoria Police say the rationale for bypassing an open tender was: 'presence of supplier or supplies with a particular product or highly specialised skills.' This is an absolutely extraordinary claim for Victoria Police to make. It implies that there are no fabric or garment companies in Australia who could achieve the same quality or service as an offshore equivalent. Is it honestly the opinion of Victoria Police that no other company in Australia can manufacture fabric and garments of the quality of a Chinese manufacturer?
On what basis have Victoria Police made this statement? If they honestly believe this is the case then they have nothing to fear from an open tender process. Victoria Police stated that the company chosen for the contract currently manufactures and supplies Yakka who, in turn, undertake the offshore manufacturing of shirts for the police. I am informed that Yakka have never used fabrics supplied by this company to manufacture shirts for Victoria Police. If this is the case then the whole basis of Victoria Police's rationale is an untruth. This is incredibly concerning and I will be taking this matter further.
It was just two years ago that the Victorian Ombudsman found a lack of oversight, controls and due process in Victoria Police's tendering and contracting. The report also found significant conflicts of interest, confusion over public service discipline and questionable investigative methods. Of course, this was under the previous state Labor government. There is a clear history of dysfunction within Victoria Police's tendering and contracting. This dysfunction can only be remedied by political action. Nothing less is acceptable to Australian industry because it is time for politicians and not bureaucrats to run the show.
Glendi Greek Festival
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (11:40): I rise today to acknowledge and talk about a particular event that has been taking place in South Australia now since 1977—originally it started in my electorate at the Thebarton Oval—and that is the Glendi Greek Festival. I was very pleased to attend, representing the Prime Minister, last Saturday, 29 October. The Glendi Greek Festival is a two-day event and it is one of the largest multicultural festivals in South Australia or even the country. When I was previously involved on their committee—and I was on the committee for nearly 15 years—we used to get attendances of up to 100,000 people over the two-day weekend. It was and still is a festival that attracts South Australians from all walks of life.
I was at the opening and, as I said, delivered the Prime Minister's speech. I was also accompanied by the Consul-General of the Hellenic Republic, Mr Christos Maniakis-Grivas. Premier Jay Weatherill was there and delivered a speech. In fact, his speech got a very loud applause when he said that the marbles should be returned to Greece. The crowd erupted into cheers when he made that statement. Also in attendance was the Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, Hieu Van Le, and my parliamentary colleagues Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, Tom Koutsantonis, who is the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, and Jennifer Rankine, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs.
It is an event that has been held for many, many years. It is actually a project of the Hellenic Lions Club in South Australia and all the profits that are made from this two-day event go to charity. There are many volunteers who have been involved with the Hellenic Lions Club for many years. Pat Taylor, who is one of the powerhouses of the Hellenic Lions Club, has been involved for many years. Peter Luka and Anastasia Potiris are people who have put in an enormous number of hours of volunteer work to ensure that they run the Hellenic Lions Club but also this particular festival, which is one of the great festivals of South Australia. The chair of the Glendi Greek Festival, Mr John Chefalakis, and Mr Ladas, who is the convenor of the coordinating committee, also put in long hours to make sure that this is a great success.
This year there was a new venue. It was held at the Wayville showgrounds. It was under cover, which meant that we were not at the mercy of the extremes of the weather. I have seen many Glendi festivals over the years where there have been storms or it has been really hot, which is a bit of a displeasure for the people attending. But this way ensured that, regardless of the weather, people were very comfortable inside. When I was up on stage giving my speech there would have been at least 5,000 or 6,000 people in the crowd from what I could see, so it attracted quite a few people. The MC for most of the weekend was George Kapiniaris, a very good actor and comedian that many of us know. He kept us entertained during the weekend. It was an excellent festival this year, with local acts and acts from Greece as well.
It also coincided with a very important and significant date on the Greek calendar, 28 October. It is known as Oxi Day in Greece, or 'No' Day, commemorating when the then Greek Prime Minister in 1940 was given an ultimatum to allow Axis forces in through the country and declared no—and so war was declared on Greece. It was important also to acknowledge this event during the weekend. There were many speeches about that as well.
The Glendi Greek Festival is an opportunity for South Australia's Greek community to showcase their culture, their wonderful foods and their beautiful dancing. The Messinian, Limnos and Pontian dance groups entertained us. They enthralled us after the opening event. I congratulate all the people who have ensured for 34-odd years that this festival has taken place. Arthur Kondopoulos was there as well. He was one of the founding board members of Glendi. Back in 1977 they had the vision to get a committee together with the Hellenic Lions Club to ensure that they showcased Greek culture and Greek food and at the same time raised some very important funds for many community groups from Canteen to the Hellenic nursing home. (Time expired)
Poker Machines
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (11:46): I rise today to speak on an issue which is causing great concern in my electorate of Cowper and in the neighbouring federal seats of Lyne, Page, New England and Richmond. I am talking about the government's plan to introduce a mandatory precommitment scheme in licensed clubs. Under mandatory precommitment all gamblers will have to register and nominate how much they are willing to lose before they can play a high-intensity poker machine in a licensed venue. Although the government have not released the legislation in relation to mandatory precommitment, they have created a lot of fear and uncertainty in clubs right across the nation. I know that clubs and their members on the North Coast of New South Wales are very concerned about the impact of this proposal.
This is an issue that has all the hallmarks of this government's approach to public policy. Firstly, the government has no mandate to introduce mandatory precommitment. Just as the Prime Minister had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax, the Gillard government has absolutely no mandate to inflict this policy on Australian licensed clubs. Secondly, federal Labor has once again failed to do the hard yards on developing good public policy, just like with the pink batts debacle, the school hall rorts and the border protection shambles. Just look at the NBN, which is currently unravelling before our very eyes. The Australian people know this government's form on public policy.
It is clear that the only reason that 4,000 clubs are subject to this assault is that Julia Gillard needs the support of the member for Denison to remain in power. She broke an election promise on the carbon tax in order to secure the support of the member for Melbourne and now she is selling out the five million club members to win a vote from the member for Denison. It is a simple case of Julia Gillard putting political power and her own political survival ahead of the public interest.
There are various reports on the impact of this policy. Clubs New South Wales has released details of what the costs will be to specific clubs on the New South Wales North Coast. For example, in my electorate of Cowper the forecast loss of income in the Coffs Harbour Ex-Services Club is almost $7 million. In Port Macquarie, in the member for Lyne's seat, the forecast loss of income is just under $5 million at the Port Macquarie Panthers club. At Ballina, in the member for Page's electorate, the RSL predicts this will cost them more than $4 million in lost income.
If that is not a big enough hit, the clubs will then be slugged with huge increased costs. To give you one example, in the member for Lyne's electorate the Port Macquarie Panthers forecast that mandatory precommitment will cost them just under $4 million in compliance. That is $4 million of extra cost on the back of a $5 million drop in income.
The pain will not just be felt by the big clubs. If mandatory precommitment is imposed on all clubs, the smaller ones will also struggle to survive. The net result will be job losses, a decline in the support for community groups and the closure of many vital amenities. The reality is there is absolutely no evidence that these radical measures by the government will do anything to address problem gambling.
Yesterday, representatives from 70 North Coast clubs met at Laurieton in the member for Lyne's seat. They are calling on the member for Lyne to support a proposal to trial the mandatory precommitment technology on poker machines. This would allow members of parliament to fully understand what the impact on clubs would be before any vote is taken in the parliament. Additionally, the federal coalition yesterday released a policy discussion paper on problem gambling. This will provide all stakeholders with an opportunity to identify problems associated with gambling and suggest solutions. A coalition working group, in which I will be involved, will be actively consulting on a number of issues including a national voluntary precommitment program, more and better targeted counselling and support services, and a nationally consistent 'self-exclusion' program, including consideration of extending self-exclusion programs to third parties such as immediate family members. I welcome the release of the discussion paper, which will ensure that the coalition balances the legitimate right of adult Australians to gamble responsibly against the establishment of appropriate protection and support for the small number of people for whom gambling can have tragic consequences.
In conclusion, I would like to read out some sample correspondence I have received from residents of the north coast. Geoff Aldwell from the Kempsey Macleay RSL Bowling Club says:
Introduction of such laws would be detrimental to our bowling club which receives financial support from our RSL Club.
Allan Hudson, Secretary Manager of the Kendall Services and Citizens Club says:
If Mr Wilkie's prediction proves correct that this scheme will result in a drop in poker machine revenue of 40%, it is inconceivable that we can survive even if we could afford to install the technology.
Paul Mcintosh, an employee from the Coffs Harbour Deep Sea Fishing Club says:
As a worker in the NSW Club Industry that under your Mandatory Pre Committment will likely loose his job I need to ask some questions
What have you factered in for the cost to each Club in what you are proposing?
Where in your plan does this money come from?
He raises a number of good points and certainly highlights the concern within the clubs fraternity about the impact of these changes. (Time expired)
Financial Services
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (11:51): I welcome the Reserve Bank of Australia's decision to cut interest rates by a quarter of a per cent on Cup day. This is good news for homebuyers and for all those who have a mortgage on a variable rate loan, not in only in the electorate of Deakin but, of course, right throughout Australia. A monthly saving of $49, or around $589 a year, on a $300,000 loan not only helps pay off the loan but also helps with the day-to-day cost of living. Also, the flow-on of confidence in the economy will benefit businesses, especially retailers, of which there are many in my electorate.
Although this 25-basis-point cut in the interest rate to around 7.5 per cent for a home mortgage from the big banks—or less from the smaller lenders—is good news for most people who borrow money, it is not good news for all. I refer in particular to the operation of payday lenders such as Cash Converters, who if they were to pass on the Reserve Bank's interest cut rate in full would cut their effective annual rate from 420 per cent to only 419.75 per cent. As revealed in the Australian Financial Review, Cash Converters charge $35 for every $100 lent per month, an obscene amount that exploits those people who find themselves in circumstances where they may need money in a hurry but without access to regular channels of credit. On top of that figure fees and charges are added.
Companies such as Cash Converters who rip off their customers with the most outrageous interest rates and fees should have no doubt that their time in the spotlight is fast approaching. The Gillard government has introduced the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 to the House and I am impatiently waiting for the second reading debate to be brought on, when I will have much more time to expose the operations of this industry and especially those of Cash Converters. To me, the most important benefit in the bill will be the introduction of caps on costs such as fees of 10 per cent of the credit provided plus two per cent per month. In effect, this would set the interest rate at 24 per cent per annum plus fees, for loans of less than $2,000 and of less than two years duration. Loans above $2,000 would be capped at 48 per cent interest, a figure that is similar to state imposed caps that already exist in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT. The outlawing of repeat borrowing and multiple loans is a great step forward and the requirement to disclose the availability of alternatives, such as the No Interest Loan Scheme or Centrelink benefit advances, to customers who come into the store will be an even bigger one.
Whilst payday lenders such as Cash Converters hold themselves out as offering a community service, they are nothing but a community scourge. The reality is that this is only a huge money-making operation heaped upon the people who can least afford to pay such massive fees and enormous interest rates. As a publicly listed company, it is very informative to look at the annual report of Cash Converters, especially regarding the remuneration paid to the CEO and its other executives. The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Peter Cummins, received a total package of $1,703,631 for the company's 2011 year—triple the amount that he received in 2010. Expressed as a weekly payment that is $32,762 each week—every week of the year. If you contrast that with the customers who walk into those premises, those who may be on a minimum wage and work a full year, for the full year that works out to be $30,463—less than one week's payment to Mr Cummins.
Four other executives at Cash Converters received in excess of $350,000 per year and it is not hard to see where the profits of these massive fees and charges are going.
I will speak about these issues in greater length when the bill comes up for debate. I will refer to the hundreds of cases that have been documented and recorded by various consumer and community groups and that are published and out there for everyone to refer to. In the meantime, it is important that people who use payday lenders understand there are options now. They do not have to wait for the passage of legislation through the parliament, but they do need information. They need it rather quickly because people who expose themselves to those sorts of fees and that rate of interest will not have a very bright financial future. Schemes such as the No Interest Loan Scheme, ringing up Centrelink and asking if you can have an advance on the pension or even the family tax benefit are much better ways of managing your own finances and not paying 420 per cent effective interest per annum.
These schemes have been around for a while. They have improved recently. Unfortunately, a lot of people still do not have the information to be able to use them. I hope to be able to use this parliament to advertise what else is available, to help out people who do not have enough money to get by week to week.
Carbon Pricing
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (11:56): I want to address the latest independent modelling on the impacts of the carbon tax, which was released today by the Master Builders Association. It is about the effects of a carbon price on the building and construction industry. It is an independent report prepared for the master builders of Australia by the Centre for International Economics in Sydney.
Three conclusions come from this report, all of which should make Australians deeply concerned about the negative effects of the carbon tax, where prices are driven up but emissions are not reduced. First and most significantly, at the young homebuyer level, the report confirms that the cost of a new home will be at least $5,000 greater under a carbon tax. So for young families who want to get into the market for the first time that is a $5,000 increase on a modest new home, according to the independent work of the Centre for International Economics.
Secondly, over and above that impact—which will hurt families, which will make it more difficult for young people to enter the market and which will have an impact on national savings as a consequence—there is a community impact. This is some of the original work contained in the Centre for International Economics' report. The report states:
The increased cost impact of the carbon tax on new housing has been generally accepted by the Government's own modelling but what is not generally understood is the cost impact of the carbon tax on the broader community.
Community facilities and infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, medical centres, aged care facilities and roads are not immune from increases in construction costs whether as a result of large wage rises or a price on carbon.
This will have a direct impact on governments' capacity to deliver much needed public infrastructure. Governments will be forced to either deliver less or increase taxes and charges in response to increased construction costs.
So there we have it: the impact of the carbon tax will go straight to hospitals, schools, medical centres, aged-care facilities and roads, and either the charges will rise or the facilities will be fewer. That is what is at the heart of this tax. It is about increasing costs and increasing the operating costs of the economy without reducing emissions. The carbon tax will see Australia's emissions rise not fall. Australia's emissions will go up by 43 million tonnes between now and 2020. Instead, we are going to have to spend $3½ billion offshore in 2020 alone on almost 100 million tonnes of foreign carbon credits. It is not an emissions reduction scheme; it is a foreign carbon credit scheme and an electricity tax. The third level of increased expenditure is at the national level. The findings in the Centre for International Economics report are very clear. They say that the loss in building and construction industry value in 2020 alone could be as high as $3.6 billion, or, between 2013 and 2020, just over $24 billion in cumulative terms. Those are enormous figures and they are about construction industry jobs—jobs for blue-collar workers, jobs for independent contractors. They represent income for families. These are deep and significant levels of lost income.
The CIE work shows that building and construction costs 'will increase by between 1.4 and 2.0 per cent by 2020, due to price increases in key emission-intensive inputs such as steel, aluminium, cement and glass'. There is no way around those costs. This is why we have seen two things occur—firstly, we have seen the government guillotine its own legislation in the Senate. The Prime Minister would not give the Australian people a say at the last election and she does not want to give the parliament a say right now. That is an abuse of democratic process and the Prime Minister should allow the debate to run in the Senate and then take the issue straight to the people. The reason the Prime Minister has guillotined debate by publicly elected representatives in the Senate is that she wants to lock in the carbon tax before Kevin Rudd can take her job. It is no coincidence that this bill has been brought forward now. She wants to bury it— (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12:01): I take this opportunity in the House to point out the opposition's humbug on the proposed asylum seeker agreement with Malaysia. Let us remember that the shadow minister for immigration told 2SM on 1 December 2008:
The closure of Nauru and Manus Island ... of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need ... I don't think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.
That is what the opposition was saying then—what is the difference now? The member for Curtin, who is now so exercised with these issues, in a media release on 27 July 2011, said:
… the Coalition does not consider that being a signatory to the Refugee Convention is a precondition for hosting the processing centre …
That was just before the government started talking about these proposed changes in arrangements. Everyone knows that I am no fan of the Malaysian government, but I ask members opposite, who are now so agitated about Malaysia, where were they before? Malaysia has been under international pressure to exhibit a higher standard of democratic behaviour. One of the positive unintended consequences of our proposed Malaysia agreement, were it to come to pass, would be that the Australian media and the UNHCR would be keeping a strong eye on it. It has already had a beneficial effect on the human rights situation in Malaysia. The UNHCR has said, although the opposition pay no attention to it: 'The arrangement will in time deliver further protection dividends to the two countries, as well as to the region.'
The UNHCR further explained:
The Arrangement and its implementing guidelines contain important protection safeguards, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement; the right to asylum; the principle of family unity and best interests of the child; humane reception conditions including protection against arbitrary detention; lawful status to remain in Malaysia until a durable solution is found; and the ability to receive education, access to health care, and a right to employment.
That certainly does not exist in Nauru, and that is one reason that thoughtful people know that to propose Nauru is cloud cuckoo land—there is no employment for all these people and they will be living at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. That is, apart from the fact that these so-called economically responsible people want us to spend another billion dollars on reconstituting the whole place.
As the member for Goldstein pointed out, I speak out frequently on human rights. I thank him for advertising the Freedom House report that I circulated to all MPs. This authoritative survey points out that Malaysia is not a fully-fledged democracy; it only rates four on the Freedom House scale of civil liberties and political rights but it is much better than Iran, at six, and Pakistan, five, where the member for Cook wants us to deport people seeking asylum here in Australia. Since when have the Liberal Party become devotees of UN conventions, or indeed of the UN itself? As a human rights advocate, I have some real doubts about the UN and the dedication of many of its members to actual human rights. Sadly, the UN Human Rights Council is a joke. The UN conventions, ignored by evil and duplicitous regimes such as Iran and Pakistan, are used only as legalistic cover. These conventions are garbage. They are not worth the paper they are written on if they are signed by Iran or Pakistan.
We now have the Liberal Party in high dudgeon, adulating these conventions in all their hypocrisy, over a less-than-perfect arrangement with a country such as Malaysia. What explains this? I have searched the parliamentary records of all the people who now talk about UN conventions, caning and human rights in Malaysia. Not one of them, before this arrangement with Malaysia was raised, ever spoke on these things—conventions on refugees or human rights in Malaysia—while I was talking about it. The only person was the member for Wentworth. There was deafening silence. Weren't the Liberal Party always the party that supported the democratic principle that parliament has the primacy over the judiciary and that the parliament should determine our foreign and migration policy? Of course they were. But, with their lust for power, they have put aside their principles.
Let us also remember that great conservative exhortation: 'We will determine who comes to this country.' We will determine who comes to this country—except when the Labor Party proposes it. That is their hypocrisy, that is their humbug; that is their cant. When I was working with the then government when the terrorist legislation came up in the early 2000s, we cooperated with them. On many occasions, oppositions have to work with government in the national interest of Australia. Humbug, cant and hypocrisy is all we get from the opposition over the Malaysian arrangement. (Time expired)
Qantas
Workplace Relations
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:06): It was very interesting to watch that confected outrage. No doubt there will be some more—
Mr Danby: Not confected at all. You're—
Ms O'DWYER: That is very unparliamentary. No doubt there will be some more when you listen to my speech. Today I am standing up to speak about Qantas and the Fair Work Act. In the industrial dispute that grounded a nation, there is one thing on which both sides of this chamber can agree: the grounding of Qantas's entire fleet on Saturday was damaging for Qantas, for its workers, for the travelling public and for the Australian economy and our international reputation. But how did we get here? Today on the front page of the Australian newspaper, the National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, conceded that it was the Prime Minister's changes to the workplace relations laws that led to the crippling protected action that culminated in the airline's grounding.
Those opposite say that this is the Fair Work Act in action. And indeed it is. It is a major deficiency of the Fair Work Act that our national airline, critical to our national economy, was forced to shut down for 48 hours to try to resolve an industrial dispute. What was evident in the industrial dispute between the unions and Qantas management was that the protected action was a deliberate strategy to force new job security clauses. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary, Steve Purvinas, stated publicly that they planned, through protected action, to 'bake them'—Qantas—'slowly' and that the rolling stoppages could last for 'at least 12 months'. He even stated that passengers should 'probably be looking at airlines other than Qantas'. It is hard to see where good faith applies in this scenario. How can Mr Purvinas claim to be representing Qantas employees when he is recommending Qantas customers use its competitors?
This example highlights the broader problems with the government's Fair Work Act. It highlights what some have described as the inequitable and unsustainable power shift towards the unions that the Fair Work Act has resulted in. We read yesterday morning that the industrial action in Qantas has now spread to the waterfront, with the Maritime Union of Australia now taking action against a third stevedoring company. Strikes will now be conducted in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne following on from strikes already conducted in Fremantle. Strikes and bans will also hit the BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance coalmines in Queensland. Shipping Australia's chief executive made the point:
… strikes were being taken early on in negotiations, with talks only having just begun at DP world.
This is fast becoming the modus operandi of the ever more militant unions—strike first, negotiate later. They take legally protected industrial action over a long period of time, a tactic which is designed to slowly kill the competitiveness of a company—a death of a thousand cuts. Let me be clear: ever-expanding industrial action will hurt the Australian economy.
Concerns with the Fair Work Act have been expressed by business leaders, commentators and captains of industry alike, all speaking out against what is fundamentally flawed policy. The former managing director of the Patrick Corporation, Chris Corrigan, makes the point in yesterday's paper:
Industrial relations in Australia is based on a fundamentally false premise; namely, that the bargaining landscape is so skewed in favour of the employer that unions need to be given extraordinary privileges to compensate for the so-called inequality.
Mr Corrigan joins other business leaders, such as the chairman of Fairfax Media, Roger Corbett; the chairman of Nufarm, Donald McGauchie; Asciano's Malcolm Broomhead and Adelaide Brighton's managing director, Mark Chellew, who said:
… the industrial relations legislation is more likely to lead to disputation to the extent of strikes than what the old legislation was even 10 years ago.
The Prime Minister's laws are a throwback not only to what existed before the coalition's laws but to what existed before the Hawke-Keating government. Even the Australian Industry Group have voiced their concerns, with Heather Ridout saying:
The idea that the Fair Work Act represents the perfect balance between all the competing interests and should not be altered is simply not sustainable.
Economist Judith Sloan highlighted three key failings with the act:
The first is the type of industrial behaviour allowed under the protected action. The second is the lack of prohibited content in enterprise agreements. Finally, the thresholds in the act are too high for parties seeking the termination of projected action.
Clearly the government needs to review the act. (Time expired)
Shortland Electorate: Swansea Police Station
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:11): I was interested to hear the contribution by the member for Higgins. She was obviously advocating for Work Choices, but it was also obvious that she did not check her facts before standing up to speak in this parliament, because the number of strikes under the Gillard and Rudd governments has been significantly lower than under the Howard government—and that is under the Fair Work Act.
I reluctantly rise to bring up a state matter. I have always been quite critical of members raising state matters in this parliament, but this is an issue of enormous magnitude. The newly elected Liberal state member for Swansea was elected under the banner of having Swansea Police Station open 24 hours a day. There has been quite a controversy over a number of years over the Swansea Police Station. I actually served as the member for Swansea for 3½ years and during that time I managed to move from a situation where there was an empty police station sitting in Swansea to a situation where it was staffed from nine to five—still not good enough by a long way, but it was a step in the right direction. Subsequent members for Swansea had a new police station built, but there were still problems around the staffing of that police station. There was a definite feeling within the community that they would like that police station staffed for 24 hours a day, but it did not happen. In the lead-up to the last election, the state member for Swansea told the electorate that he was going to have that police station staffed 24 hours a day.
Yesterday I received an email from a constituent. I know there has been a lot of concern within the Swansea electorate about the closure—not the staffing for 24 hours but the closure—of the Swansea Police Station. The constituent said that he was turning to me for:
… some sort of assistance regarding the lack of Police support here and the news—
and this is the part that I am really upset about—
that Swansea Police Station is to be decommissioned.
The police station, which the now Liberal member for Swansea promised would operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is now to be decommissioned, according to an email I received from a constituent. I do not like becoming involved in state issues. I feel that, as a federal member of parliament, I should concentrate my energies and efforts on federal issues. But when it comes to constituents whom I represent being left without a police station I feel I need to investigate. That is exactly what I am going to do. I will contact the legislative councillor, Luke Foley, who actually is a Labor member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, and ask him to further investigate this matter. This is a matter of enormous concern to the people of Swansea. Swansea is an older area, but a newer area is also covered by that police station. The older people there are very fearful. The person who wrote to me said they suffer from a mobility disability and pointed out that many people in that area do and that there are also many retired and elderly people. They are afraid to go out after dark, as they fear they may be victims of crime. This constituent said he would not have been afraid as a younger man, but now, as he has got older, he is afraid. I call on the member for Swansea, Mr Garry Edwards, to be true to his promise and ensure that the Swansea police station stays open 24 hours a day. (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate: Military Awards
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (12:16): It is with pleasure I rise this afternoon to acknowledge a most humble man who has accomplished many great things, both for his country and abroad. Allen Warren is a constituent in my electorate of Bonner who does not wish for recognition or acknowledgment, but these are so often the people who deserve it most.
I recently had the pleasure to award Allen with his Australian Defence Medal. As I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Australian Defence Medal recognises Australian Defence Force Regular and Reserve personnel who have demonstrated their commitment and contribution to the nation by serving for an initial enlistment period or four years service, whichever is the lesser. Allen undertook his national service in 1955 at Wacol Military Camp in 10 Platoon C Company. This was followed by service in Toowoomba, Beaudesert, Townsville and Kelvin Grove.
Allen is also a deeply spiritual man whose profound belief in God has seen him spend many years bringing hope to Third World Countries the world over. Allen pursued a career in finance throughout his working life but his real love and passion was his spirituality. It was in 1988 when Allen, a devout Christian, decided to follow his true calling and joined the Gideons, with his wife Gwen by his side.
Over the last 11 years Allen has travelled to the far reaches of the world doing great work in over 45 countries, sometimes in very dangerous conditions. I commend Allen's years of service to his country and to the people of the world whom he has touched through his self-sacrifice.
I would also like to mention several gentlemen in my electorate of Bonner who are recipients of service certificates. Service certificates are just one way that the Australian government expresses its gratitude to those who have given so much in protecting our country's interests and helping to restore and maintain peace all over the world.
I would like to acknowledge: Mr Ernest Blackwell, for his service during the Second World War; Mr Peter Corran, for his service in the Vietnam War and the Indonesian Confrontation; Mr James Jarrett, for his service during the Second World War; Mr William O'Mahoney, for his service during the Second World War; Mr Richard
Mann for his service to Australia's efforts in peace operations; Mr Robert Curry, for his service during the Second
World War; Mr Robert Jarrett for his service during the Second World War; Mr William Jarrett for his service during the Second World War; and Mr Patrick Flatley, for his service during the Vietnam War. I would like to praise the bravery and dedication that these men have shown to their country and I would like to thank each of these men for the sacrifices they have made to ensure that the Australian way of life is preserved for future generations.
It is with great sadness that I also take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to the families, friends and colleagues of Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, fellow Queenslanders whose lives were tragically stolen from them on Sunday whilst serving our country. No words can ever make up for the unimaginable pain caused by their loss, which is further compounded by the tragic circumstances surrounding this horror. I know that I speak for the rest of the Bonner community when I say that we are deeply aggrieved by their loss. Their passing is a reminder to us all of the grave dangers our service men and women place themselves in daily to preserve our way of life and to protect our freedom. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. My thoughts and prayers are also with the seven soldiers seriously wounded in the incident, and I wish them a speedy and full recovery.
Braddon Electorate
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (12:21): I would like to talk about some happenings in my electorate. I have just left the hospitality area after meeting with children from the Strahan Primary School, which is on the west coast of Tassie in the beautiful village of Strahan, on Strahan Harbour. It was great to see them and they were very pleased to be here. I really enjoy visiting the west coast of Tassie, which has been incorporated into the electorate of Braddon since the last election.
The first thing I would like to comment on and to congratulate this government for is that the north-west coast of Tassie has been selected as one of only two sites in Australia for an outpost of headspace. Headspace is an excellent national program developed to support and assist young people with health issues, particularly in relation to mental health and drug and alcohol use. Of course, most of these are interrelated. Headspace is specifically designed to assist and attract young people between 12 and 25 years of age, of which there are about 17,000 in my electorate.
I thank the Minister for Health and Ageing very much for listening to the case put by the community of the north-west coast to look to providing more services specifically for young people in relation to mental health. This is one innovative way for such a service to evolve. We are looking forward to working with headspace Launceston and developing and using their expertise to help us evolve a local headspace outpost. In many ways you hope that you do not develop it to a full-blown centre because that will mean you are doing the job and that young people are relying less on that service. So I do thank the minister and the Prime Minister very much for this commitment of an extra $197 million for mental health services at another 90 sites throughout Australia. I thank them for the opportunity for us to be an outpost and I look forward to working with Launceston and all my service providers and organisations to evolve a north-west coast headspace.
Not only did the Prime Minister and Minister Butler expand headspace throughout Australia; they also introduced eheadspace, which is a national online and telephone counselling service to offer flexible mental health support to young people and their families or friends. I would emphasise that it is not a crisis service. It is there to direct and refer, if that is of assistance to people. Eheadspace is a 24-hour service and, for the record, the online component operates from 1 pm to 1 am Australian eastern standard time and the telephone component operates from 10 pm to 1 pm Australian eastern standard time. That is great news for the north-west coast. I would also like to congratulate the Devonport City Council on the further evolution of its aquatic centre, with a 25-metre indoor aquatic centre to complement its 50-metre pool and other swimming and water awareness facilities that are being developed. The council made the decision to commit $4 million, the federal government committed $5 million, in 2010—and I was very pleased to be able to secure that funding—and the state government committed an equal measure of $5 million to bring about this $14 million complex.
The whole site is effectively being revamped by introducing a 25-metre pool to complement the 50-metre pool. The complex will also have an infant awareness pool, a warm-water pool, a foyer, a fitness gym, a cafe, a kiosk and change rooms. I congratulate the council on this and I look forward to working with them to bring about this really important piece of community infrastructure to make us even more waterwise and water careful.
Petition: Childcare Funding
Ms LEY (Farrer) (12:26): I rise to table a petition on funding for occasional childcare. I am therefore pleased to present this petition.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the withdrawal of Federal funding support for occasional childcare services.
For thousands of families in Australia alternate short term care arrangements for their children is neither a financial or practical option. The withdrawal of this funding will remove a parent's option of accessing occasional care at hundreds of community run centres, resulting in more children forced out of formal and regulated care.
This directly disregards the committed aim of all Australian Governments to ensure safe and quality controlled 'early childhood care' nationwide.
We therefore ask the House to support the immediate reinstatement of the $12m in occasional care removed in the Federal budgets of 2010/11 and 2011/12.
from 2,333 citizens
Petition received.
I want to remind the House about how divided and directionless this Labor government is. We have seen a pattern of incompetence, a pattern of failure, whether it be roof batts, school halls, the live cattle trade or the NBN. Today I want to talk about another train wreck under this Labor government: childcare reform.
Child care under Labor is heading towards the cliff edge, with Minister Ellis and Minister Garrett greasing the wheels. Their one-size-fits-all approach is casting aside the very people that Labor purports to represent—working families, working mums and dads with children, who are battling rising costs under this government and battling a fragmented family way of life.
Under the new national quality framework, childcare centres are pushing up their fees by as much as $100 a week. Without even blinking an eye at that, the government keep telling us how much more generous their childcare rebate is. Then they have the hide to cut $700 from it and cap it for three years. Under their new universal access arrangements for kindergarten, preschools are now tossing out their three-year-old children just to squeeze in the mandatory 15 hours a week for four-year-olds. Visiting American Professor Joseph Sparling, who attended the House yesterday, spoke very passionately about the fact that early education is critical, not necessarily at the age of four years or in the preschool years but at three months and younger. Yet the government's rigid one-size-fits-all approach is not allowing some of that allocated money to flow to the most disadvantaged children in our society.
Every time someone stands up to tell the government what is wrong and to offer suggestions, they go back to their default position of hiding under the protection of a COAG agreement. COAG agreed to Labor's ideology in principle only to see this government botch the actual implementation.
Then we come to the 'occasional care' debacle, which I wish to highlight today, the cuts of $12 million to annual funding two years ago. Thousands of children across the nation are set to miss out on their own quality early childhood learning because of this government fumbling its responsibilities. Occasional care is set to be subject to the same onerous rules and red tape under the national quality framework but without any federal support. Not all of us can or do work full time. Not all of us can afford or need full-time child care. Minister Ellis needs to understand we cannot all fit within her tick-a-box approach to the industry. The minister said a week ago:
The Australian government has never had a direct funding relationship with these services …
But on 22 July this year the minister said:
Child care funding is a shared responsibility between the Australian, state and territory governments. Nothing has changed on that front.
The coalition, the Greens, parents and even the minister's own department know it is the Australian government which is responsible for supporting occasional care. The only remaining piece to complete the puzzle is the minister. On the subject of occasional care particularly, I wish to formally lodge this petition which calls on this federal government to reinstate the $12 million in funding that it cut from occasional child care in the last two budgets. The withdrawal of this funding is removing parents' option to access occasional care at hundreds of community run centres, resulting in more children being forced out of formal and regulated care.
This directly disregards the committed aim of all Australian governments to ensure safe and quality controlled early childhood care nationwide. This petition contains several thousand signatures. It has been considered by the standing committee this morning—it might have been yesterday morning—and it is in accordance with the standing orders. I take this opportunity to table it before the House.
In the remaining time I have I remind the minister, as we approach the edge of the cliff—the implementation date for these rules is 1 January next year—that when I go to the website under which I read about what is happening in terms of progress I find one thing which I want to point out. It says, 'Services will receive documentation about the new rules. Expect to receive them before Christmas.'
The new rules start on 1 January next year. And the government is sending out final copies of the documentation relating to the new rules, which people should expect to receive before Christmas. I make the point that there is quite a bit of work to do before implementation only five days later.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I understand that the honourable member for Farrer has sought to present a petition. I am advised that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions has said that the petition is in order so it is now received pursuant to standing order 207.
Operation Open Heart
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (12:31): I recently had the privilege of being part of a parliamentary delegation to Indonesia and Tonga as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. When in Tonga we had the privilege of attending a reception at the official residence of the Australian High Commissioner. At that reception I had the honour of meeting a number of health professionals from Australia who were part of a group people who were performing vital work in assisting the Tongan population as part of Operation Open Heart.
Operation Open Heart provides free life-transforming cardiac surgery to underprivileged men, women and children throughout Australasia, South-East Asia and various Third World countries with the assistance of individual humanitarian volunteer medical, nursing and other health professionals. The program has been running for over 25 years. It is assisted by AusAID, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, community groups such as Rotary and the Lions club, and numerous local and international civic minded corporate and individual community supporters. Sydney Adventist Hospital has coordinated more than 80 trips by volunteer teams that have resulted in more than 2,000 surgeries. In addition to their time and expertise, volunteers also make a significant financial contribution towards the cost of each program. A conservative estimate of the value of contributions by the volunteers since 1986 is in the region of $7.5 million.
In addition, Sydney Adventist Hospital now directly invests over $200,000 per year into that program for management and operational expenses. This ensures that supporters' contributions are directed specifically to the individual programs. Depending on the location, surgery type and numbers, the total cost of one of the annual trips can be as much as $200,000.
Since 1986 more than 1,500 health professional volunteers from hospitals around Australia have been coordinated by Sydney Adventist Hospital for an average of four to six trips per annum. An innovative feature of Operation Open Heart is the training program conducted by the visiting teams pre, during and post surgery. Host team members assist and learn from the visiting teams with the aim of becoming self-sufficient once visiting teams return home.
Some 12 countries are covered by this program: Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Nepal, China, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam and, most recently, Rwanda. This is a particularly impressive program in which all those involved can be very proud. I found the logistics that are involved in such an exercise quite astounding. Certain programs may require the transport of up to four tonnes of freight, but because they have relationships with freight forwarders and airline partners this can be done at very small cost on an overall basis.
Once the volunteers arrive in a country they will often work between eight and 10 hours a day. Nursing staff are rostered to ensure post surgical care is provided 24 hours a day. It is common to do more than 50 surgeries in a 14-day visit. As anyone who has been involved in the medical area would know, that is a phenomenal level of activity. While talking to volunteers at the reception, I was very impressed by their commitment to and their enthusiasm for the work that they were doing and the fact that it was actually providing real and concrete support and assistance to people who would otherwise be in a situation where they just would not get the assistance that they need. The arrival of these trips is coincided with the development of demand and they really rip through things in a very professional manner. The individual stories that we were told of some of the cases and some of the circumstances of the work that was being done were absolutely uplifting and they made me very proud to be an Australian.
The activities of these groups, particularly in the context of Operation Open Heart, are something that all involved with them can be very proud of. Some of the individual volunteers have on occasions actually received awards from countries where they have provided assistance. For example, in Fiji, two members were awarded the Order of Fiji, while in Papua New Guinea eight team members received a prestigious government award, the Order of Logohu. Individual team members have also been recognised by a range of other organisations.
I commend the work of Operation Open Heart and all those involved in it. I certainly say to the volunteers, 'Well done. You are providing real and concrete support to people in communities who need it. You are doing it in a cooperative fashion. You are providing training and skills to those you seek to help so that they can help themselves into the future, and you are ensuring that many people who live in isolated locations, in awkward circumstances and in poverty are able to get life-saving surgery, using your skills in a manner in which you can all be very proud of.'
White Ribbon Day
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (12:36): Mr Deputy Speaker, as White Ribbon Day approaches, on 25 November, I am sure that you and everyone in this chamber will agree with me when I say that all forms of violence are unacceptable. The White Ribbon organisation believes the prevention of violence against women will change society for the better. Through primary prevention initiatives and an annual campaign, White Ribbon works to change the attitudes and the behaviours that lead to men's violence against women.
The former federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Susan Halliday once said that it is of grave concern that we still live in a society where physical, sexual and emotional acts of violence against women are prevalent in our streets, workplaces and homes. Every woman has a right to feel free of domestic violence. Violence against women is a serious problem in our society, and statistics show that one in three Australian women over the age of 15 have reported experiencing physical or sexual violence at some time in their lives.
In addition to the obvious personal costs to the women involved, this violence costs our community dearly. In the 2009 Time for action report, KPMG estimated that violence against women and their children cost the Australian economy $13.6 billion annually, and this is expected to rise to a figure of $15.6 billion by 2021. Domestic and family violence is also the major cause of homelessness for women and children, and White Ribbon Day works to stop this insidious violence.
Violence against women is a deeply personal issue for women, and as an employer in my time before entering this place I was often faced with the terrible spectre of staff experiencing violence at home. It affects us all profoundly. Not only is this an important issue for me but it is very much a men's issue, because it is their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends whose lives are being harmed by violence and abuse. It is also a men's issue because a minority of men treat women and girls with contempt and violence, and it is up to the majority of men to create a culture that says this is unacceptable.
I am privileged to have been able to take part in the joint AusAID-US Pacific Women's Empowerment Policy Dialogue currently here in Canberra. I was delighted to be able to engage in this dialogue. I look forward to seeing some very positive results.
Last night US ambassador Mr Jeffrey Bleich gave a heartfelt and deeply personal speech at the launch of the conference. His long-time commitment to this cause is very evident. Also evident is the joint commitment of the US and Australian governments to eradicating violence against women and to empowering women through undertaking this policy dialogue.
We were fortunate today to hear a taped address from the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, to open the dialogue, and this morning we heard an impassioned address from the leader of the US delegation, Ms Tina Tchen, the Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and chief of staff to Michelle Obama. Ms Tchen's knowledge in this area not only comes from high-level government roles but also from being a front-line domestic violence shelter worker. She recounted how in those days there was very little support given by governments and women's domestic shelters had to be in secret locations. It is good to see that we have come a very long way now; we can discuss these issues in the open.
I welcome the work done by this government in launching the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, building on the work done by the former Howard government in this important area. I want to commend the very fine work of the White Ribbon organisation, which is working towards preventing the common and pervasive form of male violence against women. I want to commend their efforts in bringing this terrible problem to everyone's attention. I encourage everyone to get behind the White Ribbon campaign, which is fast approaching—25 November—and do their bit to say that all forms of violence against women should end.
Rhiannon, Senator Lee
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (12:42): As you would be aware, much has been said about the systematic campaign by comrade Lee Rhiannon in the other place to sanitise her Marxist revolutionary past. Many questions have been asked on both sides of this chamber of comrade Rhiannon about her history of Stalinist activism within the Socialist Party of Australia, a pro-Moscow group that split from the Communist Party of Australia, questions that comrade Rhiannon has systematically ducked in a vain game of hide and go seek.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The member for Casey is aware that the senator is a member of the other place and that is not an appropriate way to describe her in debate in the Main Committee.
Mr TONY SMITH: I will correct myself from now on, Mr Deputy Speaker. The twists and turns of the senator's contortionist evasions are recounted in great detail by Gerard Henderson of the Sydney Institute in his excellent 'Media Watch Dog' column. In a letter to Senator Rhiannon, Mr Henderson posed a dozen questions about her communist past, about whether she was telling the truth when she claimed on Channel 10's Meet the Press that she had merely 'assisted with the production' of Survey, the SPA's Kremlin funded propaganda sheet. It was quite a reasonable question to ask in light of the fact that Senator Rhiannon signed off in August 1990 on the final edition of Survey under her then married name by-line, 'Lee O'Gorman, Editor'.
Mr Henderson also inquired about reports by former fellow travellers that Senator Rhiannon studied at Moscow's infamous International Lenin School, where Marxists from around the world were apparently instructed in the dark arts of fomenting communist revolution. These are entirely legitimate questions, questions that arise from Senator Rhiannon's public statements and personal history. Yet, how did she respond to these queries? Senator Rhiannon responded with the time honoured Marxist tactic of cheat and retreat. Despite her attempt to deny the undeniable, the objective record is becoming clearer and clearer. From the late 1960s until the demise of the Soviet Union, Senator Rhiannon was clearly a Kremlin parrot, slavishly regurgitating whatever Marxist nonsense was dictated by her Politburo masters.
During one interview, Senator Rhiannon tried to plead dewy eyed innocence as an explanation of her dubious history of shilling for totalitarianism. But when the Berlin Wall finally fell in 1989, Senator Rhiannon was 39 years of age, hardly a spring chicken. So, even if the claim of youthful exuberance was used as a defence, in Senator Rhiannon's case the statute of limitations had well and truly expired.
By 1990 the writing was well and truly on the wall for the Soviet Union. That meant trouble for Senator Rhiannon and her fellow travellers. With the Soviet Union collapsing because of its internal contradictions, there was a drying up of the Kremlin gravy train that had supported communist movements throughout the world. When the Marxist going got tough, Senator Rhiannon got going. She was left politically homeless. But, miraculously, she engineered a seamless political transition. Senator Rhiannon would have us believe that she went to bed one night wearing red pyjamas and woke up the very next morning wearing green pyjamas. Hallelujah!
Our main concern today should be whether Senator Rhiannon's past will be the Greens future. We should see where the Greens are today and we should think where she might take them tomorrow. The Australian Greens can no longer be considered a mere protest party. They have the balance of power in the other place. They should be held to account the same as every other member of this place. This is a continuing story; it is one that Senator Rhiannon should confront. She should apply to herself the same standards she demands of everybody else.
Qantas
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (12:47): There has been a lot said this week about the Qantas dispute but, beyond the tactical question of which industrial relations processes should have been used, there is a broader question: why has this government effectively abandoned the economic reform process which in the aviation sector as in so many other sectors has delivered huge benefits to consumers? In effect we have a government standing idly by while emboldened unions seek to dictate the way that Qantas should manage its business.
Let's take a historical perspective here. For many years there was a government-mandated duopoly in aviation: TAA and Ansett were the only companies permitted to operate. One was government owned; one was privately owned. This arrangement was pretty cosy for the airlines inside the club but left routine air travel unaffordable for the majority of Australians.
Quite correctly, in 1990, the Hawke government kicked off the deregulation of the airline sector and abolished the two-airline policy. The sector was opened up to new entrants, and there have been a series of them. Some have survived and some have not. They have included Compass Mk I, Compass Mk II, Virgin and Tiger. Airfares have dropped dramatically. Rather than being a luxury, for the great majority of Australians air travel can now be a routine part of daily life. The result of this deregulation process has been much more choice for consumers and much lower fares. Consumers are better off. Many more people fly and there are many more trips each year. In 1991-92, approximately 18 million passenger embarkations occurred. In 2010-11, approximately 48 million occurred, an enormous increase in less than 20 years.
However, deregulation of the aviation sector has made life less comfortable for companies in the industry. That is the nature of competition; it creates pressures which industry participants must respond to. Just over 10 years ago, in September 2001, one of those two traditional duopoly airlines, Ansett, collapsed. It had a high-cost structure, legacy work practices, a high degree of unionisation and an inefficient fleet. Ansett failed to match the more efficient new entrants. While Ansett did a poor job of responding to change, so far Qantas has managed its way through change effectively. But the management team of an airline must be ever vigilant. The airline business is a very tough one. It is highly capital intensive, with aircraft costing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars each. Key cost inputs like fuel fluctuate sharply and labour is a large cost component.
The Ansett collapse shows what happens when a management team fails to adjust a company's operations to new competitive realities. Anybody who thinks that because Qantas has been around for the best part of 100 years its future is guaranteed is indeed naive. For Qantas to assure its survival, its management must be able to take the necessary actions so it remains a viable and competitive business in a fast changing and ruthlessly competitive sector.
As Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, pointed out, its TWU staff are paid 12 per cent more than their equivalent at Virgin and its long-haul pilots earn 50 per cent more than their Virgin counterparts. Yet the unions are pressing Qantas to a commitment to 'job security'. No company can provide its employees with greater security than it enjoys itself. A guarantee of job security from a company which was forced into collapse would be nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.
The current showdown between unions and Qantas is about whether Qantas will be able to maintain a viable operating model given the competitive pressures it is facing. This is the playing out of a public policy direction rightly put in place over 20 years ago. It is a policy direction which serves the interests of the many—airline customers, including millions today who are able to fly when 20 years ago they could not have afforded to, as opposed to the concentrated interests of the few. But it is a policy direction which is now under direct threat from the Gillard Labor government. It was a tragedy when one great Australian airline collapsed after failing to adapt to a more competitive market. It would be a double tragedy if another great Australian airline were prevented from taking the necessary steps to secure its future because, under this government, the union bullies are back in control.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax
Mr HAASE (Durack) (12:52): Today I bring the House's attention to the pivotal point we are at in Australia. Well known across Australia and understood by the population is the fact that we are a resource rich country and that, through the process of royalties, we have compensated the people of Australia, in each state, for the value of the natural resources extracted and traded for revenue. At the same time we have created jobs, infrastructure and tax collection opportunities. The return to the Australian people of the value of those resources has been predominantly through royalties, which is a very important point to remember. We are now on the brink of changing the state collection of royalties, whose value compensates for extracted resources, which are distributed within the state by way of the construction of infrastructure. We must also remember that, because of that longstanding process, we have incredibly highly valued, low sovereign risk across the world.
Today one of the most mobile assets around the globe is capital and to extract resources in this country today we need capital—and lots of it. The extraction process and the transportation of raw materials is a very complex and expensive business. Because you need to do a lot of it you need to be exceptionally efficient, and to do that you need to invest capital. That capital comes, in the main, from overseas. If we had 200 million people in Australia it would be less so but we are 22 million people in Australia, which creates a capital flow problem. We have been considered globally to be low sovereign risk to this point in time. With the introduction of the MRRT, we will destroy that low sovereign risk image and say to the world, 'Don't come Down Under; we have the resources, but who knows when you are going to be hit with an additional tax.' And the appeal—especially with iron ore, which we have in abundance in this country—and the attraction will suddenly be in west Africa and the Americas. And exploration for the resources in those countries will become increasingly more attractive, because the capital that is floating around the world looking for a place to land is averse to high sovereign risk. The message we are sending globally right now is, 'Don't come Down Under because we are liable to wake up tomorrow morning with a different idea and dud you, and your investors will not get the predetermined return on their capital and your company will go down the gurgler.'
So we are on the brink of destroying our international reputation, all for the sake of this government's Treasury getting their grubby hands on the dollars from the states. The states I refer to predominantly are of course Western Australia and Queensland, and in Western Australia we have ample need for the investment of capital derived from our royalties. If the people of Western Australia considered that they were not being compensated sufficiently for the extraction of Western Australia's minerals then the answer would be to increase royalties; it would not be to introduce a new tax—especially at this time, globally, when the cost of living is ever increasing and the returns to the individual are reducing.
Capital investment in Western Australia in mineral extraction provides jobs. It provides infrastructure. It provides opportunities for the collection of taxes. But those taxes collected appropriately and efficiently ought to be in the form of royalties. If the royalties collected today are not sufficient then the royalties ought to be increased. It is a very long-standing tradition that it is royalties that compensate the people of Australia for the minerals of Australia that are extracted. To change that is to fly in the face of common sense. The MRRT is a dud.
Australia-India Relationship
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:57): On Sunday I had the great pleasure of going to a Deepavali celebration here in Canberra in Glebe Park, where I joined with hundreds of members of the Indian community to celebrate what is one of my favourite Indian festivals, the Festival of Lights. It was a great day of eating fantastic Indian food, but also it provided both the Indian community and the rest of the Canberra community with the opportunity to experience Indian culture through a range of dances and singing and presentations, and it was just a lovely, wonderful day of celebrating this beautiful Festival of Lights.
I also attended a Deepavali celebration here at Parliament House on Monday night with a number of my parliamentary colleagues and some senior members of the Indian community, and last night I attended an Australia India Business Council event here at Parliament House where the keynote address was given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen. Again that event underscored to me the strength of the Australia-India relationship, and the strength of the Indian community in Australia and in Canberra.
At that event last night, I learnt that India is one of the top five sources of skilled migration to this country, and I know, from having lived in India, that it is a great nation that is becoming, if it has not already become, a huge economic powerhouse, and I look forward to it thriving and growing and becoming an even stronger powerhouse in the future. The Indian people are a great people; they are a very well educated, very passionate and very committed people, and they are also great entrepreneurs, which is why I really welcomed the opportunity to go to the business council event last night. Business between the two countries has been growing exponentially over the last decade. When I was living in India it was still in the very early stages of liberalising. It has now liberalised and is burgeoning and growing and just powering ahead.
So it was a great pleasure to focus on India again this week through the Deepavali celebrations on Sunday and on Monday, and to be reminded last night of the strength of the bilateral business relationship and the skilled migration relationship—the relationship in so many areas. I was also heartened to hear that the exchanges between governments has improved over recent years. It has really been strengthened. I understand there have been more than 30 ministerial visits from India in the last three years and that there have been more than 20 ministerial visits from Australia to India in that same period. So the relationship is just strengthening and growing each day of each year, and I look forward to it becoming even stronger over the next decade and also to being part of that.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:01.
Cowan Electorate: Elections
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (10:02): In Western Australia we recently had local government elections, and I thought I would take this opportunity today to speak about what happened within and around the area of the federal electorate of Cowan. Fortunately, I have three local governments that affect parts of Cowan: the City of Joondalup, the City of Wanneroo and the City of Swan. It was particularly gratifying to see a number of people elected who certainly will be defined in their terms in local government by their commitment to the best interests of the community rather than political posturing or opportunity. I thought I would run through some of the elected members who have come up.
First is the city of Joondalup. In the Central Ward Geoff Amphlett was re-elected. It is great to see Geoff back. In North Ward Tom McLean, a good local councillor, has been returned. In North Central Ward Sam Thomas was elected. In South Ward, where I live, Teresa Ritchie was elected, and I congratulate her on her election. In the South-East Ward I congratulate Brian Corr for his re-election. I do that despite the fact that he has endorsed for the Labor Party in all of my three elections. I nevertheless congratulate him on his election. In the South-West Ward Mike Norman has also been re-elected unopposed, an endorsement of his position and standing in the community. With regard to the city of Joondalup, I also congratulate new Deputy Mayor John Chester, a resident of Kingsley. He is very prominent on environmental issues and is a great member of the Friends of Yellagonga. He does a great job for the people in that ward, and I am sure he will across the whole of the city. I also look forward to working more closely with them in the future as we work through and develop the Warwick sports club rooms at Hawker Park, which the mayor and I have had a number of talks about.
Over in the City of Swan there was no election because there were only two vacancies and only two stood. Maria Haynes was re-elected, and I congratulate Maria. Although she has always been endorsed for the Labor Party, I nevertheless congratulate her. I also congratulate Mel Congerton. Mel is defined as a local Ballajura resident who is characterised by great leadership and great hard work on his plan of having an aged care facility in Ballajura. He is certainly working very hard rather than just going for the photo opportunities, as his local opponents are defined by. That is good news for the City of Swan.
Finally, I would like to take the remainder of my time to talk about the City of Wanneroo. After quite a few years in the City of Wanneroo a former opponent of mine—he was the endorsed candidate for a little while—retired as mayor. He had been the endorsed Labor Party candidate in the electorate of Cowan for a few weeks. Now Tracey Roberts has been elected mayor. I congratulate Tracey. Again, it is great to see a genuine Independent running the City of Wanneroo.
Also, Norm Hewer was re-elected in the North Ward. I congratulate Norm. Bob Smithson was re-elected on Coastal Ward and Russell Driver was also elected. In Central Ward Frank Cviten has returned to the council after being out for a couple of years. It is great to see Frank back again. He is a genuine local guy in Central Ward.
In South Ward, Anh Truong, from the Vietnamese community was re-elected. Alan Blencowe was re-elected as well, along with a new councillor, Mr Denis Hayden. I know his wife, Judy, from Ballajura Primary School. He has a long history doing great welfare work in the police union. So that is all very good.
I would also like to say that even though Councillor Ian Goodenough of the City of Wanneroo was not up for re-election, he is known for his great work in the northern suburbs of Perth and in the City of Wanneroo. So I congratulate him for everything he does.
I also congratulate the City of Wanneroo for the final completion of the Ocean Reef Road. I was involved with organising $7 million from the Howard government for that. It was a bit overdue, but it is good to see it finally completed.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (10:02): In Western Australia we recently had local government elections, and I thought I would take this opportunity today to speak about what happened within and around the area of the federal electorate of Cowan. Fortunately, I have three local governments that affect parts of Cowan: the City of Joondalup, the City of Wanneroo and the City of Swan. It was particularly gratifying to see a number of people elected who certainly will be defined in their terms in local government by their commitment to the best interests of the community rather than political posturing or opportunity. I thought I would run through some of the elected members who have come up.
First is the city of Joondalup. In the Central Ward Geoff Amphlett was re-elected. It is great to see Geoff back. In North Ward Tom McLean, a good local councillor, has been returned. In North Central Ward Sam Thomas was elected. In South Ward, where I live, Teresa Ritchie was elected, and I congratulate her on her election. In the South-East Ward I congratulate Brian Corr for his re-election. I do that despite the fact that he has endorsed for the Labor Party in all of my three elections. I nevertheless congratulate him on his election. In the South-West Ward Mike Norman has also been re-elected unopposed, an endorsement of his position and standing in the community. With regard to the city of Joondalup, I also congratulate new Deputy Mayor John Chester, a resident of Kingsley. He is very prominent on environmental issues and is a great member of the Friends of Yellagonga. He does a great job for the people in that ward, and I am sure he will across the whole of the city. I also look forward to working more closely with them in the future as we work through and develop the Warwick sports club rooms at Hawker Park, which the mayor and I have had a number of talks about.
Over in the City of Swan there was no election because there were only two vacancies and only two stood. Maria Haynes was re-elected, and I congratulate Maria. Although she has always been endorsed for the Labor Party, I nevertheless congratulate her. I also congratulate Mel Congerton. Mel is defined as a local Ballajura resident who is characterised by great leadership and great hard work on his plan of having an aged care facility in Ballajura. He is certainly working very hard rather than just going for the photo opportunities, as his local opponents are defined by. That is good news for the City of Swan.
Finally, I would like to take the remainder of my time to talk about the City of Wanneroo. After quite a few years in the City of Wanneroo a former opponent of mine—he was the endorsed candidate for a little while—retired as mayor. He had been the endorsed Labor Party candidate in the electorate of Cowan for a few weeks. Now Tracey Roberts has been elected mayor. I congratulate Tracey. Again, it is great to see a genuine Independent running the City of Wanneroo.
Also, Norm Hewer was re-elected in the North Ward. I congratulate Norm. Bob Smithson was re-elected on Coastal Ward and Russell Driver was also elected. In Central Ward Frank Cviten has returned to the council after being out for a couple of years. It is great to see Frank back again. He is a genuine local guy in Central Ward.
In South Ward, Anh Truong, from the Vietnamese community was re-elected. Alan Blencowe was re-elected as well, along with a new councillor, Mr Denis Hayden. I know his wife, Judy, from Ballajura Primary School. He has a long history doing great welfare work in the police union. So that is all very good.
I would also like to say that even though Councillor Ian Goodenough of the City of Wanneroo was not up for re-election, he is known for his great work in the northern suburbs of Perth and in the City of Wanneroo. So I congratulate him for everything he does.
I also congratulate the City of Wanneroo for the final completion of the Ocean Reef Road. I was involved with organising $7 million from the Howard government for that. It was a bit overdue, but it is good to see it finally completed.
Carers Week
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:07): I rise to speak about the twin issues of caring and disability. It was my pleasure on 14 October to attend the launch of Carers Week, which was officially launched by the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler. It was a moving event at Parliament House, where Carers Australia President, Tim Moore, spoke about his sister Amy. Amy has struggled with mental illness since she was 17 years old and Tim spoke about her in wonderfully moving terms, and about the fact that recently Amy had the great achievement of turning 30. With the care of her family and friends she has managed to keep her demons at bay.
Tania Hayes spoke about her husband Warren who, when they were both in their early twenties, had an eight-centimetre brain tumour removed. Tania spoke about sitting by his bedside in the hospital for more than 400 days. At the end of that time she was told that the option available to him would be an aged-care home. She was not willing to accept that and took him home to be cared for at home. She taught him to eat and to talk, and now the couple has a little boy, Josh.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Jan McLucas, also spoke, as did Carers Australia CEO, Ara Creswell. The event was one of the most moving that I have attended in this building in my brief time in parliament. The issues of carers touch us all. I remember that when I was a whippersnapper at university I tutored a boy by the name of Jonathan Wilson-Fuller, best known as 'the boy in the bubble'. Jonathan is now a man of 33. He lives in Baulkham Hills, in a house with a positive internal air purification system that purifies all the air in the room seven times every hour in order to keep his allergies at bay. His parents, Yvonne and Kevin Wilson-Fuller, have sacrificed their professional careers because of the love and dedication they have for Jonathan. I pay tribute to Jonathan and to his parents. I urge all members to have a look at Jonathan's terrific book Will you please listen: I have something to say.
Judy Woolstencroft came to my electorate office on 7 October. Judy is a carer for her partner, Chris, who suffers from early onset dementia. Judy and Chris came in with Ellen Skladzien, a tireless campaigner in this area, to speak with me about the challenges faced by those with early onset dementia.
I also held a National Disability Insurance Scheme roundtable in my electorate office on 7 October. I would like to thank Simon Rosenberg, Luke Jones, Bob Buckley, Kerry Bargas, Trish and Glenn Mowbray, Susan Healy, Mary Webb, Kerrie Langford, Robert Altamore, Fiona May, Eileen Jerga, Adrian Nicholls, Christina Ryan, Brooke McKail, Sally Richards and others for attending that event. It helped me better understand the issues around a National Disability Insurance Scheme and why Australian people with disabilities and their carers so much need this scheme. That was followed by a public forum at the Belconnen Community Service building on 25 October. Daniel Kyriacou from Every Australian Counts and members of the ACT Labor Party's community services and social justice committee joined a discussion about what a NDIS means and how people can work with the campaign to bring about a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
A NDIS will not be cheap and will not be straightforward but this government is committed to doing the preparatory work to see it happen. That is complicated work with the states and territories but it is vital to resolve some of these anomalies. If you become a paraplegic in a car accident, you are more likely to get looked after than if you fall off your roof while cleaning the gutters. If you are born with a disability you often receive insufficient care. These are things that many of us in this place feel uncomfortable about. We in the Gillard government are committed to bringing about the National Disability Insurance Scheme and helping those who care for their loved ones.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:07): I rise to speak about the twin issues of caring and disability. It was my pleasure on 14 October to attend the launch of Carers Week, which was officially launched by the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler. It was a moving event at Parliament House, where Carers Australia President, Tim Moore, spoke about his sister Amy. Amy has struggled with mental illness since she was 17 years old and Tim spoke about her in wonderfully moving terms, and about the fact that recently Amy had the great achievement of turning 30. With the care of her family and friends she has managed to keep her demons at bay.
Tania Hayes spoke about her husband Warren who, when they were both in their early twenties, had an eight-centimetre brain tumour removed. Tania spoke about sitting by his bedside in the hospital for more than 400 days. At the end of that time she was told that the option available to him would be an aged-care home. She was not willing to accept that and took him home to be cared for at home. She taught him to eat and to talk, and now the couple has a little boy, Josh.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Jan McLucas, also spoke, as did Carers Australia CEO, Ara Creswell. The event was one of the most moving that I have attended in this building in my brief time in parliament. The issues of carers touch us all. I remember that when I was a whippersnapper at university I tutored a boy by the name of Jonathan Wilson-Fuller, best known as 'the boy in the bubble'. Jonathan is now a man of 33. He lives in Baulkham Hills, in a house with a positive internal air purification system that purifies all the air in the room seven times every hour in order to keep his allergies at bay. His parents, Yvonne and Kevin Wilson-Fuller, have sacrificed their professional careers because of the love and dedication they have for Jonathan. I pay tribute to Jonathan and to his parents. I urge all members to have a look at Jonathan's terrific book Will you please listen: I have something to say.
Judy Woolstencroft came to my electorate office on 7 October. Judy is a carer for her partner, Chris, who suffers from early onset dementia. Judy and Chris came in with Ellen Skladzien, a tireless campaigner in this area, to speak with me about the challenges faced by those with early onset dementia.
I also held a National Disability Insurance Scheme roundtable in my electorate office on 7 October. I would like to thank Simon Rosenberg, Luke Jones, Bob Buckley, Kerry Bargas, Trish and Glenn Mowbray, Susan Healy, Mary Webb, Kerrie Langford, Robert Altamore, Fiona May, Eileen Jerga, Adrian Nicholls, Christina Ryan, Brooke McKail, Sally Richards and others for attending that event. It helped me better understand the issues around a National Disability Insurance Scheme and why Australian people with disabilities and their carers so much need this scheme. That was followed by a public forum at the Belconnen Community Service building on 25 October. Daniel Kyriacou from Every Australian Counts and members of the ACT Labor Party's community services and social justice committee joined a discussion about what a NDIS means and how people can work with the campaign to bring about a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
A NDIS will not be cheap and will not be straightforward but this government is committed to doing the preparatory work to see it happen. That is complicated work with the states and territories but it is vital to resolve some of these anomalies. If you become a paraplegic in a car accident, you are more likely to get looked after than if you fall off your roof while cleaning the gutters. If you are born with a disability you often receive insufficient care. These are things that many of us in this place feel uncomfortable about. We in the Gillard government are committed to bringing about the National Disability Insurance Scheme and helping those who care for their loved ones.
Child Care
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (10:12): I rise today to again express my concern in relation to the federal government's decision to cut $12.6 million from the Take a Break program, which funds occasional care. In Victoria some 220 community centres that operate occasional care may now need to close down their programs. Thousands of parents will be affected by this and thousands of children will no longer have the opportunity to participate in an early learning environment.
There are two occasional care programs in Knox. The first is Orana Neighbourhood House's occasional care program and the second is the Coonara Community House's program in Upper Ferntree Gully, which is just outside my electorate. Both offer terrific services for young children. However, what will happen if this funding is cut? What will happen if it is not continued next year, because the funding comes to an end at the end of this year? Time is running out. It will mean that in many cases occasional care will stop altogether.
I want to take this opportunity today to provide examples of what some parents have said in relation to this decision. In the past you have heard from me, the member for Wannon and other members on this side of the chamber in terms of what this means. But I want to read out what some parents in my electorate have said in relation to the decision. Sally Mitchell from Wantirna South says:
At present, I take my 3½ year old daughter to Orana two days a week for three hours at a time. In this time, I am able to work from home as a part-time Credit Controller for my family business. Without this break, I would be unable to perform my light, but very important work duties ...
Mrs Gerardine Hickmott writes:
My reason for choosing occasional care was primarily the introduction of regular short-term separation for my child. I was new to the area, and in fact new to Australia. Without any friends or family to help out, there was no avenue to give me any relief and also any separation for my son.
A further comment is from Anu Chandra from Wantirna, who writes:
It is never going to be easy starting our son anywhere away from home. His tendency of separation anxiety was high and influenced all parts of his life—and mine.
That was 6 months ago. There were tears for weeks, but since then his confidence socially, his ability to take direction from another adult and mostly, his ability to accept and enjoy time away from me has been invaluable.
It is terrific for the kids, as the member for Wannon pointed out. Katherine Ward writes:
The Take a Break program allows local families the chance to have structured, regular break from their child in a professional stimulating childcare environment.
Myra Jowett says:
It would devastate this community to lose Orana House occasional care programs.
Finally, Julie Harris says:
I would be absolutely devastated if this was to close down due to government cutbacks. I know of many parents who feel the same.
I think these comments are indicative of the feelings of dozens and dozens of parents across my electorate and, indeed, across the state of Victoria in relation to this decision to cut funding for the Take a Break program which may lead to the loss of occasional care altogether.
I acknowledge that occasional care is jointly funded by the state and federal governments. It traditionally has been funded 30 per cent by the state government and 70 per cent by the federal government. The state government has picked up the slack on a short-term basis, but all it is asking for is that the federal government continues to maintain its share of the funding. If it does so then the state government will continue to fund its share. The coalition has committed to restoring the $12.6 million if we are elected to government, but I am concerned that that might not come fast enough. We call on the government, we plead with them, to restore the funding for occasional care.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 10:30
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (10:12): I rise today to again express my concern in relation to the federal government's decision to cut $12.6 million from the Take a Break program, which funds occasional care. In Victoria some 220 community centres that operate occasional care may now need to close down their programs. Thousands of parents will be affected by this and thousands of children will no longer have the opportunity to participate in an early learning environment.
There are two occasional care programs in Knox. The first is Orana Neighbourhood House's occasional care program and the second is the Coonara Community House's program in Upper Ferntree Gully, which is just outside my electorate. Both offer terrific services for young children. However, what will happen if this funding is cut? What will happen if it is not continued next year, because the funding comes to an end at the end of this year? Time is running out. It will mean that in many cases occasional care will stop altogether.
I want to take this opportunity today to provide examples of what some parents have said in relation to this decision. In the past you have heard from me, the member for Wannon and other members on this side of the chamber in terms of what this means. But I want to read out what some parents in my electorate have said in relation to the decision. Sally Mitchell from Wantirna South says:
At present, I take my 3½ year old daughter to Orana two days a week for three hours at a time. In this time, I am able to work from home as a part-time Credit Controller for my family business. Without this break, I would be unable to perform my light, but very important work duties ...
Mrs Gerardine Hickmott writes:
My reason for choosing occasional care was primarily the introduction of regular short-term separation for my child. I was new to the area, and in fact new to Australia. Without any friends or family to help out, there was no avenue to give me any relief and also any separation for my son.
A further comment is from Anu Chandra from Wantirna, who writes:
It is never going to be easy starting our son anywhere away from home. His tendency of separation anxiety was high and influenced all parts of his life—and mine.
That was 6 months ago. There were tears for weeks, but since then his confidence socially, his ability to take direction from another adult and mostly, his ability to accept and enjoy time away from me has been invaluable.
It is terrific for the kids, as the member for Wannon pointed out. Katherine Ward writes:
The Take a Break program allows local families the chance to have structured, regular break from their child in a professional stimulating childcare environment.
Myra Jowett says:
It would devastate this community to lose Orana House occasional care programs.
Finally, Julie Harris says:
I would be absolutely devastated if this was to close down due to government cutbacks. I know of many parents who feel the same.
I think these comments are indicative of the feelings of dozens and dozens of parents across my electorate and, indeed, across the state of Victoria in relation to this decision to cut funding for the Take a Break program which may lead to the loss of occasional care altogether.
I acknowledge that occasional care is jointly funded by the state and federal governments. It traditionally has been funded 30 per cent by the state government and 70 per cent by the federal government. The state government has picked up the slack on a short-term basis, but all it is asking for is that the federal government continues to maintain its share of the funding. If it does so then the state government will continue to fund its share. The coalition has committed to restoring the $12.6 million if we are elected to government, but I am concerned that that might not come fast enough. We call on the government, we plead with them, to restore the funding for occasional care.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:17 to 10:30
Bass Electorate: Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre
Mr LYONS (Bass) (10:30): I rise today to speak about an exciting new facility that I recently had the pleasure of opening in Launceston in my electorate of Bass—the the Tasmanian Polytechnic's Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre. This was a very significant project for the electorate, with the Australian Labor government committing more than $5.8 million towards its completion from the Teaching and Learning Capital Fund. The completed works will provide Tasmanian Polytechnic and Northern Tasmania with a new facility that supports trainees to become part of a highly skilled workforce of tomorrow.
The Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre is designed to meet the needs of the growing tourism and hospitality industry in Northern Tasmania. The centre will promote growth of the food industry by supporting highly trained students to take up hospitality and tourism industry jobs as well as creating a better community understanding of the link between food and wellbeing. The new training facility will be of considerable benefit to the industry as it addresses skills shortages by providing students with relevant training in a timely manner.
The new facilities at the Tasmanian Polytechnic will enhance the training capacity at this facility and will benefit over 450 students. The centre includes nods to the building's past as a jail with areas displaying the original stone wall and has excellent use of natural lighting throughout the facility in contrast to the old classrooms, which were the old LGH kitchens. There are several varieties of espresso machines for students to work on in the classroom, ensuring that they can quickly adapt to any cafe work environment. The kitchen classrooms back onto functional commercial kitchens, which are put to use every Thursday night and open to the public.
Through this project, the Tasmanian Polytechnic is better placed to support the local industry and meet the specific needs of the region. The centre is home to an eclectic mix of students from various walks of life ranging from students of St Patrick's College and Launceston Church Grammar School participating in the 'Taste of Polytechnic' or TOPS course to older students returning from the workforce in order to further their education. It is a great benefit to the community to have an organisation that meets the critical local industry and business needs.
One of my daughters, Bianca, trained in Tasmania and I have since witnessed her managing a tavern in Western Australian where she single-handedly catered for nearly 300 people with an a la carte menu. She used the skills she acquired by studying at the Tasmanian Polytechnic which are a great asset to her in her working life. This project is an excellent example of what can be achieved by governments and industry working in partnership. It is also proof of how the government's investment in VET infrastructure is helping improve training facilities across the country. As I mentioned earlier, the money for this project came from our teaching and learning capital fund. This fund provides eligible VET providers with the dollars to modernise or build new trade training centres. Over the last two years the government has invested $500 million in training and skills infrastructure projects through this fund, the $500 million being committed to community training providers that offer job-ready accreditation, vocational education and training.
Everyone deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential and make a productive contribution to society. That is why the government is committed to improving the quality of our VET sector and ensuring graduates have the skills they need to support a strong economy. That is why we have invested $3 billion in skills training initiatives in this year's budget.
It was great to be able to meet with teachers and students at the opening. They were thrilled with the new learning environment. I am sure that both teachers and students will thoroughly enjoy making the most of this facility. I have nothing but praise for the Tasmanian Polytechnic and the way it has used the funding to offer better education to the people of northern Tasmania, and I was thrilled to officially open the building. I also congratulate them on supporting the Clifford Craig Medical Research Trust and their Melbourne Cup function.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (10:30): I rise today to speak about an exciting new facility that I recently had the pleasure of opening in Launceston in my electorate of Bass—the the Tasmanian Polytechnic's Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre. This was a very significant project for the electorate, with the Australian Labor government committing more than $5.8 million towards its completion from the Teaching and Learning Capital Fund. The completed works will provide Tasmanian Polytechnic and Northern Tasmania with a new facility that supports trainees to become part of a highly skilled workforce of tomorrow.
The Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Training Centre is designed to meet the needs of the growing tourism and hospitality industry in Northern Tasmania. The centre will promote growth of the food industry by supporting highly trained students to take up hospitality and tourism industry jobs as well as creating a better community understanding of the link between food and wellbeing. The new training facility will be of considerable benefit to the industry as it addresses skills shortages by providing students with relevant training in a timely manner.
The new facilities at the Tasmanian Polytechnic will enhance the training capacity at this facility and will benefit over 450 students. The centre includes nods to the building's past as a jail with areas displaying the original stone wall and has excellent use of natural lighting throughout the facility in contrast to the old classrooms, which were the old LGH kitchens. There are several varieties of espresso machines for students to work on in the classroom, ensuring that they can quickly adapt to any cafe work environment. The kitchen classrooms back onto functional commercial kitchens, which are put to use every Thursday night and open to the public.
Through this project, the Tasmanian Polytechnic is better placed to support the local industry and meet the specific needs of the region. The centre is home to an eclectic mix of students from various walks of life ranging from students of St Patrick's College and Launceston Church Grammar School participating in the 'Taste of Polytechnic' or TOPS course to older students returning from the workforce in order to further their education. It is a great benefit to the community to have an organisation that meets the critical local industry and business needs.
One of my daughters, Bianca, trained in Tasmania and I have since witnessed her managing a tavern in Western Australian where she single-handedly catered for nearly 300 people with an a la carte menu. She used the skills she acquired by studying at the Tasmanian Polytechnic which are a great asset to her in her working life. This project is an excellent example of what can be achieved by governments and industry working in partnership. It is also proof of how the government's investment in VET infrastructure is helping improve training facilities across the country. As I mentioned earlier, the money for this project came from our teaching and learning capital fund. This fund provides eligible VET providers with the dollars to modernise or build new trade training centres. Over the last two years the government has invested $500 million in training and skills infrastructure projects through this fund, the $500 million being committed to community training providers that offer job-ready accreditation, vocational education and training.
Everyone deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential and make a productive contribution to society. That is why the government is committed to improving the quality of our VET sector and ensuring graduates have the skills they need to support a strong economy. That is why we have invested $3 billion in skills training initiatives in this year's budget.
It was great to be able to meet with teachers and students at the opening. They were thrilled with the new learning environment. I am sure that both teachers and students will thoroughly enjoy making the most of this facility. I have nothing but praise for the Tasmanian Polytechnic and the way it has used the funding to offer better education to the people of northern Tasmania, and I was thrilled to officially open the building. I also congratulate them on supporting the Clifford Craig Medical Research Trust and their Melbourne Cup function.
School Chaplains
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:36): The National School Chaplaincy Program is an important part of our school education system, providing vital support in an environment that places ever-increasing pressure on both students and teachers. In the lead-up to the 2010 federal election, Prime Minister Gillard promised that the program would not be secularised; yet recent government announcements on the program do exactly that. The truth of the matter is that the chaplaincy program is not a religious program. I have spoken previously in this place about chaplaincy—in particular, the journey of a teacher who transitioned into chaplaincy as she saw the importance of helping students with deeper issues.
The merits of chaplaincy have not changed. Yet it was February when I last spoke about this issue and now we are in November and the question mark still remains. Tim Mander, probably better known as an NRL referee but, more importantly, the CEO of Scripture Union Queensland, has estimated that, should funding of the school chaplaincy program be cut, up to half of school chaplains would be lost overnight. There are more than 500 'chappies' operating in 600 state schools across my home state of Queensland, and the initiative is strongly supported by parents, teachers and students alike. As of August this year, Mr Mander had already received 30,000 statements of support for the chaplaincy program, and hearing the stories of students who are currently benefiting and have benefited from chaplaincy programs in our schools makes it easy to see why chaplaincy contributes so much to society.
Chaplaincy and pastoral care have long been adopted and accepted by schools and the wider community as services that transcend religion. They provide support and lend a listening ear to students in need. We all went through high school; we all know the troubles we faced then. But there are a myriad of further pressures placed on students today. Furthermore, more and more is being expected of teachers, who are already overworked. Chaplains provide an extra service in our schools to help deal with these pressures and have the opportunity to support students with deeper issues.
Chaplains have a distinct and defined role, and it is such an important one: they are there to provide comfort and support at a critical time in a child's life. It is far better and more effective to have resources in our schools to try to address youth issues when they are prevalent and to have programs in place to prevent larger problems and more serious ones from developing. Let us not be short-sighted. Remember: the right help at a crucial moment in a child's or teenager's life can prevent a lifetime of problems which can be much more costly to our society in the long term. Furthermore, chaplaincy is not limited to schools. Chaplains have long held roles with emergency service organisations, defence forces, hospitals and professional sporting teams. The notion of pastoral care for development of a young person is highly valued by our community, with schools and university residential colleges in particular proudly promoting this service as a benefit of their institution. It is also important to note that the national chaplaincy program is optional for schools and that federal funding is only $20,000 per school. That is not enough to fund a chaplain. Therefore, a great deal of support for a chaplain in a school must come from the community, as only approximately two-thirds are covered by the government. This has led to a type of government-community partnership for local chaplains and has provided a great deal of community cohesion around the chaplaincy program. From this, it is easy to see why in 2009 a national survey noted that 98 per cent of responding school principals who had a chaplain on campus said that they wanted their program to continue.
Chaplains provide a vital support service at a time when mental health issues are causing huge concerns around Australia. While suicide contributes to just 1.5 per cent of deaths in Australia, it is disproportionately high in our youth. In 2009, 24 per cent of male deaths of those aged 15 to 24 were suicide. This statistic is heartbreaking and it is a worrying sign that we are failing our youth—the future of our nation.
School chaplaincy testimonials from students around the country have attributed chappies to helping them to beat their demons and to grow into the successful, contributing and, most importantly, happy young people that they are today. I have heard their stories and I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my ongoing support for chaplaincy services.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:36): The National School Chaplaincy Program is an important part of our school education system, providing vital support in an environment that places ever-increasing pressure on both students and teachers. In the lead-up to the 2010 federal election, Prime Minister Gillard promised that the program would not be secularised; yet recent government announcements on the program do exactly that. The truth of the matter is that the chaplaincy program is not a religious program. I have spoken previously in this place about chaplaincy—in particular, the journey of a teacher who transitioned into chaplaincy as she saw the importance of helping students with deeper issues.
The merits of chaplaincy have not changed. Yet it was February when I last spoke about this issue and now we are in November and the question mark still remains. Tim Mander, probably better known as an NRL referee but, more importantly, the CEO of Scripture Union Queensland, has estimated that, should funding of the school chaplaincy program be cut, up to half of school chaplains would be lost overnight. There are more than 500 'chappies' operating in 600 state schools across my home state of Queensland, and the initiative is strongly supported by parents, teachers and students alike. As of August this year, Mr Mander had already received 30,000 statements of support for the chaplaincy program, and hearing the stories of students who are currently benefiting and have benefited from chaplaincy programs in our schools makes it easy to see why chaplaincy contributes so much to society.
Chaplaincy and pastoral care have long been adopted and accepted by schools and the wider community as services that transcend religion. They provide support and lend a listening ear to students in need. We all went through high school; we all know the troubles we faced then. But there are a myriad of further pressures placed on students today. Furthermore, more and more is being expected of teachers, who are already overworked. Chaplains provide an extra service in our schools to help deal with these pressures and have the opportunity to support students with deeper issues.
Chaplains have a distinct and defined role, and it is such an important one: they are there to provide comfort and support at a critical time in a child's life. It is far better and more effective to have resources in our schools to try to address youth issues when they are prevalent and to have programs in place to prevent larger problems and more serious ones from developing. Let us not be short-sighted. Remember: the right help at a crucial moment in a child's or teenager's life can prevent a lifetime of problems which can be much more costly to our society in the long term. Furthermore, chaplaincy is not limited to schools. Chaplains have long held roles with emergency service organisations, defence forces, hospitals and professional sporting teams. The notion of pastoral care for development of a young person is highly valued by our community, with schools and university residential colleges in particular proudly promoting this service as a benefit of their institution. It is also important to note that the national chaplaincy program is optional for schools and that federal funding is only $20,000 per school. That is not enough to fund a chaplain. Therefore, a great deal of support for a chaplain in a school must come from the community, as only approximately two-thirds are covered by the government. This has led to a type of government-community partnership for local chaplains and has provided a great deal of community cohesion around the chaplaincy program. From this, it is easy to see why in 2009 a national survey noted that 98 per cent of responding school principals who had a chaplain on campus said that they wanted their program to continue.
Chaplains provide a vital support service at a time when mental health issues are causing huge concerns around Australia. While suicide contributes to just 1.5 per cent of deaths in Australia, it is disproportionately high in our youth. In 2009, 24 per cent of male deaths of those aged 15 to 24 were suicide. This statistic is heartbreaking and it is a worrying sign that we are failing our youth—the future of our nation.
School chaplaincy testimonials from students around the country have attributed chappies to helping them to beat their demons and to grow into the successful, contributing and, most importantly, happy young people that they are today. I have heard their stories and I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my ongoing support for chaplaincy services.
Qantas
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:41): I want to associate myself with the comments of the member for Ryan. I too am a very great supporter of school chaplaincy and I am very familiar with the very good work that they do in my electorate. I also want to speak about the current Qantas dispute and to preface my comments by saying that Melbourne Airport is located in my seat of Calwell. It is the largest employer in my electorate, and any disruption to employment emanating from industrial action or job losses at Melbourne Airport has an immediate and significant impact on my constituents and their families.
Many of my constituents are currently employed at Qantas, and their futures are very much at stake in this dispute. In a letter sent to Qantas employees yesterday, CEO Allan Joyce, when referring to the three unions involved in the dispute, said:
Throughout the negotiations these unions have made demands that we cannot agree to, because they are unrealistic and unsustainable demands that would cost jobs across the company and threaten the survival of Qantas.
Mr Joyce is desperate to pin the blame on his workers for threatening Qantas's survival and to alleviate himself of his responsibility to protect Qantas's future.
For the record, I want to mention some of the things my constituents, Mr Joyce's workers, think of the situation currently at Qantas. They include workers who at no stage took any form of industrial action. They speak of a boys club running Qantas without transparency. They speak of a lack of investment in tools and training that would be adequate to maintain the engineering and maintenance capacity of Qantas planes here in Australia. They speak of a lack of job security and the deliberately opaque manner in which the company is being managed. They say that it is so opaque that, by stealth, Mr Joyce and his boys club presented Australia with the grounding of the airline last weekend as a fait accompli.
The Qantas workforce is proud of the Qantas brand, because generations of Australian workers have built that brand. Mr Joyce is, for all intents and purposes, a Johnny-come-lately—a here today, gone tomorrow CEO reaping the rewards of excessive executive pay packets. As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport aptly put it:
This is a service industry that relies upon its workforce and the relationship with its workforce to deliver good, positive service on the ground. You do not get met by Allan Joyce when you book into a Qantas flight. When you sit on the flight you do not get served by Allan Joyce and the plane is not fixed and made safe by Allan Joyce.
A $3 million pay rise, amounting to a $5 million annual salary, seems obscene to most Australians, especially when compared with workers' salaries. While workers are condemned for wanting progression on their entitlements, Mr Joyce delivers himself a 71 per cent increase in his pay package. That is more than 62 times the average wage of the very same Qantas cabin crew members he shut the doors on last weekend. After scoring his cash grab—and my constituents and many Australians see it as a cash grab—Mr Joyce proceeded, as we have learnt and as we experienced, to lock out his workers without warning, without notice and, above all other considerations, disrupting the Australian economy and the Australian travelling public. While the government has acted in the national interest, it has to be said that the opposition have very much supported Mr Joyce's actions without any condemnation. The opposition speak of unions as some evil entity, ignoring the fact that unions have working memberships that keep the engine of our economy running. The extreme actions of the executive board and the militancy of the management that is running the airline not as it should be—not as an Australian asset vital to our airline industry and vital to workers and vital to tourism but as a boys club—seem to have escaped the condemnation of the opposition. For all their rhetoric, the opposition do not really value a productive economy that includes the rights of workers in a developing industry. This is not surprising given the opposition's record on industrial relations. This is the party of Work Choices, which was resoundingly defeated in the 2007 election by Australian working men and women who were not going to cop an attack on their right to better wages and better working conditions. So, in refusing to condemn Qantas for its action, the opposition prove that in reality they do not understand the hopes and aspirations of working Australians, and the Qantas workers in my electorate have a right to expect support from their political leaders. (Time expired)
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:41): I want to associate myself with the comments of the member for Ryan. I too am a very great supporter of school chaplaincy and I am very familiar with the very good work that they do in my electorate. I also want to speak about the current Qantas dispute and to preface my comments by saying that Melbourne Airport is located in my seat of Calwell. It is the largest employer in my electorate, and any disruption to employment emanating from industrial action or job losses at Melbourne Airport has an immediate and significant impact on my constituents and their families.
Many of my constituents are currently employed at Qantas, and their futures are very much at stake in this dispute. In a letter sent to Qantas employees yesterday, CEO Allan Joyce, when referring to the three unions involved in the dispute, said:
Throughout the negotiations these unions have made demands that we cannot agree to, because they are unrealistic and unsustainable demands that would cost jobs across the company and threaten the survival of Qantas.
Mr Joyce is desperate to pin the blame on his workers for threatening Qantas's survival and to alleviate himself of his responsibility to protect Qantas's future.
For the record, I want to mention some of the things my constituents, Mr Joyce's workers, think of the situation currently at Qantas. They include workers who at no stage took any form of industrial action. They speak of a boys club running Qantas without transparency. They speak of a lack of investment in tools and training that would be adequate to maintain the engineering and maintenance capacity of Qantas planes here in Australia. They speak of a lack of job security and the deliberately opaque manner in which the company is being managed. They say that it is so opaque that, by stealth, Mr Joyce and his boys club presented Australia with the grounding of the airline last weekend as a fait accompli.
The Qantas workforce is proud of the Qantas brand, because generations of Australian workers have built that brand. Mr Joyce is, for all intents and purposes, a Johnny-come-lately—a here today, gone tomorrow CEO reaping the rewards of excessive executive pay packets. As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport aptly put it:
This is a service industry that relies upon its workforce and the relationship with its workforce to deliver good, positive service on the ground. You do not get met by Allan Joyce when you book into a Qantas flight. When you sit on the flight you do not get served by Allan Joyce and the plane is not fixed and made safe by Allan Joyce.
A $3 million pay rise, amounting to a $5 million annual salary, seems obscene to most Australians, especially when compared with workers' salaries. While workers are condemned for wanting progression on their entitlements, Mr Joyce delivers himself a 71 per cent increase in his pay package. That is more than 62 times the average wage of the very same Qantas cabin crew members he shut the doors on last weekend. After scoring his cash grab—and my constituents and many Australians see it as a cash grab—Mr Joyce proceeded, as we have learnt and as we experienced, to lock out his workers without warning, without notice and, above all other considerations, disrupting the Australian economy and the Australian travelling public. While the government has acted in the national interest, it has to be said that the opposition have very much supported Mr Joyce's actions without any condemnation. The opposition speak of unions as some evil entity, ignoring the fact that unions have working memberships that keep the engine of our economy running. The extreme actions of the executive board and the militancy of the management that is running the airline not as it should be—not as an Australian asset vital to our airline industry and vital to workers and vital to tourism but as a boys club—seem to have escaped the condemnation of the opposition. For all their rhetoric, the opposition do not really value a productive economy that includes the rights of workers in a developing industry. This is not surprising given the opposition's record on industrial relations. This is the party of Work Choices, which was resoundingly defeated in the 2007 election by Australian working men and women who were not going to cop an attack on their right to better wages and better working conditions. So, in refusing to condemn Qantas for its action, the opposition prove that in reality they do not understand the hopes and aspirations of working Australians, and the Qantas workers in my electorate have a right to expect support from their political leaders. (Time expired)
Woodlawn Bioreactor
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (10:46): Last week I had the pleasure of touring the Woodlawn Bioreactor facility at Tarago, just a 1½-hour drive from Nowra or three-quarters of an hour from Canberra. It is operated by Veolia Environmental Services, which runs the Veolia Environmental Trust, a philanthropic interest that provides funding grants for projects that assist the environment. For instance, the Veolia Mulwaree Trust funded $5,883 towards a water tank and creating vegetable gardens at the Crookwell Preschool. They also contributed $17-odd thousand towards the cost of installing a new kitchen in the Breadalbane hall. I was delighted to learn that the Sussex Inlet Men's Shed, in my electorate of Gilmore, had also received a grant of $8½ thousand for a project to provide a loan pool of equipment to support cancer patients, and there was a contribution as well as to the Milton-Ulladulla Preschool.
There are copious other examples of Veolia's generosity but I would be safe in describing the organisation as a responsible corporate citizen. Veolia has over 30 years of industry experience in implementing effective, innovative and sustainable waste management and Woodlawn provides what I would describe as a contemporary role model for the industry—which is why I took along my staff, who could see firsthand, and gain an appreciation of, what an effective and comprehensive system the Woodlawn operation is. The Woodlawn Bioreactor and its support transfer infrastructure in Sydney is a $120 million investment developed to generate renewable electricity from general waste materials. The plant takes municipal waste from the Sydney metropolitan area and is the largest bioreactor landfill of its type in the world. The Woodlawn Bioreactor is differentiated from normal landfills by the investment in purpose-built infrastructure to break down the waste material rapidly and to enhance the collection of gas for production of power. The site has been visited by a number of eminent international experts in the field of organic conversion and has won a number of industry awards. To date the landfill has offset just under 200,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent, from the destruction of methane gas, which is equivalent to almost 50,000 cars being taken off Australia's roads.
Despite these real environmental wins, and the investment in the facility, Woodlawn will shortly have to address the requirements of the Carbon Price Mechanism, CPM, and all it entails. For the landfill sector, this scheme is an extremely clumsy mechanism—as the emissions for landfill occur into the future for up to 50 years in some cases—making the measurement of gas emissions difficult. Veolia and many other landfill owners have long been advocates for a direct action approach, such as provided under the Carbon Farming Initiative, that credits the environmental improvements achieved at each site in preference to the penalty approach adopted by the CPM. Unfortunately, with landfills being covered by the CPM, site operators will be exposed to the complexities of the modelling of these long-term emissions and the commercial risks that may result from modelling irregularities. With a carbon price of $30 tonne on waste received in the first year and current annual emissions of just under 150,000 tonnes per year, even a small error in modelling could have serious commercial consequences for some companies. The technical difficulty of measuring emissions is a stumbling block to a fair and equitable CPM for the landfill sector. This issue, and the uncertainty over carbon price into the future are likely to create a multitude of unintended consequences when it is rolled out next year.
The waste market is but two per cent of Australia's emissions, and yet the government has insisted on covering the waste sector under the CPM when coverage of all waste under the CFI would create the same abatement without any of the uncertainties created by modelling. It is somewhat premature to cover the sector under the CPM if one cannot measure what one is trying to tax. A company that has been doing the right thing for the environment, long before the idiocy of the carbon tax was dreamed up, is now going to be the victim of a double jeopardy. There is no relief for them because they are among the top 500 carbon dioxide emitters targeted. It is more than an irony; it is a travesty and the blame for this must be laid squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister, who promised there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. You just cannot believe this government.
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (10:46): Last week I had the pleasure of touring the Woodlawn Bioreactor facility at Tarago, just a 1½-hour drive from Nowra or three-quarters of an hour from Canberra. It is operated by Veolia Environmental Services, which runs the Veolia Environmental Trust, a philanthropic interest that provides funding grants for projects that assist the environment. For instance, the Veolia Mulwaree Trust funded $5,883 towards a water tank and creating vegetable gardens at the Crookwell Preschool. They also contributed $17-odd thousand towards the cost of installing a new kitchen in the Breadalbane hall. I was delighted to learn that the Sussex Inlet Men's Shed, in my electorate of Gilmore, had also received a grant of $8½ thousand for a project to provide a loan pool of equipment to support cancer patients, and there was a contribution as well as to the Milton-Ulladulla Preschool.
There are copious other examples of Veolia's generosity but I would be safe in describing the organisation as a responsible corporate citizen. Veolia has over 30 years of industry experience in implementing effective, innovative and sustainable waste management and Woodlawn provides what I would describe as a contemporary role model for the industry—which is why I took along my staff, who could see firsthand, and gain an appreciation of, what an effective and comprehensive system the Woodlawn operation is. The Woodlawn Bioreactor and its support transfer infrastructure in Sydney is a $120 million investment developed to generate renewable electricity from general waste materials. The plant takes municipal waste from the Sydney metropolitan area and is the largest bioreactor landfill of its type in the world. The Woodlawn Bioreactor is differentiated from normal landfills by the investment in purpose-built infrastructure to break down the waste material rapidly and to enhance the collection of gas for production of power. The site has been visited by a number of eminent international experts in the field of organic conversion and has won a number of industry awards. To date the landfill has offset just under 200,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent, from the destruction of methane gas, which is equivalent to almost 50,000 cars being taken off Australia's roads.
Despite these real environmental wins, and the investment in the facility, Woodlawn will shortly have to address the requirements of the Carbon Price Mechanism, CPM, and all it entails. For the landfill sector, this scheme is an extremely clumsy mechanism—as the emissions for landfill occur into the future for up to 50 years in some cases—making the measurement of gas emissions difficult. Veolia and many other landfill owners have long been advocates for a direct action approach, such as provided under the Carbon Farming Initiative, that credits the environmental improvements achieved at each site in preference to the penalty approach adopted by the CPM. Unfortunately, with landfills being covered by the CPM, site operators will be exposed to the complexities of the modelling of these long-term emissions and the commercial risks that may result from modelling irregularities. With a carbon price of $30 tonne on waste received in the first year and current annual emissions of just under 150,000 tonnes per year, even a small error in modelling could have serious commercial consequences for some companies. The technical difficulty of measuring emissions is a stumbling block to a fair and equitable CPM for the landfill sector. This issue, and the uncertainty over carbon price into the future are likely to create a multitude of unintended consequences when it is rolled out next year.
The waste market is but two per cent of Australia's emissions, and yet the government has insisted on covering the waste sector under the CPM when coverage of all waste under the CFI would create the same abatement without any of the uncertainties created by modelling. It is somewhat premature to cover the sector under the CPM if one cannot measure what one is trying to tax. A company that has been doing the right thing for the environment, long before the idiocy of the carbon tax was dreamed up, is now going to be the victim of a double jeopardy. There is no relief for them because they are among the top 500 carbon dioxide emitters targeted. It is more than an irony; it is a travesty and the blame for this must be laid squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister, who promised there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. You just cannot believe this government.
Coal Seam Gas
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:50): This week the parliament is seized of a package of bills which gives us the opportunity to revisit the way we are managing our natural resource bounty. The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill and associated bills are all about ensuring that we manage our natural resources in a way that provides benefit to all Australians, not just those who happen to be working in or involved with the minerals and mining industry but all Australians, now and into the future.
The nature of this debate has also brought with it a focus on how we deal with the future exploitation of coal seam gas. I know this is of interest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, as it is to many people in my electorate of Throsby and within the broader Illawarra region. Coal seam gas is a naturally occurring methane gas in and around coal seams. It is produced by drilling a well into a coal seam and allowing the release of that naturally occurring gas. Sometimes that release is induced by reducing the water pressure and using a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Coal seam gas is not a new industry. We have been exploiting coal seam gas for close on 30 years. There has been commercial exploitation of methane gas in coal mines around the Illawarra for over 20 years. However, the rapid pace at which coal seam gas is being exploited, particularly in your home state, Madam Deputy Speaker, has given rise to many concerns, and the prospect that it will be further expanded in my electorate and in the broader Illawarra region has given rise to even greater concern. I was a supporter of a recent community gathering where several thousand people gathered in the northern Illawarra to express their concern about the exploitation of coal seam gas reserves in the Illawarra region.
Coalmining has been at the centre of economic development and jobs growth in the Illawarra region for well over 100 years, so it is not as though the local residents are opposed to coalmining—they simply are not—but we are concerned that the coal seam gas industry be developed in a way that does not damage irreparably our water tables and so cause damage to other parts of the natural environment. The rapid development of this industry and the coal industry in general is bringing into sharp relief competition around land-use strategies. State governments of all political persuasions are going to have to do a far better job than they have done in the recent past. They simply cannot kick this can down the road, and we are going to have to intervene to ensure that we are exploiting our natural resources in a way that does not damage irreparably our natural environment and that we still have land set aside for agricultural purposes well into the future.
Mr Tehan: Have a talk to state Labor.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I would be very interested to hear some of the solutions proposed by those opposite. They would be as aware as people in my electorate that coal seam gas cannot be wished away. It currently provides around 30 per cent of natural gas supplies for eastern Australia. For those members representing electorates in and around South-East Queensland, around 90 per cent of the natural gas supply for Brisbane and surrounding areas comes from coal seam gas. It is the concern of people in my electorate that, as we exploit these natural resources, as we continue to look for ways of abating methane gas within coalmines around the Illawarra region and as we look for new and alternative less carbon intensive sources of energy, we do it in a way that manages both the energy security interests and the land use interests. I look forward to engaging in this debate on behalf of the constituents that I represent in the electorate of Throsby.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:50): This week the parliament is seized of a package of bills which gives us the opportunity to revisit the way we are managing our natural resource bounty. The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill and associated bills are all about ensuring that we manage our natural resources in a way that provides benefit to all Australians, not just those who happen to be working in or involved with the minerals and mining industry but all Australians, now and into the future.
The nature of this debate has also brought with it a focus on how we deal with the future exploitation of coal seam gas. I know this is of interest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, as it is to many people in my electorate of Throsby and within the broader Illawarra region. Coal seam gas is a naturally occurring methane gas in and around coal seams. It is produced by drilling a well into a coal seam and allowing the release of that naturally occurring gas. Sometimes that release is induced by reducing the water pressure and using a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Coal seam gas is not a new industry. We have been exploiting coal seam gas for close on 30 years. There has been commercial exploitation of methane gas in coal mines around the Illawarra for over 20 years. However, the rapid pace at which coal seam gas is being exploited, particularly in your home state, Madam Deputy Speaker, has given rise to many concerns, and the prospect that it will be further expanded in my electorate and in the broader Illawarra region has given rise to even greater concern. I was a supporter of a recent community gathering where several thousand people gathered in the northern Illawarra to express their concern about the exploitation of coal seam gas reserves in the Illawarra region.
Coalmining has been at the centre of economic development and jobs growth in the Illawarra region for well over 100 years, so it is not as though the local residents are opposed to coalmining—they simply are not—but we are concerned that the coal seam gas industry be developed in a way that does not damage irreparably our water tables and so cause damage to other parts of the natural environment. The rapid development of this industry and the coal industry in general is bringing into sharp relief competition around land-use strategies. State governments of all political persuasions are going to have to do a far better job than they have done in the recent past. They simply cannot kick this can down the road, and we are going to have to intervene to ensure that we are exploiting our natural resources in a way that does not damage irreparably our natural environment and that we still have land set aside for agricultural purposes well into the future.
Mr Tehan: Have a talk to state Labor.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I would be very interested to hear some of the solutions proposed by those opposite. They would be as aware as people in my electorate that coal seam gas cannot be wished away. It currently provides around 30 per cent of natural gas supplies for eastern Australia. For those members representing electorates in and around South-East Queensland, around 90 per cent of the natural gas supply for Brisbane and surrounding areas comes from coal seam gas. It is the concern of people in my electorate that, as we exploit these natural resources, as we continue to look for ways of abating methane gas within coalmines around the Illawarra region and as we look for new and alternative less carbon intensive sources of energy, we do it in a way that manages both the energy security interests and the land use interests. I look forward to engaging in this debate on behalf of the constituents that I represent in the electorate of Throsby.
Rowe, Mr Louis
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:55): Today I rise to talk about Louis Rowe, a young Australian who I met recently. I feel his story must be told. I will continue to update parliament on his story while I am still in this place. The information I am giving you has come from Louis's website and from my discussions with him. Louis began primary school at St Joseph's in Warrnambool in Australia in 1990. After year 6 he graduated to Emmanuel College in 1997. After two years at Emmanuel, Louis attended St Patrick's College as a boarder. Sadly, boarding was phased out there so Louis entered Xavier College at Kew in Victoria in 2000, where he completed years 10, 11 and 12. Footy was the sport that Louis loved and played during the winter. The boarders had quite a strong team in the school league. Louis was accepted to the Australian Catholic University.
On 26 January 2007 Louis and three of his best mates from school days embarked on a well-planned trip to Thailand. The boys had purchased the appropriate travel insurance. The day they arrived in Phuket they found some accommodation, where they spent three days. Then they got on a ferry to the island of Ko Samui. The next day they decided they would hire some scooters to check out the whole island and rented them through the hotel. They offered their Australian drivers licences but were just asked to sign a waiver and hand over their passports. There were no questions asked. They were away.
Louis was cut off by a car that lost control and he fell off his scooter. At the Ko Samui Hospital they found his injuries included a damaged spinal cord. The message from Louis on this is do not hire a motor vehicle of any sort unless you have the appropriate licence and check your insurance contracts.
Louis lost the use of his lower body and was told by a Victorian hospital that there was nothing that could be done for him. On 11 March 2008 Louis went to India to try some stem cell treatment with Dr Shroff, who featured in a 60 Minutes program with Sonya Smith from Brisbane. Louis was away for nine weeks. Sonya is a young mother of two and had the same complete cut spinal injury as Louis. She is now standing with the aid of callipers and slowly walking with aids. She is improving daily.
Louis has returned to India a few times and he has steadily improved. The treatment he has been having is human embryonic stem cell, HESC, therapy, which is changing the face of modern medicine as we know it. Dr Geeta Shroff has developed the technology to isolate human embryonic stem cells, culture them, prepare them for clinical application and store them in a ready to use form with a shelf life of six months.
Further, this technology is being used clinically to treat patients suffering from various conditions all presently characterised as incurable—spinal cord injury, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, cardiac conditions and many more. In more than five years of clinical applications in over 500 patients the results are nothing short of astounding. Patients paralysed from the neck downwards have resumed function of their arms and are taking steps and diabetics on high doses of insulin are now leading lives insulin free.
Dr Geeta Shroff has developed the only purely human embryonic stem cell lines that do not show any immune reaction in the body. Embryonic stem cells do not have any antigenic proteins on their surface and thus do not require immunosuppressant drugs. Dr Shroff's technology involved the use of just one embryo. During her laboratory research she only used surplus embryos from an IVF donor who underwent a barrage of tests, including a complex medical history and genetic history.
In conclusion, Louis left the Talbot Rehabilitation Centre in Melbourne unable to stand and feel anything below his waist. They trained him to manage life in a wheelchair and offered no other hope. Today Louis Rowe can walk slowly but surely. He can stand for at least two hours at a time. When he stands he can feel the pressure on the soles of his feet. Louis can swim the length of a pool. He can lie on his side and lift his leg from the hip and move it back and forward from the knee down. He is able to slightly wriggle the toes of his left foot. Every day he regains more feeling in his feet and his legs. One of the most successful results is that Louis can now use his bladder. He has that control.
Louis, God bless you. I know you are listening. I wish you all the best in the future with the treatment. It is unfortunate that young Australians such as Louis have to leave our shores and travel to countries overseas to get treatment that should be available in Australia. As the Australian community look at the number of people who do travel overseas to get that type of medical treatment, it is something we should put on the agenda and start talking about again. I wish Louis all the best. Another constituent of mine, Allison Somers of Lynwood, is going through the same problems in getting the correct cancer treatment in Australia due to the delay by TGA—another issue that has been raised.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:55): Today I rise to talk about Louis Rowe, a young Australian who I met recently. I feel his story must be told. I will continue to update parliament on his story while I am still in this place. The information I am giving you has come from Louis's website and from my discussions with him. Louis began primary school at St Joseph's in Warrnambool in Australia in 1990. After year 6 he graduated to Emmanuel College in 1997. After two years at Emmanuel, Louis attended St Patrick's College as a boarder. Sadly, boarding was phased out there so Louis entered Xavier College at Kew in Victoria in 2000, where he completed years 10, 11 and 12. Footy was the sport that Louis loved and played during the winter. The boarders had quite a strong team in the school league. Louis was accepted to the Australian Catholic University.
On 26 January 2007 Louis and three of his best mates from school days embarked on a well-planned trip to Thailand. The boys had purchased the appropriate travel insurance. The day they arrived in Phuket they found some accommodation, where they spent three days. Then they got on a ferry to the island of Ko Samui. The next day they decided they would hire some scooters to check out the whole island and rented them through the hotel. They offered their Australian drivers licences but were just asked to sign a waiver and hand over their passports. There were no questions asked. They were away.
Louis was cut off by a car that lost control and he fell off his scooter. At the Ko Samui Hospital they found his injuries included a damaged spinal cord. The message from Louis on this is do not hire a motor vehicle of any sort unless you have the appropriate licence and check your insurance contracts.
Louis lost the use of his lower body and was told by a Victorian hospital that there was nothing that could be done for him. On 11 March 2008 Louis went to India to try some stem cell treatment with Dr Shroff, who featured in a 60 Minutes program with Sonya Smith from Brisbane. Louis was away for nine weeks. Sonya is a young mother of two and had the same complete cut spinal injury as Louis. She is now standing with the aid of callipers and slowly walking with aids. She is improving daily.
Louis has returned to India a few times and he has steadily improved. The treatment he has been having is human embryonic stem cell, HESC, therapy, which is changing the face of modern medicine as we know it. Dr Geeta Shroff has developed the technology to isolate human embryonic stem cells, culture them, prepare them for clinical application and store them in a ready to use form with a shelf life of six months.
Further, this technology is being used clinically to treat patients suffering from various conditions all presently characterised as incurable—spinal cord injury, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, cardiac conditions and many more. In more than five years of clinical applications in over 500 patients the results are nothing short of astounding. Patients paralysed from the neck downwards have resumed function of their arms and are taking steps and diabetics on high doses of insulin are now leading lives insulin free.
Dr Geeta Shroff has developed the only purely human embryonic stem cell lines that do not show any immune reaction in the body. Embryonic stem cells do not have any antigenic proteins on their surface and thus do not require immunosuppressant drugs. Dr Shroff's technology involved the use of just one embryo. During her laboratory research she only used surplus embryos from an IVF donor who underwent a barrage of tests, including a complex medical history and genetic history.
In conclusion, Louis left the Talbot Rehabilitation Centre in Melbourne unable to stand and feel anything below his waist. They trained him to manage life in a wheelchair and offered no other hope. Today Louis Rowe can walk slowly but surely. He can stand for at least two hours at a time. When he stands he can feel the pressure on the soles of his feet. Louis can swim the length of a pool. He can lie on his side and lift his leg from the hip and move it back and forward from the knee down. He is able to slightly wriggle the toes of his left foot. Every day he regains more feeling in his feet and his legs. One of the most successful results is that Louis can now use his bladder. He has that control.
Louis, God bless you. I know you are listening. I wish you all the best in the future with the treatment. It is unfortunate that young Australians such as Louis have to leave our shores and travel to countries overseas to get treatment that should be available in Australia. As the Australian community look at the number of people who do travel overseas to get that type of medical treatment, it is something we should put on the agenda and start talking about again. I wish Louis all the best. Another constituent of mine, Allison Somers of Lynwood, is going through the same problems in getting the correct cancer treatment in Australia due to the delay by TGA—another issue that has been raised.
Learn Earn Legend! Program
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (11:00): I am very grateful to have a chance to speak on a special program that I participated in recently. A few weeks ago, under the Learn Earn Legend! program, about 100 Indigenous students from all over Australia had an opportunity to spend a week in Canberra undertaking work experience in parliament and in other jobs related to government. Under the program, the students had an induction to the workplace and they got to see what staff work on and the practical aspects of working here, with the staff discussing with the students their understanding of the political system and any aspirations that they might have. They accompanied me and people from my office to observe scheduled events for parliamentarians. You could also organise a lunch. In my case, we had a great afternoon tea. They observed a range of work activities and also talked within the office about what is involved in the role.
Learn Earn Legend! is clearly a great program. It encourages and supports young Indigenous Australians to stay at school and to get employment. The theme of the program is to be a legend for themselves, their families and their communities. I had the great pleasure of having in my office a year 11 student from Nyngan High School, from Nyngan in New South Wales—Demi Jeffery, from the Wongaibon tribe. She said:
The program is great and allows me along with other students to experience life as a parliamentarian and it's a fantastic way to meet new people and make new friends.
I believe it was a fantastic experience for the young Indigenous students, encouraging them to continue in school and strive for the job that they dream about. Most of the students were excited about the well-known ambassadors: NRL Titans star Scott Prince and tennis legend Evonne Goolagong. Not only are they both proud Aboriginal people but they are also role models for the students. Even though they were only with the students for a short time, the experience impacted on the students and drummed into them that they should always follow their dreams.
Demi undertook a range of tasks such as writing speeches and touring Parliament House. She got to sit through question time and was lucky enough to go on the floor of the Senate. Demi informed us that the highlight of her time with us was the tour of Parliament House, when she was able to go onto the Senate floor. I hope that this has given Demi one of the most rewarding life experiences that she has had, being able to work at Parliament House. It was certainly a terrific experience for me to host someone who has such a great deal to offer and a lot of dreams that she wants to follow, particularly recognising the importance of education in her life. I reckon she gained a great understanding of life in parliament and, as I said, it was a pleasure to host someone as mature, thoughtful and engaging as Demi. I hope to see this program continue to run and help close the gap for Aboriginal people.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (11:00): I am very grateful to have a chance to speak on a special program that I participated in recently. A few weeks ago, under the Learn Earn Legend! program, about 100 Indigenous students from all over Australia had an opportunity to spend a week in Canberra undertaking work experience in parliament and in other jobs related to government. Under the program, the students had an induction to the workplace and they got to see what staff work on and the practical aspects of working here, with the staff discussing with the students their understanding of the political system and any aspirations that they might have. They accompanied me and people from my office to observe scheduled events for parliamentarians. You could also organise a lunch. In my case, we had a great afternoon tea. They observed a range of work activities and also talked within the office about what is involved in the role.
Learn Earn Legend! is clearly a great program. It encourages and supports young Indigenous Australians to stay at school and to get employment. The theme of the program is to be a legend for themselves, their families and their communities. I had the great pleasure of having in my office a year 11 student from Nyngan High School, from Nyngan in New South Wales—Demi Jeffery, from the Wongaibon tribe. She said:
The program is great and allows me along with other students to experience life as a parliamentarian and it's a fantastic way to meet new people and make new friends.
I believe it was a fantastic experience for the young Indigenous students, encouraging them to continue in school and strive for the job that they dream about. Most of the students were excited about the well-known ambassadors: NRL Titans star Scott Prince and tennis legend Evonne Goolagong. Not only are they both proud Aboriginal people but they are also role models for the students. Even though they were only with the students for a short time, the experience impacted on the students and drummed into them that they should always follow their dreams.
Demi undertook a range of tasks such as writing speeches and touring Parliament House. She got to sit through question time and was lucky enough to go on the floor of the Senate. Demi informed us that the highlight of her time with us was the tour of Parliament House, when she was able to go onto the Senate floor. I hope that this has given Demi one of the most rewarding life experiences that she has had, being able to work at Parliament House. It was certainly a terrific experience for me to host someone who has such a great deal to offer and a lot of dreams that she wants to follow, particularly recognising the importance of education in her life. I reckon she gained a great understanding of life in parliament and, as I said, it was a pleasure to host someone as mature, thoughtful and engaging as Demi. I hope to see this program continue to run and help close the gap for Aboriginal people.
Men's Sheds
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:03): This week I had the pleasure of attending the Parliamentary Friends of Men's Sheds Group function, where we took the opportunity to meet with delegates from all around Australia who had come to raise the profile of the Men's Sheds organisation in this country and share some of the wonderful stories not only of achievements in their own communities but of how they are helping a sector of the market. The Parliamentary Friends of Men's Sheds Group is co-hosted by Mark Coulton and Chris Hayes. Chris was here in the chamber before and I acknowledge the great work that he does.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:04 to 11:16
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Representatives in the room were from each of the states around Australia. Each give their time voluntarily to an organisation. They were accompanied by the executive assistant manager, Melissa White, who does a great job in coordinating each of the requests of Men's Sheds from around Australia. Some of the activities that Men's Sheds, such a worthy organisation, contribute to in the community are restoring furniture, where they turn up legs of chairs that are donated to them and then give them to organisations. They will fix pushbikes for children from lower socioeconomic homes or that are found at the dump. I am aware of one Men's Sheds organisation that is taking the wheels off pushbikes, making up makeshift wheelchairs and exporting them to Fiji and those countries where wheelchairs are scarce. They fix lawnmowers for older people and for those who do not have the capacity to get that done by other means.
Often in a Men's Sheds room you will a see coffee table, which symbolises the ethos of Men's Sheds, which is sharing communication and sharing those problems you may not have anyone else to share them with. I hear from my electorate the wives are extremely happy with Men's Sheds because it gets the old boy out of the house for a couple of hours in the day and takes stress off relationships. The wives are very happy that the Men's Sheds organisation exists. The men also learn about good health. I know of some in my area that have learned additional computer skills. That may sound blasé, but one of the great things about elderly gentlemen learning how to use a computer and, in particular, how to use email is that it allows them to re-engage via Facebook and email with family, siblings or children they may have lost contact with over the years.
Currently, there are about 600 Men's Sheds in Australia. The organisation is forecasting that will grow to about 1,200 over the next 12 months to two years. In my area of Wright, I am very proud to say that I have no fewer than four Men's Sheds. There is one at Gatton, which did a magnificent job during the floods when many pumps, tractors and pieces of mechanical equipment were inundated with water. The Men's Shed have taken on the role of receiving that equipment, going through it, changing the filters and redoing the motors at their own expense, and then donating them back. They are donating their time and then giving the equipment back so that that part of the horticultural sector is able to get back on its feet.
A couple of weeks ago Boonah Men's Shed had a sausage sizzle outside the Mitre 10, raising the profile of their organisation and trying to attract new numbers. I was lucky enough to be in a situation to help them out financially so that they were able to attend the national conference. Beaudesert Men's Shed is also very active in the community. They are currently making toys for Christmas gifts. There is also a Men's Shed at Mount Tamborine, up on the hill. Each of my Men's Sheds is at a vastly different stage of development. At the moment the one at Mount Tamborine, which I had the opportunity to speak to on the phone a couple of times, has limited resources—only a shipping container. As I alluded to, it is at a totally different stage of its development. Age is no barrier to entering the Men's Shed. I encourage each of the members in this House to get behind their Men's Sheds in their areas and develop them, as they are a worthwhile cause.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:03): This week I had the pleasure of attending the Parliamentary Friends of Men's Sheds Group function, where we took the opportunity to meet with delegates from all around Australia who had come to raise the profile of the Men's Sheds organisation in this country and share some of the wonderful stories not only of achievements in their own communities but of how they are helping a sector of the market. The Parliamentary Friends of Men's Sheds Group is co-hosted by Mark Coulton and Chris Hayes. Chris was here in the chamber before and I acknowledge the great work that he does.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:04 to 11:16
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Representatives in the room were from each of the states around Australia. Each give their time voluntarily to an organisation. They were accompanied by the executive assistant manager, Melissa White, who does a great job in coordinating each of the requests of Men's Sheds from around Australia. Some of the activities that Men's Sheds, such a worthy organisation, contribute to in the community are restoring furniture, where they turn up legs of chairs that are donated to them and then give them to organisations. They will fix pushbikes for children from lower socioeconomic homes or that are found at the dump. I am aware of one Men's Sheds organisation that is taking the wheels off pushbikes, making up makeshift wheelchairs and exporting them to Fiji and those countries where wheelchairs are scarce. They fix lawnmowers for older people and for those who do not have the capacity to get that done by other means.
Often in a Men's Sheds room you will a see coffee table, which symbolises the ethos of Men's Sheds, which is sharing communication and sharing those problems you may not have anyone else to share them with. I hear from my electorate the wives are extremely happy with Men's Sheds because it gets the old boy out of the house for a couple of hours in the day and takes stress off relationships. The wives are very happy that the Men's Sheds organisation exists. The men also learn about good health. I know of some in my area that have learned additional computer skills. That may sound blasé, but one of the great things about elderly gentlemen learning how to use a computer and, in particular, how to use email is that it allows them to re-engage via Facebook and email with family, siblings or children they may have lost contact with over the years.
Currently, there are about 600 Men's Sheds in Australia. The organisation is forecasting that will grow to about 1,200 over the next 12 months to two years. In my area of Wright, I am very proud to say that I have no fewer than four Men's Sheds. There is one at Gatton, which did a magnificent job during the floods when many pumps, tractors and pieces of mechanical equipment were inundated with water. The Men's Shed have taken on the role of receiving that equipment, going through it, changing the filters and redoing the motors at their own expense, and then donating them back. They are donating their time and then giving the equipment back so that that part of the horticultural sector is able to get back on its feet.
A couple of weeks ago Boonah Men's Shed had a sausage sizzle outside the Mitre 10, raising the profile of their organisation and trying to attract new numbers. I was lucky enough to be in a situation to help them out financially so that they were able to attend the national conference. Beaudesert Men's Shed is also very active in the community. They are currently making toys for Christmas gifts. There is also a Men's Shed at Mount Tamborine, up on the hill. Each of my Men's Sheds is at a vastly different stage of development. At the moment the one at Mount Tamborine, which I had the opportunity to speak to on the phone a couple of times, has limited resources—only a shipping container. As I alluded to, it is at a totally different stage of its development. Age is no barrier to entering the Men's Shed. I encourage each of the members in this House to get behind their Men's Sheds in their areas and develop them, as they are a worthwhile cause.
Werriwa Electorate: Glenquarie Anglican Church
Werriwa Electorate: Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections
Lawn Bowls
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:21): I associate myself with the comments of the member for Wright, who spoke previously. I was also present at that launch earlier this week. Coincidentally, last week I was at the Glenquarie Anglican Church property, where a Men's Shed opening occurred. That has been funded, to some degree, by the previous state government. It was pleasing to see on the premises Dr Andrew McDonald, who played a role in that. The Anglican Church in that suburb is particularly active and runs a number of other programs, such as a breakfast facility. In conjunction with TAFE, it also trains people in horticulture and cooking. Once again I say that I associate myself with the previous member's positive comments about Men's Sheds. On that front, I particularly recognise the Reverend Swanepoel, who in recent years has been the driving force in regard to those matters.
More importantly, today I talk about the Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections group. It stems from a foundation from 20 years ago, the Liverpool Neighbourhood Centre. At the recent relaunch of the Cumberland Newspapers in my region, I met the coordinator, Pat Hall. It is worth putting on the public record the efforts of that particular organisation. It currently runs 65 programs and employs 18 people. During our conversation, Pat Hall particularly thanked the federal government for the stimulus money that went into its operation and which has now allowed it to run far more classes, seminars and training sessions for our region.
In a sense, this centre works in three federal electorates, Hughes, Werriwa and Fowler, because the area of Liverpool City Council is spread between those electorates. Amongst the programs conducted in my electorate are the Right Side of Fifties seniors group, playgroups, the ROSES weight management group, Homework Help, and beginners TAFE outreach computer classes, all at the George Bates Hall in Lurnea. The other facility utilised in the federal electorate of Werriwa is the Casula community centre in Ingham Drive. The programs conducted there are tai chi, Active Over 50s, the Active Mums group and the Casula Seniors Group. Those suburbs are both somewhat distant from the major CBD of Liverpool. Despite reasonable public transport, it is very praiseworthy that the group is holding these operations at those particular centres. The group also runs a social enterprise coffee shop. It is particularly active around the socially deprived suburb of Warwick Farm. For those who are not familiar with it, that is where one of Sydney's major racecourses is. It is not in my electorate, but it is worth noting that they do very praiseworthy work in that particular suburb.
On the broader front—outside my electorate—they conduct a number of other programs. There is HeartSmart, for women in particular because of the high prevalence of death from heart disease in women. The Sydney South West Health Area conducts women's health clinics with them. They run transcultural counselling and, with the Salvation Army, counselling of a generalist nature. Lifeline is on the local front, working with financial counselling for the area, and a chiropractor is also available. So the 18 staff do indeed operate a variety of programs. Last year's figures indicate that over 23,000 people throughout the municipality of Liverpool were assisted.
I will briefly refer also to the decision of the ABC to scrap its bowls program. I have been in correspondence, as would have been many other members on both sides of parliament, in regard to this decision. There have been estimates that over 300,000 Australians watch this program every weekend and more watch at peak periods: in the area of 470,000 people watched the Moama International test series. A petition has been circulating amongst clubs. The demographic of those playing the game is over 60 years of age. Despite commercial challenges to some clubs, it is still a popular pastime. I know from personal discussions with people who do not even play bowls that this program is watched widely. I do not for a moment condemn the ABC's decision to switch to women's sport and to some other alternatives, but, quite frankly, I question its claim that its dollars cannot stretch to cover a sport with so much support in this country. I note Ingleburn Bowling Club's work on this issue. It was established in 1952 with 2,000 players. It is one of many clubs in this country that are very concerned with this decision by ABC management which should be revisited.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:21): I associate myself with the comments of the member for Wright, who spoke previously. I was also present at that launch earlier this week. Coincidentally, last week I was at the Glenquarie Anglican Church property, where a Men's Shed opening occurred. That has been funded, to some degree, by the previous state government. It was pleasing to see on the premises Dr Andrew McDonald, who played a role in that. The Anglican Church in that suburb is particularly active and runs a number of other programs, such as a breakfast facility. In conjunction with TAFE, it also trains people in horticulture and cooking. Once again I say that I associate myself with the previous member's positive comments about Men's Sheds. On that front, I particularly recognise the Reverend Swanepoel, who in recent years has been the driving force in regard to those matters.
More importantly, today I talk about the Liverpool Neighbourhood Connections group. It stems from a foundation from 20 years ago, the Liverpool Neighbourhood Centre. At the recent relaunch of the Cumberland Newspapers in my region, I met the coordinator, Pat Hall. It is worth putting on the public record the efforts of that particular organisation. It currently runs 65 programs and employs 18 people. During our conversation, Pat Hall particularly thanked the federal government for the stimulus money that went into its operation and which has now allowed it to run far more classes, seminars and training sessions for our region.
In a sense, this centre works in three federal electorates, Hughes, Werriwa and Fowler, because the area of Liverpool City Council is spread between those electorates. Amongst the programs conducted in my electorate are the Right Side of Fifties seniors group, playgroups, the ROSES weight management group, Homework Help, and beginners TAFE outreach computer classes, all at the George Bates Hall in Lurnea. The other facility utilised in the federal electorate of Werriwa is the Casula community centre in Ingham Drive. The programs conducted there are tai chi, Active Over 50s, the Active Mums group and the Casula Seniors Group. Those suburbs are both somewhat distant from the major CBD of Liverpool. Despite reasonable public transport, it is very praiseworthy that the group is holding these operations at those particular centres. The group also runs a social enterprise coffee shop. It is particularly active around the socially deprived suburb of Warwick Farm. For those who are not familiar with it, that is where one of Sydney's major racecourses is. It is not in my electorate, but it is worth noting that they do very praiseworthy work in that particular suburb.
On the broader front—outside my electorate—they conduct a number of other programs. There is HeartSmart, for women in particular because of the high prevalence of death from heart disease in women. The Sydney South West Health Area conducts women's health clinics with them. They run transcultural counselling and, with the Salvation Army, counselling of a generalist nature. Lifeline is on the local front, working with financial counselling for the area, and a chiropractor is also available. So the 18 staff do indeed operate a variety of programs. Last year's figures indicate that over 23,000 people throughout the municipality of Liverpool were assisted.
I will briefly refer also to the decision of the ABC to scrap its bowls program. I have been in correspondence, as would have been many other members on both sides of parliament, in regard to this decision. There have been estimates that over 300,000 Australians watch this program every weekend and more watch at peak periods: in the area of 470,000 people watched the Moama International test series. A petition has been circulating amongst clubs. The demographic of those playing the game is over 60 years of age. Despite commercial challenges to some clubs, it is still a popular pastime. I know from personal discussions with people who do not even play bowls that this program is watched widely. I do not for a moment condemn the ABC's decision to switch to women's sport and to some other alternatives, but, quite frankly, I question its claim that its dollars cannot stretch to cover a sport with so much support in this country. I note Ingleburn Bowling Club's work on this issue. It was established in 1952 with 2,000 players. It is one of many clubs in this country that are very concerned with this decision by ABC management which should be revisited.
Gippsland Electorate: Wetland Rehabilitation Project
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (11:26): I rise to commend a wetland rehabilitation project that is underway in my community at the Heart Morass near Sale. I recently had the opportunity to inspect the Heart Morass project at the invitation of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority. This is an outstanding example of practical environmental work involving a vast array of community organisations, including the West Gippsland CMA; Field and Game Australia, through its WET Trust; the Hugh DT Williamson Foundation and its Bug Blitz program; and also Watermark, which is a group of concerned local residents that was formed about 10 to 15 years ago and which is interested in protecting and enhancing the Gippsland Lakes catchment.
The WET Trust and the Williamson foundation contributed the bulk of the $1.1 million used to purchase private land in 2006, which was the first stage of the restoration project. The project was formally launched in 2007. As I said, this is a great example of a community driven initiative. This was not government funding; the main funds came from philanthropic sources and also through a user group, Field and Game Australia. They were able to purchase some previously degraded farmland on the shores of the La Trobe River near the mouth of Lake Wellington and rehabilitate that to become a thriving wetland. The weather gods, I must confess, have been very kind. In the ensuing four years we have had a return to more normal seasons in the Gippsland area, so with the addition of some environmental flows of fresh water into the new wetland system the growth over the four-year period has been quite spectacular. We have seen bird species return to the Heart Morass, and there is a great sense of energy, enthusiasm and passion for the future amongst the groups that are involved in this outstanding project.
As I indicated, the partners in the project have come from quite diverse backgrounds, which reflects the opportunity for multiple use of environmental assets such as this outstanding natural asset. To really value a wetland like this you need to give people the opportunity to get out there and enjoy it, to walk in it, you should not just lock it up and leave it. There are hunters who are very interested in a sustainable and conservation based approach to the wetlands to make sure that their sport can continue into the future. They are very committed environmentalists in their own right and they obviously have a vested interest in ensuring that their sport has a future for future generations. There are also bird watchers and bushwalkers who are interested in enjoying those natural environs and appreciating the great natural beauty of the La Trobe River and the wetland area as it meanders its way down towards the Gippsland Lakes. Of course, there are also the natural resource managers, the West Gippsland CMA, who see real value in the capacity of the wetland to strip away some of the nutrients that would otherwise have ended up in the Gippsland Lakes system and be a source of future algal blooms.
This is a great example of a wetland project that has rehabilitated land that was very marginal at best and that is being actively managed. The community is really engaged in the project and understands how viable and vibrant a wetland can be. The classic example of how the community has engaged in this project is that from the day the contracts to purchase the land were signed they were able to get large earthmoving equipment on the site free of charge from people who were interested in the project. About $1½ million worth of earthmoving equipment was there on the first day of the project to start the process.
In terms of the project's future, what we have seen in the past few years has been outstanding, but there is a lot more work to be done. I believe there are opportunities here for governments to partner with community organisations. The community has shown the way by purchasing this marginal agricultural land and rehabilitating it, but there are opportunities for state and federal governments to take part in future land buybacks. I have written to both state and federal ministers in the past about opportunities to look at some of this degraded land, which is marginal at best. There are landholders down there who understand it is salt-affected land which probably should not have been drained in the first place and may have no real future as viable agricultural land. They are interested in buybacks and ways they can retire from the land in a dignified way. When I wrote to the ministers in 2009, the former environment minister indicated that the Caring for our Country program does consider land purchases. I intend to work with my community, to work with the groups which already have runs on the board on this project, to look at ways the federal government can make a contribution in the future. As I said, these groups have runs on the board and are already doing an outstanding job in the Gippsland community. I encourage both state and federal ministers, if they are in Gippsland, to take the time to come down to Heart Morass to see what my community has been doing. It is a project of national significance which is happening at a very local scale and has great potential to be expanded to other parts of our region. This is now an outstanding national asset which will benefit the entire community and also will help to restore the Gippsland Lakes and biodiversity which we value so highly.
There are educational opportunities with this project. The Williamson Foundation, with its Bug Blitz program, has been involved with bringing hundreds of school children together to learn in an outdoor classroom, to get a better appreciation of wetlands and how it all fits together in that package. So I commend the Heart Morass wetland project. It is a model of community partnerships and practical environmental work. I commend all the individuals and organisations involved. (Time expired)
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:31): Today I rise to report to the House on the great work being undertaken by the Cabramatta Community Centre throughout my electorate in the south-west of Sydney. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the 32nd annual general meeting of the Cabramatta Community Centre and also to speak at the farewell of the CEO, Jan Collie.
The Cabramatta Community Centre—or 'CCC', as it is affectionately known—is the hub of local activity. It provides many services and programs to the elderly, the young, children, women, Indigenous Australians, migrants and newly arrived refugees. It also advocates on behalf of individuals and groups, particularly those which are socially marginalised. It has recently participated in International Women's Day, equal pay rallies, Youth Week and Refugee Week, all of which I have spoken about in this parliament over the past few months. CCC also participates in White Ribbon Day. As a White Ribbon ambassador, I am very proud to work closely with the centre to help put an end to violence against women.
The centre employs over 250 staff members in the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre, Cabramatta Youth Team, The Heights Community Services, Multicultural Community Care Services, the CCC Preschool and the Fairfield Area Home Modification and Maintenance Outreach Service. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of all the staff members and volunteers at the centre, who do an excellent job on a day-to-day basis. Among them, can I pay tribute to executive committee members President Julio Gruttulini and Treasurer Edna Peceros, whom have I befriended over the past year, and Adrian Wong, who works for me and has been a volunteer for CCC over many years. Other executive members include Catherine Cranny, Gary Cachia, Dorothy Cole and Holly O'Donnell. I also pay tribute to the managers of the different services and projects, among them Barbara Hillman, Ricci Bartels, Clement Meru, Dr Simon Emsley, Estela Torredimare, Juana Reinoso, Danh Dang, Gary Lee, Debra Rose and Suji Upasena. I thank them very much for helping residents in my community to find solutions to their difficulties and assisting them in any way they can. Their work is totally admirable.
At the AGM, the new Youth Sponsorship Program was also launched by Adrian Wong on behalf of the Cabramatta Community Centre Youth Team. This new initiative will allow young people to apply for financial support and assistance with their activities.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the CEO, Jan Collie, who is retiring at the end of this year. I congratulate her on the passion, dedication and commitment she has shown, and the long service she has given to her local community where she has served at the Cabramatta Community Centre since February 1985. She has held many positions over that period but she has guided the Cabramatta Community Centre for an extended period of time and we are all deeply indebted to her commitment. It is indeed a great honour to have people like Jan who are only too willing to devote so much of their time in helping disadvantaged residents and ensuring that they enjoy the life and opportunities experienced by other Australians.
Jan is leaving the centre in a very strong and vibrant position. You may be interested also to know that, apart from her own attributes and what she has brought to the community, Jan is actually the sister of Jon English, one of the most famous rock singers we have. We claim him to be Australian but I think both of them actually came from the Old Dart.
I would like to personally thank Jan and many others like her for their hard work in furthering the interests of people through delivering quality services in south-west Sydney. Multiculturalism in Australia is about building a shared sense of nationhood forged through mutual respect, common values and commitment to fairness. This did not happen by chance in south-west Sydney; it happened through the commitment of places such as the Cabramatta Community Centre and people such as Jan Collie who worked hard to achieve this. This is a tribute to their hard work, and their respect for others, in helping others to work together as a community.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (11:26): I rise to commend a wetland rehabilitation project that is underway in my community at the Heart Morass near Sale. I recently had the opportunity to inspect the Heart Morass project at the invitation of the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority. This is an outstanding example of practical environmental work involving a vast array of community organisations, including the West Gippsland CMA; Field and Game Australia, through its WET Trust; the Hugh DT Williamson Foundation and its Bug Blitz program; and also Watermark, which is a group of concerned local residents that was formed about 10 to 15 years ago and which is interested in protecting and enhancing the Gippsland Lakes catchment.
The WET Trust and the Williamson foundation contributed the bulk of the $1.1 million used to purchase private land in 2006, which was the first stage of the restoration project. The project was formally launched in 2007. As I said, this is a great example of a community driven initiative. This was not government funding; the main funds came from philanthropic sources and also through a user group, Field and Game Australia. They were able to purchase some previously degraded farmland on the shores of the La Trobe River near the mouth of Lake Wellington and rehabilitate that to become a thriving wetland. The weather gods, I must confess, have been very kind. In the ensuing four years we have had a return to more normal seasons in the Gippsland area, so with the addition of some environmental flows of fresh water into the new wetland system the growth over the four-year period has been quite spectacular. We have seen bird species return to the Heart Morass, and there is a great sense of energy, enthusiasm and passion for the future amongst the groups that are involved in this outstanding project.
As I indicated, the partners in the project have come from quite diverse backgrounds, which reflects the opportunity for multiple use of environmental assets such as this outstanding natural asset. To really value a wetland like this you need to give people the opportunity to get out there and enjoy it, to walk in it, you should not just lock it up and leave it. There are hunters who are very interested in a sustainable and conservation based approach to the wetlands to make sure that their sport can continue into the future. They are very committed environmentalists in their own right and they obviously have a vested interest in ensuring that their sport has a future for future generations. There are also bird watchers and bushwalkers who are interested in enjoying those natural environs and appreciating the great natural beauty of the La Trobe River and the wetland area as it meanders its way down towards the Gippsland Lakes. Of course, there are also the natural resource managers, the West Gippsland CMA, who see real value in the capacity of the wetland to strip away some of the nutrients that would otherwise have ended up in the Gippsland Lakes system and be a source of future algal blooms.
This is a great example of a wetland project that has rehabilitated land that was very marginal at best and that is being actively managed. The community is really engaged in the project and understands how viable and vibrant a wetland can be. The classic example of how the community has engaged in this project is that from the day the contracts to purchase the land were signed they were able to get large earthmoving equipment on the site free of charge from people who were interested in the project. About $1½ million worth of earthmoving equipment was there on the first day of the project to start the process.
In terms of the project's future, what we have seen in the past few years has been outstanding, but there is a lot more work to be done. I believe there are opportunities here for governments to partner with community organisations. The community has shown the way by purchasing this marginal agricultural land and rehabilitating it, but there are opportunities for state and federal governments to take part in future land buybacks. I have written to both state and federal ministers in the past about opportunities to look at some of this degraded land, which is marginal at best. There are landholders down there who understand it is salt-affected land which probably should not have been drained in the first place and may have no real future as viable agricultural land. They are interested in buybacks and ways they can retire from the land in a dignified way. When I wrote to the ministers in 2009, the former environment minister indicated that the Caring for our Country program does consider land purchases. I intend to work with my community, to work with the groups which already have runs on the board on this project, to look at ways the federal government can make a contribution in the future. As I said, these groups have runs on the board and are already doing an outstanding job in the Gippsland community. I encourage both state and federal ministers, if they are in Gippsland, to take the time to come down to Heart Morass to see what my community has been doing. It is a project of national significance which is happening at a very local scale and has great potential to be expanded to other parts of our region. This is now an outstanding national asset which will benefit the entire community and also will help to restore the Gippsland Lakes and biodiversity which we value so highly.
There are educational opportunities with this project. The Williamson Foundation, with its Bug Blitz program, has been involved with bringing hundreds of school children together to learn in an outdoor classroom, to get a better appreciation of wetlands and how it all fits together in that package. So I commend the Heart Morass wetland project. It is a model of community partnerships and practical environmental work. I commend all the individuals and organisations involved. (Time expired)
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:31): Today I rise to report to the House on the great work being undertaken by the Cabramatta Community Centre throughout my electorate in the south-west of Sydney. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the 32nd annual general meeting of the Cabramatta Community Centre and also to speak at the farewell of the CEO, Jan Collie.
The Cabramatta Community Centre—or 'CCC', as it is affectionately known—is the hub of local activity. It provides many services and programs to the elderly, the young, children, women, Indigenous Australians, migrants and newly arrived refugees. It also advocates on behalf of individuals and groups, particularly those which are socially marginalised. It has recently participated in International Women's Day, equal pay rallies, Youth Week and Refugee Week, all of which I have spoken about in this parliament over the past few months. CCC also participates in White Ribbon Day. As a White Ribbon ambassador, I am very proud to work closely with the centre to help put an end to violence against women.
The centre employs over 250 staff members in the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre, Cabramatta Youth Team, The Heights Community Services, Multicultural Community Care Services, the CCC Preschool and the Fairfield Area Home Modification and Maintenance Outreach Service. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of all the staff members and volunteers at the centre, who do an excellent job on a day-to-day basis. Among them, can I pay tribute to executive committee members President Julio Gruttulini and Treasurer Edna Peceros, whom have I befriended over the past year, and Adrian Wong, who works for me and has been a volunteer for CCC over many years. Other executive members include Catherine Cranny, Gary Cachia, Dorothy Cole and Holly O'Donnell. I also pay tribute to the managers of the different services and projects, among them Barbara Hillman, Ricci Bartels, Clement Meru, Dr Simon Emsley, Estela Torredimare, Juana Reinoso, Danh Dang, Gary Lee, Debra Rose and Suji Upasena. I thank them very much for helping residents in my community to find solutions to their difficulties and assisting them in any way they can. Their work is totally admirable.
At the AGM, the new Youth Sponsorship Program was also launched by Adrian Wong on behalf of the Cabramatta Community Centre Youth Team. This new initiative will allow young people to apply for financial support and assistance with their activities.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the CEO, Jan Collie, who is retiring at the end of this year. I congratulate her on the passion, dedication and commitment she has shown, and the long service she has given to her local community where she has served at the Cabramatta Community Centre since February 1985. She has held many positions over that period but she has guided the Cabramatta Community Centre for an extended period of time and we are all deeply indebted to her commitment. It is indeed a great honour to have people like Jan who are only too willing to devote so much of their time in helping disadvantaged residents and ensuring that they enjoy the life and opportunities experienced by other Australians.
Jan is leaving the centre in a very strong and vibrant position. You may be interested also to know that, apart from her own attributes and what she has brought to the community, Jan is actually the sister of Jon English, one of the most famous rock singers we have. We claim him to be Australian but I think both of them actually came from the Old Dart.
I would like to personally thank Jan and many others like her for their hard work in furthering the interests of people through delivering quality services in south-west Sydney. Multiculturalism in Australia is about building a shared sense of nationhood forged through mutual respect, common values and commitment to fairness. This did not happen by chance in south-west Sydney; it happened through the commitment of places such as the Cabramatta Community Centre and people such as Jan Collie who worked hard to achieve this. This is a tribute to their hard work, and their respect for others, in helping others to work together as a community.
Australian Industry
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (11:36): Governments and public servants in this country must give Australian industry a fair go. A recent disturbing example is that of Victoria Police's recent decision to lock out Australian manufacturers from a contract worth almost $1 million to supply police uniforms—uniforms that, I am told, could have been produced in Australia at a significantly cheaper price and of superior quality. When government departments sneakily gift government contracts to foreign companies and seek exemption to prevent open competition and lock out local firms, there are many questions that need to be answered.
This was a decision made by the bureaucracy and trying to get answers out of them was like hitting your head against a brick wall. I did try to get answers from the minister's office. I am sure he shares my recollection that his office would provide full answers to my queries about why and how the police shirt tender was secretly given to a foreign company without an option for locals to tender. Just as I criticised the federal Labor Party for awarding contracts that facilitated Australia's Defence Force camouflage fabric to be made overseas, so too I am concerned about this particular government tender. I had no option but to pursue answers through the FOI process.
As the shadow minister for industry, I have been fighting to give Australian industry a fair go, to cut regulation, to stop the carbon tax and to apply the same standards to foreign companies as we apply to Australian companies. Although governments cannot control the state of their economy, government actions can severely affect Australian business. Government procurement is a significant area where governments can put into practice what they preach—that is, operate in an open market with equal access and fair competition. The bureaucracy is there to serve the people and the parliament is the voice of the people. Policy cannot and should not be dictated to by the bureaucrats. There are clear and inherent problems with the procurement processes within Victoria Police that I believe only a political solution will solve.
Suspicions were raised that something was not quite right when my FOI request arrived some 20 days after Victoria Police's own deadline as stated in their own FOI policy. The delay was blamed on the basis that they were seeking legal advice, but 64 days seems like a long time to seek legal advice. The response is deficient and raises more questions than it answers. Some statements made in the certificate to exempt Victoria Police from standard procurement processes are questionable, some are inaccurate and some are just plain wrong. For example, why did Victoria Police procurement inform local manufacturers Bruck Textiles on or about 5 July that there were no contracts for the interim supply of shirts, when a certificate of exemption was sought and approved on 15 April, almost three months earlier? Victoria Police say the rationale for bypassing an open tender was: 'presence of supplier or supplies with a particular product or highly specialised skills.' This is an absolutely extraordinary claim for Victoria Police to make. It implies that there are no fabric or garment companies in Australia who could achieve the same quality or service as an offshore equivalent. Is it honestly the opinion of Victoria Police that no other company in Australia can manufacture fabric and garments of the quality of a Chinese manufacturer?
On what basis have Victoria Police made this statement? If they honestly believe this is the case then they have nothing to fear from an open tender process. Victoria Police stated that the company chosen for the contract currently manufactures and supplies Yakka who, in turn, undertake the offshore manufacturing of shirts for the police. I am informed that Yakka have never used fabrics supplied by this company to manufacture shirts for Victoria Police. If this is the case then the whole basis of Victoria Police's rationale is an untruth. This is incredibly concerning and I will be taking this matter further.
It was just two years ago that the Victorian Ombudsman found a lack of oversight, controls and due process in Victoria Police's tendering and contracting. The report also found significant conflicts of interest, confusion over public service discipline and questionable investigative methods. Of course, this was under the previous state Labor government. There is a clear history of dysfunction within Victoria Police's tendering and contracting. This dysfunction can only be remedied by political action. Nothing less is acceptable to Australian industry because it is time for politicians and not bureaucrats to run the show.
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (11:36): Governments and public servants in this country must give Australian industry a fair go. A recent disturbing example is that of Victoria Police's recent decision to lock out Australian manufacturers from a contract worth almost $1 million to supply police uniforms—uniforms that, I am told, could have been produced in Australia at a significantly cheaper price and of superior quality. When government departments sneakily gift government contracts to foreign companies and seek exemption to prevent open competition and lock out local firms, there are many questions that need to be answered.
This was a decision made by the bureaucracy and trying to get answers out of them was like hitting your head against a brick wall. I did try to get answers from the minister's office. I am sure he shares my recollection that his office would provide full answers to my queries about why and how the police shirt tender was secretly given to a foreign company without an option for locals to tender. Just as I criticised the federal Labor Party for awarding contracts that facilitated Australia's Defence Force camouflage fabric to be made overseas, so too I am concerned about this particular government tender. I had no option but to pursue answers through the FOI process.
As the shadow minister for industry, I have been fighting to give Australian industry a fair go, to cut regulation, to stop the carbon tax and to apply the same standards to foreign companies as we apply to Australian companies. Although governments cannot control the state of their economy, government actions can severely affect Australian business. Government procurement is a significant area where governments can put into practice what they preach—that is, operate in an open market with equal access and fair competition. The bureaucracy is there to serve the people and the parliament is the voice of the people. Policy cannot and should not be dictated to by the bureaucrats. There are clear and inherent problems with the procurement processes within Victoria Police that I believe only a political solution will solve.
Suspicions were raised that something was not quite right when my FOI request arrived some 20 days after Victoria Police's own deadline as stated in their own FOI policy. The delay was blamed on the basis that they were seeking legal advice, but 64 days seems like a long time to seek legal advice. The response is deficient and raises more questions than it answers. Some statements made in the certificate to exempt Victoria Police from standard procurement processes are questionable, some are inaccurate and some are just plain wrong. For example, why did Victoria Police procurement inform local manufacturers Bruck Textiles on or about 5 July that there were no contracts for the interim supply of shirts, when a certificate of exemption was sought and approved on 15 April, almost three months earlier? Victoria Police say the rationale for bypassing an open tender was: 'presence of supplier or supplies with a particular product or highly specialised skills.' This is an absolutely extraordinary claim for Victoria Police to make. It implies that there are no fabric or garment companies in Australia who could achieve the same quality or service as an offshore equivalent. Is it honestly the opinion of Victoria Police that no other company in Australia can manufacture fabric and garments of the quality of a Chinese manufacturer?
On what basis have Victoria Police made this statement? If they honestly believe this is the case then they have nothing to fear from an open tender process. Victoria Police stated that the company chosen for the contract currently manufactures and supplies Yakka who, in turn, undertake the offshore manufacturing of shirts for the police. I am informed that Yakka have never used fabrics supplied by this company to manufacture shirts for Victoria Police. If this is the case then the whole basis of Victoria Police's rationale is an untruth. This is incredibly concerning and I will be taking this matter further.
It was just two years ago that the Victorian Ombudsman found a lack of oversight, controls and due process in Victoria Police's tendering and contracting. The report also found significant conflicts of interest, confusion over public service discipline and questionable investigative methods. Of course, this was under the previous state Labor government. There is a clear history of dysfunction within Victoria Police's tendering and contracting. This dysfunction can only be remedied by political action. Nothing less is acceptable to Australian industry because it is time for politicians and not bureaucrats to run the show.
Glendi Greek Festival
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (11:40): I rise today to acknowledge and talk about a particular event that has been taking place in South Australia now since 1977—originally it started in my electorate at the Thebarton Oval—and that is the Glendi Greek Festival. I was very pleased to attend, representing the Prime Minister, last Saturday, 29 October. The Glendi Greek Festival is a two-day event and it is one of the largest multicultural festivals in South Australia or even the country. When I was previously involved on their committee—and I was on the committee for nearly 15 years—we used to get attendances of up to 100,000 people over the two-day weekend. It was and still is a festival that attracts South Australians from all walks of life.
I was at the opening and, as I said, delivered the Prime Minister's speech. I was also accompanied by the Consul-General of the Hellenic Republic, Mr Christos Maniakis-Grivas. Premier Jay Weatherill was there and delivered a speech. In fact, his speech got a very loud applause when he said that the marbles should be returned to Greece. The crowd erupted into cheers when he made that statement. Also in attendance was the Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, Hieu Van Le, and my parliamentary colleagues Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, Tom Koutsantonis, who is the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, and Jennifer Rankine, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs.
It is an event that has been held for many, many years. It is actually a project of the Hellenic Lions Club in South Australia and all the profits that are made from this two-day event go to charity. There are many volunteers who have been involved with the Hellenic Lions Club for many years. Pat Taylor, who is one of the powerhouses of the Hellenic Lions Club, has been involved for many years. Peter Luka and Anastasia Potiris are people who have put in an enormous number of hours of volunteer work to ensure that they run the Hellenic Lions Club but also this particular festival, which is one of the great festivals of South Australia. The chair of the Glendi Greek Festival, Mr John Chefalakis, and Mr Ladas, who is the convenor of the coordinating committee, also put in long hours to make sure that this is a great success.
This year there was a new venue. It was held at the Wayville showgrounds. It was under cover, which meant that we were not at the mercy of the extremes of the weather. I have seen many Glendi festivals over the years where there have been storms or it has been really hot, which is a bit of a displeasure for the people attending. But this way ensured that, regardless of the weather, people were very comfortable inside. When I was up on stage giving my speech there would have been at least 5,000 or 6,000 people in the crowd from what I could see, so it attracted quite a few people. The MC for most of the weekend was George Kapiniaris, a very good actor and comedian that many of us know. He kept us entertained during the weekend. It was an excellent festival this year, with local acts and acts from Greece as well.
It also coincided with a very important and significant date on the Greek calendar, 28 October. It is known as Oxi Day in Greece, or 'No' Day, commemorating when the then Greek Prime Minister in 1940 was given an ultimatum to allow Axis forces in through the country and declared no—and so war was declared on Greece. It was important also to acknowledge this event during the weekend. There were many speeches about that as well.
The Glendi Greek Festival is an opportunity for South Australia's Greek community to showcase their culture, their wonderful foods and their beautiful dancing. The Messinian, Limnos and Pontian dance groups entertained us. They enthralled us after the opening event. I congratulate all the people who have ensured for 34-odd years that this festival has taken place. Arthur Kondopoulos was there as well. He was one of the founding board members of Glendi. Back in 1977 they had the vision to get a committee together with the Hellenic Lions Club to ensure that they showcased Greek culture and Greek food and at the same time raised some very important funds for many community groups from Canteen to the Hellenic nursing home. (Time expired)
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (11:40): I rise today to acknowledge and talk about a particular event that has been taking place in South Australia now since 1977—originally it started in my electorate at the Thebarton Oval—and that is the Glendi Greek Festival. I was very pleased to attend, representing the Prime Minister, last Saturday, 29 October. The Glendi Greek Festival is a two-day event and it is one of the largest multicultural festivals in South Australia or even the country. When I was previously involved on their committee—and I was on the committee for nearly 15 years—we used to get attendances of up to 100,000 people over the two-day weekend. It was and still is a festival that attracts South Australians from all walks of life.
I was at the opening and, as I said, delivered the Prime Minister's speech. I was also accompanied by the Consul-General of the Hellenic Republic, Mr Christos Maniakis-Grivas. Premier Jay Weatherill was there and delivered a speech. In fact, his speech got a very loud applause when he said that the marbles should be returned to Greece. The crowd erupted into cheers when he made that statement. Also in attendance was the Lieutenant Governor of South Australia, Hieu Van Le, and my parliamentary colleagues Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, Tom Koutsantonis, who is the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, and Jennifer Rankine, the Minister for Multicultural Affairs.
It is an event that has been held for many, many years. It is actually a project of the Hellenic Lions Club in South Australia and all the profits that are made from this two-day event go to charity. There are many volunteers who have been involved with the Hellenic Lions Club for many years. Pat Taylor, who is one of the powerhouses of the Hellenic Lions Club, has been involved for many years. Peter Luka and Anastasia Potiris are people who have put in an enormous number of hours of volunteer work to ensure that they run the Hellenic Lions Club but also this particular festival, which is one of the great festivals of South Australia. The chair of the Glendi Greek Festival, Mr John Chefalakis, and Mr Ladas, who is the convenor of the coordinating committee, also put in long hours to make sure that this is a great success.
This year there was a new venue. It was held at the Wayville showgrounds. It was under cover, which meant that we were not at the mercy of the extremes of the weather. I have seen many Glendi festivals over the years where there have been storms or it has been really hot, which is a bit of a displeasure for the people attending. But this way ensured that, regardless of the weather, people were very comfortable inside. When I was up on stage giving my speech there would have been at least 5,000 or 6,000 people in the crowd from what I could see, so it attracted quite a few people. The MC for most of the weekend was George Kapiniaris, a very good actor and comedian that many of us know. He kept us entertained during the weekend. It was an excellent festival this year, with local acts and acts from Greece as well.
It also coincided with a very important and significant date on the Greek calendar, 28 October. It is known as Oxi Day in Greece, or 'No' Day, commemorating when the then Greek Prime Minister in 1940 was given an ultimatum to allow Axis forces in through the country and declared no—and so war was declared on Greece. It was important also to acknowledge this event during the weekend. There were many speeches about that as well.
The Glendi Greek Festival is an opportunity for South Australia's Greek community to showcase their culture, their wonderful foods and their beautiful dancing. The Messinian, Limnos and Pontian dance groups entertained us. They enthralled us after the opening event. I congratulate all the people who have ensured for 34-odd years that this festival has taken place. Arthur Kondopoulos was there as well. He was one of the founding board members of Glendi. Back in 1977 they had the vision to get a committee together with the Hellenic Lions Club to ensure that they showcased Greek culture and Greek food and at the same time raised some very important funds for many community groups from Canteen to the Hellenic nursing home. (Time expired)
Poker Machines
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (11:46): I rise today to speak on an issue which is causing great concern in my electorate of Cowper and in the neighbouring federal seats of Lyne, Page, New England and Richmond. I am talking about the government's plan to introduce a mandatory precommitment scheme in licensed clubs. Under mandatory precommitment all gamblers will have to register and nominate how much they are willing to lose before they can play a high-intensity poker machine in a licensed venue. Although the government have not released the legislation in relation to mandatory precommitment, they have created a lot of fear and uncertainty in clubs right across the nation. I know that clubs and their members on the North Coast of New South Wales are very concerned about the impact of this proposal.
This is an issue that has all the hallmarks of this government's approach to public policy. Firstly, the government has no mandate to introduce mandatory precommitment. Just as the Prime Minister had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax, the Gillard government has absolutely no mandate to inflict this policy on Australian licensed clubs. Secondly, federal Labor has once again failed to do the hard yards on developing good public policy, just like with the pink batts debacle, the school hall rorts and the border protection shambles. Just look at the NBN, which is currently unravelling before our very eyes. The Australian people know this government's form on public policy.
It is clear that the only reason that 4,000 clubs are subject to this assault is that Julia Gillard needs the support of the member for Denison to remain in power. She broke an election promise on the carbon tax in order to secure the support of the member for Melbourne and now she is selling out the five million club members to win a vote from the member for Denison. It is a simple case of Julia Gillard putting political power and her own political survival ahead of the public interest.
There are various reports on the impact of this policy. Clubs New South Wales has released details of what the costs will be to specific clubs on the New South Wales North Coast. For example, in my electorate of Cowper the forecast loss of income in the Coffs Harbour Ex-Services Club is almost $7 million. In Port Macquarie, in the member for Lyne's seat, the forecast loss of income is just under $5 million at the Port Macquarie Panthers club. At Ballina, in the member for Page's electorate, the RSL predicts this will cost them more than $4 million in lost income.
If that is not a big enough hit, the clubs will then be slugged with huge increased costs. To give you one example, in the member for Lyne's electorate the Port Macquarie Panthers forecast that mandatory precommitment will cost them just under $4 million in compliance. That is $4 million of extra cost on the back of a $5 million drop in income.
The pain will not just be felt by the big clubs. If mandatory precommitment is imposed on all clubs, the smaller ones will also struggle to survive. The net result will be job losses, a decline in the support for community groups and the closure of many vital amenities. The reality is there is absolutely no evidence that these radical measures by the government will do anything to address problem gambling.
Yesterday, representatives from 70 North Coast clubs met at Laurieton in the member for Lyne's seat. They are calling on the member for Lyne to support a proposal to trial the mandatory precommitment technology on poker machines. This would allow members of parliament to fully understand what the impact on clubs would be before any vote is taken in the parliament. Additionally, the federal coalition yesterday released a policy discussion paper on problem gambling. This will provide all stakeholders with an opportunity to identify problems associated with gambling and suggest solutions. A coalition working group, in which I will be involved, will be actively consulting on a number of issues including a national voluntary precommitment program, more and better targeted counselling and support services, and a nationally consistent 'self-exclusion' program, including consideration of extending self-exclusion programs to third parties such as immediate family members. I welcome the release of the discussion paper, which will ensure that the coalition balances the legitimate right of adult Australians to gamble responsibly against the establishment of appropriate protection and support for the small number of people for whom gambling can have tragic consequences.
In conclusion, I would like to read out some sample correspondence I have received from residents of the north coast. Geoff Aldwell from the Kempsey Macleay RSL Bowling Club says:
Introduction of such laws would be detrimental to our bowling club which receives financial support from our RSL Club.
Allan Hudson, Secretary Manager of the Kendall Services and Citizens Club says:
If Mr Wilkie's prediction proves correct that this scheme will result in a drop in poker machine revenue of 40%, it is inconceivable that we can survive even if we could afford to install the technology.
Paul Mcintosh, an employee from the Coffs Harbour Deep Sea Fishing Club says:
As a worker in the NSW Club Industry that under your Mandatory Pre Committment will likely loose his job I need to ask some questions
What have you factered in for the cost to each Club in what you are proposing?
Where in your plan does this money come from?
He raises a number of good points and certainly highlights the concern within the clubs fraternity about the impact of these changes. (Time expired)
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (11:46): I rise today to speak on an issue which is causing great concern in my electorate of Cowper and in the neighbouring federal seats of Lyne, Page, New England and Richmond. I am talking about the government's plan to introduce a mandatory precommitment scheme in licensed clubs. Under mandatory precommitment all gamblers will have to register and nominate how much they are willing to lose before they can play a high-intensity poker machine in a licensed venue. Although the government have not released the legislation in relation to mandatory precommitment, they have created a lot of fear and uncertainty in clubs right across the nation. I know that clubs and their members on the North Coast of New South Wales are very concerned about the impact of this proposal.
This is an issue that has all the hallmarks of this government's approach to public policy. Firstly, the government has no mandate to introduce mandatory precommitment. Just as the Prime Minister had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax, the Gillard government has absolutely no mandate to inflict this policy on Australian licensed clubs. Secondly, federal Labor has once again failed to do the hard yards on developing good public policy, just like with the pink batts debacle, the school hall rorts and the border protection shambles. Just look at the NBN, which is currently unravelling before our very eyes. The Australian people know this government's form on public policy.
It is clear that the only reason that 4,000 clubs are subject to this assault is that Julia Gillard needs the support of the member for Denison to remain in power. She broke an election promise on the carbon tax in order to secure the support of the member for Melbourne and now she is selling out the five million club members to win a vote from the member for Denison. It is a simple case of Julia Gillard putting political power and her own political survival ahead of the public interest.
There are various reports on the impact of this policy. Clubs New South Wales has released details of what the costs will be to specific clubs on the New South Wales North Coast. For example, in my electorate of Cowper the forecast loss of income in the Coffs Harbour Ex-Services Club is almost $7 million. In Port Macquarie, in the member for Lyne's seat, the forecast loss of income is just under $5 million at the Port Macquarie Panthers club. At Ballina, in the member for Page's electorate, the RSL predicts this will cost them more than $4 million in lost income.
If that is not a big enough hit, the clubs will then be slugged with huge increased costs. To give you one example, in the member for Lyne's electorate the Port Macquarie Panthers forecast that mandatory precommitment will cost them just under $4 million in compliance. That is $4 million of extra cost on the back of a $5 million drop in income.
The pain will not just be felt by the big clubs. If mandatory precommitment is imposed on all clubs, the smaller ones will also struggle to survive. The net result will be job losses, a decline in the support for community groups and the closure of many vital amenities. The reality is there is absolutely no evidence that these radical measures by the government will do anything to address problem gambling.
Yesterday, representatives from 70 North Coast clubs met at Laurieton in the member for Lyne's seat. They are calling on the member for Lyne to support a proposal to trial the mandatory precommitment technology on poker machines. This would allow members of parliament to fully understand what the impact on clubs would be before any vote is taken in the parliament. Additionally, the federal coalition yesterday released a policy discussion paper on problem gambling. This will provide all stakeholders with an opportunity to identify problems associated with gambling and suggest solutions. A coalition working group, in which I will be involved, will be actively consulting on a number of issues including a national voluntary precommitment program, more and better targeted counselling and support services, and a nationally consistent 'self-exclusion' program, including consideration of extending self-exclusion programs to third parties such as immediate family members. I welcome the release of the discussion paper, which will ensure that the coalition balances the legitimate right of adult Australians to gamble responsibly against the establishment of appropriate protection and support for the small number of people for whom gambling can have tragic consequences.
In conclusion, I would like to read out some sample correspondence I have received from residents of the north coast. Geoff Aldwell from the Kempsey Macleay RSL Bowling Club says:
Introduction of such laws would be detrimental to our bowling club which receives financial support from our RSL Club.
Allan Hudson, Secretary Manager of the Kendall Services and Citizens Club says:
If Mr Wilkie's prediction proves correct that this scheme will result in a drop in poker machine revenue of 40%, it is inconceivable that we can survive even if we could afford to install the technology.
Paul Mcintosh, an employee from the Coffs Harbour Deep Sea Fishing Club says:
As a worker in the NSW Club Industry that under your Mandatory Pre Committment will likely loose his job I need to ask some questions
What have you factered in for the cost to each Club in what you are proposing?
Where in your plan does this money come from?
He raises a number of good points and certainly highlights the concern within the clubs fraternity about the impact of these changes. (Time expired)
Financial Services
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (11:51): I welcome the Reserve Bank of Australia's decision to cut interest rates by a quarter of a per cent on Cup day. This is good news for homebuyers and for all those who have a mortgage on a variable rate loan, not in only in the electorate of Deakin but, of course, right throughout Australia. A monthly saving of $49, or around $589 a year, on a $300,000 loan not only helps pay off the loan but also helps with the day-to-day cost of living. Also, the flow-on of confidence in the economy will benefit businesses, especially retailers, of which there are many in my electorate.
Although this 25-basis-point cut in the interest rate to around 7.5 per cent for a home mortgage from the big banks—or less from the smaller lenders—is good news for most people who borrow money, it is not good news for all. I refer in particular to the operation of payday lenders such as Cash Converters, who if they were to pass on the Reserve Bank's interest cut rate in full would cut their effective annual rate from 420 per cent to only 419.75 per cent. As revealed in the Australian Financial Review, Cash Converters charge $35 for every $100 lent per month, an obscene amount that exploits those people who find themselves in circumstances where they may need money in a hurry but without access to regular channels of credit. On top of that figure fees and charges are added.
Companies such as Cash Converters who rip off their customers with the most outrageous interest rates and fees should have no doubt that their time in the spotlight is fast approaching. The Gillard government has introduced the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 to the House and I am impatiently waiting for the second reading debate to be brought on, when I will have much more time to expose the operations of this industry and especially those of Cash Converters. To me, the most important benefit in the bill will be the introduction of caps on costs such as fees of 10 per cent of the credit provided plus two per cent per month. In effect, this would set the interest rate at 24 per cent per annum plus fees, for loans of less than $2,000 and of less than two years duration. Loans above $2,000 would be capped at 48 per cent interest, a figure that is similar to state imposed caps that already exist in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT. The outlawing of repeat borrowing and multiple loans is a great step forward and the requirement to disclose the availability of alternatives, such as the No Interest Loan Scheme or Centrelink benefit advances, to customers who come into the store will be an even bigger one.
Whilst payday lenders such as Cash Converters hold themselves out as offering a community service, they are nothing but a community scourge. The reality is that this is only a huge money-making operation heaped upon the people who can least afford to pay such massive fees and enormous interest rates. As a publicly listed company, it is very informative to look at the annual report of Cash Converters, especially regarding the remuneration paid to the CEO and its other executives. The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Peter Cummins, received a total package of $1,703,631 for the company's 2011 year—triple the amount that he received in 2010. Expressed as a weekly payment that is $32,762 each week—every week of the year. If you contrast that with the customers who walk into those premises, those who may be on a minimum wage and work a full year, for the full year that works out to be $30,463—less than one week's payment to Mr Cummins.
Four other executives at Cash Converters received in excess of $350,000 per year and it is not hard to see where the profits of these massive fees and charges are going.
I will speak about these issues in greater length when the bill comes up for debate. I will refer to the hundreds of cases that have been documented and recorded by various consumer and community groups and that are published and out there for everyone to refer to. In the meantime, it is important that people who use payday lenders understand there are options now. They do not have to wait for the passage of legislation through the parliament, but they do need information. They need it rather quickly because people who expose themselves to those sorts of fees and that rate of interest will not have a very bright financial future. Schemes such as the No Interest Loan Scheme, ringing up Centrelink and asking if you can have an advance on the pension or even the family tax benefit are much better ways of managing your own finances and not paying 420 per cent effective interest per annum.
These schemes have been around for a while. They have improved recently. Unfortunately, a lot of people still do not have the information to be able to use them. I hope to be able to use this parliament to advertise what else is available, to help out people who do not have enough money to get by week to week.
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (11:51): I welcome the Reserve Bank of Australia's decision to cut interest rates by a quarter of a per cent on Cup day. This is good news for homebuyers and for all those who have a mortgage on a variable rate loan, not in only in the electorate of Deakin but, of course, right throughout Australia. A monthly saving of $49, or around $589 a year, on a $300,000 loan not only helps pay off the loan but also helps with the day-to-day cost of living. Also, the flow-on of confidence in the economy will benefit businesses, especially retailers, of which there are many in my electorate.
Although this 25-basis-point cut in the interest rate to around 7.5 per cent for a home mortgage from the big banks—or less from the smaller lenders—is good news for most people who borrow money, it is not good news for all. I refer in particular to the operation of payday lenders such as Cash Converters, who if they were to pass on the Reserve Bank's interest cut rate in full would cut their effective annual rate from 420 per cent to only 419.75 per cent. As revealed in the Australian Financial Review, Cash Converters charge $35 for every $100 lent per month, an obscene amount that exploits those people who find themselves in circumstances where they may need money in a hurry but without access to regular channels of credit. On top of that figure fees and charges are added.
Companies such as Cash Converters who rip off their customers with the most outrageous interest rates and fees should have no doubt that their time in the spotlight is fast approaching. The Gillard government has introduced the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 to the House and I am impatiently waiting for the second reading debate to be brought on, when I will have much more time to expose the operations of this industry and especially those of Cash Converters. To me, the most important benefit in the bill will be the introduction of caps on costs such as fees of 10 per cent of the credit provided plus two per cent per month. In effect, this would set the interest rate at 24 per cent per annum plus fees, for loans of less than $2,000 and of less than two years duration. Loans above $2,000 would be capped at 48 per cent interest, a figure that is similar to state imposed caps that already exist in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT. The outlawing of repeat borrowing and multiple loans is a great step forward and the requirement to disclose the availability of alternatives, such as the No Interest Loan Scheme or Centrelink benefit advances, to customers who come into the store will be an even bigger one.
Whilst payday lenders such as Cash Converters hold themselves out as offering a community service, they are nothing but a community scourge. The reality is that this is only a huge money-making operation heaped upon the people who can least afford to pay such massive fees and enormous interest rates. As a publicly listed company, it is very informative to look at the annual report of Cash Converters, especially regarding the remuneration paid to the CEO and its other executives. The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Peter Cummins, received a total package of $1,703,631 for the company's 2011 year—triple the amount that he received in 2010. Expressed as a weekly payment that is $32,762 each week—every week of the year. If you contrast that with the customers who walk into those premises, those who may be on a minimum wage and work a full year, for the full year that works out to be $30,463—less than one week's payment to Mr Cummins.
Four other executives at Cash Converters received in excess of $350,000 per year and it is not hard to see where the profits of these massive fees and charges are going.
I will speak about these issues in greater length when the bill comes up for debate. I will refer to the hundreds of cases that have been documented and recorded by various consumer and community groups and that are published and out there for everyone to refer to. In the meantime, it is important that people who use payday lenders understand there are options now. They do not have to wait for the passage of legislation through the parliament, but they do need information. They need it rather quickly because people who expose themselves to those sorts of fees and that rate of interest will not have a very bright financial future. Schemes such as the No Interest Loan Scheme, ringing up Centrelink and asking if you can have an advance on the pension or even the family tax benefit are much better ways of managing your own finances and not paying 420 per cent effective interest per annum.
These schemes have been around for a while. They have improved recently. Unfortunately, a lot of people still do not have the information to be able to use them. I hope to be able to use this parliament to advertise what else is available, to help out people who do not have enough money to get by week to week.
Carbon Pricing
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (11:56): I want to address the latest independent modelling on the impacts of the carbon tax, which was released today by the Master Builders Association. It is about the effects of a carbon price on the building and construction industry. It is an independent report prepared for the master builders of Australia by the Centre for International Economics in Sydney.
Three conclusions come from this report, all of which should make Australians deeply concerned about the negative effects of the carbon tax, where prices are driven up but emissions are not reduced. First and most significantly, at the young homebuyer level, the report confirms that the cost of a new home will be at least $5,000 greater under a carbon tax. So for young families who want to get into the market for the first time that is a $5,000 increase on a modest new home, according to the independent work of the Centre for International Economics.
Secondly, over and above that impact—which will hurt families, which will make it more difficult for young people to enter the market and which will have an impact on national savings as a consequence—there is a community impact. This is some of the original work contained in the Centre for International Economics' report. The report states:
The increased cost impact of the carbon tax on new housing has been generally accepted by the Government's own modelling but what is not generally understood is the cost impact of the carbon tax on the broader community.
Community facilities and infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, medical centres, aged care facilities and roads are not immune from increases in construction costs whether as a result of large wage rises or a price on carbon.
This will have a direct impact on governments' capacity to deliver much needed public infrastructure. Governments will be forced to either deliver less or increase taxes and charges in response to increased construction costs.
So there we have it: the impact of the carbon tax will go straight to hospitals, schools, medical centres, aged-care facilities and roads, and either the charges will rise or the facilities will be fewer. That is what is at the heart of this tax. It is about increasing costs and increasing the operating costs of the economy without reducing emissions. The carbon tax will see Australia's emissions rise not fall. Australia's emissions will go up by 43 million tonnes between now and 2020. Instead, we are going to have to spend $3½ billion offshore in 2020 alone on almost 100 million tonnes of foreign carbon credits. It is not an emissions reduction scheme; it is a foreign carbon credit scheme and an electricity tax. The third level of increased expenditure is at the national level. The findings in the Centre for International Economics report are very clear. They say that the loss in building and construction industry value in 2020 alone could be as high as $3.6 billion, or, between 2013 and 2020, just over $24 billion in cumulative terms. Those are enormous figures and they are about construction industry jobs—jobs for blue-collar workers, jobs for independent contractors. They represent income for families. These are deep and significant levels of lost income.
The CIE work shows that building and construction costs 'will increase by between 1.4 and 2.0 per cent by 2020, due to price increases in key emission-intensive inputs such as steel, aluminium, cement and glass'. There is no way around those costs. This is why we have seen two things occur—firstly, we have seen the government guillotine its own legislation in the Senate. The Prime Minister would not give the Australian people a say at the last election and she does not want to give the parliament a say right now. That is an abuse of democratic process and the Prime Minister should allow the debate to run in the Senate and then take the issue straight to the people. The reason the Prime Minister has guillotined debate by publicly elected representatives in the Senate is that she wants to lock in the carbon tax before Kevin Rudd can take her job. It is no coincidence that this bill has been brought forward now. She wants to bury it— (Time expired)
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (11:56): I want to address the latest independent modelling on the impacts of the carbon tax, which was released today by the Master Builders Association. It is about the effects of a carbon price on the building and construction industry. It is an independent report prepared for the master builders of Australia by the Centre for International Economics in Sydney.
Three conclusions come from this report, all of which should make Australians deeply concerned about the negative effects of the carbon tax, where prices are driven up but emissions are not reduced. First and most significantly, at the young homebuyer level, the report confirms that the cost of a new home will be at least $5,000 greater under a carbon tax. So for young families who want to get into the market for the first time that is a $5,000 increase on a modest new home, according to the independent work of the Centre for International Economics.
Secondly, over and above that impact—which will hurt families, which will make it more difficult for young people to enter the market and which will have an impact on national savings as a consequence—there is a community impact. This is some of the original work contained in the Centre for International Economics' report. The report states:
The increased cost impact of the carbon tax on new housing has been generally accepted by the Government's own modelling but what is not generally understood is the cost impact of the carbon tax on the broader community.
Community facilities and infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, medical centres, aged care facilities and roads are not immune from increases in construction costs whether as a result of large wage rises or a price on carbon.
This will have a direct impact on governments' capacity to deliver much needed public infrastructure. Governments will be forced to either deliver less or increase taxes and charges in response to increased construction costs.
So there we have it: the impact of the carbon tax will go straight to hospitals, schools, medical centres, aged-care facilities and roads, and either the charges will rise or the facilities will be fewer. That is what is at the heart of this tax. It is about increasing costs and increasing the operating costs of the economy without reducing emissions. The carbon tax will see Australia's emissions rise not fall. Australia's emissions will go up by 43 million tonnes between now and 2020. Instead, we are going to have to spend $3½ billion offshore in 2020 alone on almost 100 million tonnes of foreign carbon credits. It is not an emissions reduction scheme; it is a foreign carbon credit scheme and an electricity tax. The third level of increased expenditure is at the national level. The findings in the Centre for International Economics report are very clear. They say that the loss in building and construction industry value in 2020 alone could be as high as $3.6 billion, or, between 2013 and 2020, just over $24 billion in cumulative terms. Those are enormous figures and they are about construction industry jobs—jobs for blue-collar workers, jobs for independent contractors. They represent income for families. These are deep and significant levels of lost income.
The CIE work shows that building and construction costs 'will increase by between 1.4 and 2.0 per cent by 2020, due to price increases in key emission-intensive inputs such as steel, aluminium, cement and glass'. There is no way around those costs. This is why we have seen two things occur—firstly, we have seen the government guillotine its own legislation in the Senate. The Prime Minister would not give the Australian people a say at the last election and she does not want to give the parliament a say right now. That is an abuse of democratic process and the Prime Minister should allow the debate to run in the Senate and then take the issue straight to the people. The reason the Prime Minister has guillotined debate by publicly elected representatives in the Senate is that she wants to lock in the carbon tax before Kevin Rudd can take her job. It is no coincidence that this bill has been brought forward now. She wants to bury it— (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12:01): I take this opportunity in the House to point out the opposition's humbug on the proposed asylum seeker agreement with Malaysia. Let us remember that the shadow minister for immigration told 2SM on 1 December 2008:
The closure of Nauru and Manus Island ... of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need ... I don't think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.
That is what the opposition was saying then—what is the difference now? The member for Curtin, who is now so exercised with these issues, in a media release on 27 July 2011, said:
… the Coalition does not consider that being a signatory to the Refugee Convention is a precondition for hosting the processing centre …
That was just before the government started talking about these proposed changes in arrangements. Everyone knows that I am no fan of the Malaysian government, but I ask members opposite, who are now so agitated about Malaysia, where were they before? Malaysia has been under international pressure to exhibit a higher standard of democratic behaviour. One of the positive unintended consequences of our proposed Malaysia agreement, were it to come to pass, would be that the Australian media and the UNHCR would be keeping a strong eye on it. It has already had a beneficial effect on the human rights situation in Malaysia. The UNHCR has said, although the opposition pay no attention to it: 'The arrangement will in time deliver further protection dividends to the two countries, as well as to the region.'
The UNHCR further explained:
The Arrangement and its implementing guidelines contain important protection safeguards, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement; the right to asylum; the principle of family unity and best interests of the child; humane reception conditions including protection against arbitrary detention; lawful status to remain in Malaysia until a durable solution is found; and the ability to receive education, access to health care, and a right to employment.
That certainly does not exist in Nauru, and that is one reason that thoughtful people know that to propose Nauru is cloud cuckoo land—there is no employment for all these people and they will be living at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. That is, apart from the fact that these so-called economically responsible people want us to spend another billion dollars on reconstituting the whole place.
As the member for Goldstein pointed out, I speak out frequently on human rights. I thank him for advertising the Freedom House report that I circulated to all MPs. This authoritative survey points out that Malaysia is not a fully-fledged democracy; it only rates four on the Freedom House scale of civil liberties and political rights but it is much better than Iran, at six, and Pakistan, five, where the member for Cook wants us to deport people seeking asylum here in Australia. Since when have the Liberal Party become devotees of UN conventions, or indeed of the UN itself? As a human rights advocate, I have some real doubts about the UN and the dedication of many of its members to actual human rights. Sadly, the UN Human Rights Council is a joke. The UN conventions, ignored by evil and duplicitous regimes such as Iran and Pakistan, are used only as legalistic cover. These conventions are garbage. They are not worth the paper they are written on if they are signed by Iran or Pakistan.
We now have the Liberal Party in high dudgeon, adulating these conventions in all their hypocrisy, over a less-than-perfect arrangement with a country such as Malaysia. What explains this? I have searched the parliamentary records of all the people who now talk about UN conventions, caning and human rights in Malaysia. Not one of them, before this arrangement with Malaysia was raised, ever spoke on these things—conventions on refugees or human rights in Malaysia—while I was talking about it. The only person was the member for Wentworth. There was deafening silence. Weren't the Liberal Party always the party that supported the democratic principle that parliament has the primacy over the judiciary and that the parliament should determine our foreign and migration policy? Of course they were. But, with their lust for power, they have put aside their principles.
Let us also remember that great conservative exhortation: 'We will determine who comes to this country.' We will determine who comes to this country—except when the Labor Party proposes it. That is their hypocrisy, that is their humbug; that is their cant. When I was working with the then government when the terrorist legislation came up in the early 2000s, we cooperated with them. On many occasions, oppositions have to work with government in the national interest of Australia. Humbug, cant and hypocrisy is all we get from the opposition over the Malaysian arrangement. (Time expired)
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12:01): I take this opportunity in the House to point out the opposition's humbug on the proposed asylum seeker agreement with Malaysia. Let us remember that the shadow minister for immigration told 2SM on 1 December 2008:
The closure of Nauru and Manus Island ... of course they had basically—what shall we say—outlived their need ... I don't think we need to again have Nauru and Manus Island operating, because we've got of course Christmas Island.
That is what the opposition was saying then—what is the difference now? The member for Curtin, who is now so exercised with these issues, in a media release on 27 July 2011, said:
… the Coalition does not consider that being a signatory to the Refugee Convention is a precondition for hosting the processing centre …
That was just before the government started talking about these proposed changes in arrangements. Everyone knows that I am no fan of the Malaysian government, but I ask members opposite, who are now so agitated about Malaysia, where were they before? Malaysia has been under international pressure to exhibit a higher standard of democratic behaviour. One of the positive unintended consequences of our proposed Malaysia agreement, were it to come to pass, would be that the Australian media and the UNHCR would be keeping a strong eye on it. It has already had a beneficial effect on the human rights situation in Malaysia. The UNHCR has said, although the opposition pay no attention to it: 'The arrangement will in time deliver further protection dividends to the two countries, as well as to the region.'
The UNHCR further explained:
The Arrangement and its implementing guidelines contain important protection safeguards, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement; the right to asylum; the principle of family unity and best interests of the child; humane reception conditions including protection against arbitrary detention; lawful status to remain in Malaysia until a durable solution is found; and the ability to receive education, access to health care, and a right to employment.
That certainly does not exist in Nauru, and that is one reason that thoughtful people know that to propose Nauru is cloud cuckoo land—there is no employment for all these people and they will be living at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. That is, apart from the fact that these so-called economically responsible people want us to spend another billion dollars on reconstituting the whole place.
As the member for Goldstein pointed out, I speak out frequently on human rights. I thank him for advertising the Freedom House report that I circulated to all MPs. This authoritative survey points out that Malaysia is not a fully-fledged democracy; it only rates four on the Freedom House scale of civil liberties and political rights but it is much better than Iran, at six, and Pakistan, five, where the member for Cook wants us to deport people seeking asylum here in Australia. Since when have the Liberal Party become devotees of UN conventions, or indeed of the UN itself? As a human rights advocate, I have some real doubts about the UN and the dedication of many of its members to actual human rights. Sadly, the UN Human Rights Council is a joke. The UN conventions, ignored by evil and duplicitous regimes such as Iran and Pakistan, are used only as legalistic cover. These conventions are garbage. They are not worth the paper they are written on if they are signed by Iran or Pakistan.
We now have the Liberal Party in high dudgeon, adulating these conventions in all their hypocrisy, over a less-than-perfect arrangement with a country such as Malaysia. What explains this? I have searched the parliamentary records of all the people who now talk about UN conventions, caning and human rights in Malaysia. Not one of them, before this arrangement with Malaysia was raised, ever spoke on these things—conventions on refugees or human rights in Malaysia—while I was talking about it. The only person was the member for Wentworth. There was deafening silence. Weren't the Liberal Party always the party that supported the democratic principle that parliament has the primacy over the judiciary and that the parliament should determine our foreign and migration policy? Of course they were. But, with their lust for power, they have put aside their principles.
Let us also remember that great conservative exhortation: 'We will determine who comes to this country.' We will determine who comes to this country—except when the Labor Party proposes it. That is their hypocrisy, that is their humbug; that is their cant. When I was working with the then government when the terrorist legislation came up in the early 2000s, we cooperated with them. On many occasions, oppositions have to work with government in the national interest of Australia. Humbug, cant and hypocrisy is all we get from the opposition over the Malaysian arrangement. (Time expired)
Qantas
Workplace Relations
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:06): It was very interesting to watch that confected outrage. No doubt there will be some more—
Mr Danby: Not confected at all. You're—
Ms O'DWYER: That is very unparliamentary. No doubt there will be some more when you listen to my speech. Today I am standing up to speak about Qantas and the Fair Work Act. In the industrial dispute that grounded a nation, there is one thing on which both sides of this chamber can agree: the grounding of Qantas's entire fleet on Saturday was damaging for Qantas, for its workers, for the travelling public and for the Australian economy and our international reputation. But how did we get here? Today on the front page of the Australian newspaper, the National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, conceded that it was the Prime Minister's changes to the workplace relations laws that led to the crippling protected action that culminated in the airline's grounding.
Those opposite say that this is the Fair Work Act in action. And indeed it is. It is a major deficiency of the Fair Work Act that our national airline, critical to our national economy, was forced to shut down for 48 hours to try to resolve an industrial dispute. What was evident in the industrial dispute between the unions and Qantas management was that the protected action was a deliberate strategy to force new job security clauses. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary, Steve Purvinas, stated publicly that they planned, through protected action, to 'bake them'—Qantas—'slowly' and that the rolling stoppages could last for 'at least 12 months'. He even stated that passengers should 'probably be looking at airlines other than Qantas'. It is hard to see where good faith applies in this scenario. How can Mr Purvinas claim to be representing Qantas employees when he is recommending Qantas customers use its competitors?
This example highlights the broader problems with the government's Fair Work Act. It highlights what some have described as the inequitable and unsustainable power shift towards the unions that the Fair Work Act has resulted in. We read yesterday morning that the industrial action in Qantas has now spread to the waterfront, with the Maritime Union of Australia now taking action against a third stevedoring company. Strikes will now be conducted in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne following on from strikes already conducted in Fremantle. Strikes and bans will also hit the BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance coalmines in Queensland. Shipping Australia's chief executive made the point:
… strikes were being taken early on in negotiations, with talks only having just begun at DP world.
This is fast becoming the modus operandi of the ever more militant unions—strike first, negotiate later. They take legally protected industrial action over a long period of time, a tactic which is designed to slowly kill the competitiveness of a company—a death of a thousand cuts. Let me be clear: ever-expanding industrial action will hurt the Australian economy.
Concerns with the Fair Work Act have been expressed by business leaders, commentators and captains of industry alike, all speaking out against what is fundamentally flawed policy. The former managing director of the Patrick Corporation, Chris Corrigan, makes the point in yesterday's paper:
Industrial relations in Australia is based on a fundamentally false premise; namely, that the bargaining landscape is so skewed in favour of the employer that unions need to be given extraordinary privileges to compensate for the so-called inequality.
Mr Corrigan joins other business leaders, such as the chairman of Fairfax Media, Roger Corbett; the chairman of Nufarm, Donald McGauchie; Asciano's Malcolm Broomhead and Adelaide Brighton's managing director, Mark Chellew, who said:
… the industrial relations legislation is more likely to lead to disputation to the extent of strikes than what the old legislation was even 10 years ago.
The Prime Minister's laws are a throwback not only to what existed before the coalition's laws but to what existed before the Hawke-Keating government. Even the Australian Industry Group have voiced their concerns, with Heather Ridout saying:
The idea that the Fair Work Act represents the perfect balance between all the competing interests and should not be altered is simply not sustainable.
Economist Judith Sloan highlighted three key failings with the act:
The first is the type of industrial behaviour allowed under the protected action. The second is the lack of prohibited content in enterprise agreements. Finally, the thresholds in the act are too high for parties seeking the termination of projected action.
Clearly the government needs to review the act. (Time expired)
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:06): It was very interesting to watch that confected outrage. No doubt there will be some more—
Mr Danby: Not confected at all. You're—
Ms O'DWYER: That is very unparliamentary. No doubt there will be some more when you listen to my speech. Today I am standing up to speak about Qantas and the Fair Work Act. In the industrial dispute that grounded a nation, there is one thing on which both sides of this chamber can agree: the grounding of Qantas's entire fleet on Saturday was damaging for Qantas, for its workers, for the travelling public and for the Australian economy and our international reputation. But how did we get here? Today on the front page of the Australian newspaper, the National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, conceded that it was the Prime Minister's changes to the workplace relations laws that led to the crippling protected action that culminated in the airline's grounding.
Those opposite say that this is the Fair Work Act in action. And indeed it is. It is a major deficiency of the Fair Work Act that our national airline, critical to our national economy, was forced to shut down for 48 hours to try to resolve an industrial dispute. What was evident in the industrial dispute between the unions and Qantas management was that the protected action was a deliberate strategy to force new job security clauses. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary, Steve Purvinas, stated publicly that they planned, through protected action, to 'bake them'—Qantas—'slowly' and that the rolling stoppages could last for 'at least 12 months'. He even stated that passengers should 'probably be looking at airlines other than Qantas'. It is hard to see where good faith applies in this scenario. How can Mr Purvinas claim to be representing Qantas employees when he is recommending Qantas customers use its competitors?
This example highlights the broader problems with the government's Fair Work Act. It highlights what some have described as the inequitable and unsustainable power shift towards the unions that the Fair Work Act has resulted in. We read yesterday morning that the industrial action in Qantas has now spread to the waterfront, with the Maritime Union of Australia now taking action against a third stevedoring company. Strikes will now be conducted in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne following on from strikes already conducted in Fremantle. Strikes and bans will also hit the BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance coalmines in Queensland. Shipping Australia's chief executive made the point:
… strikes were being taken early on in negotiations, with talks only having just begun at DP world.
This is fast becoming the modus operandi of the ever more militant unions—strike first, negotiate later. They take legally protected industrial action over a long period of time, a tactic which is designed to slowly kill the competitiveness of a company—a death of a thousand cuts. Let me be clear: ever-expanding industrial action will hurt the Australian economy.
Concerns with the Fair Work Act have been expressed by business leaders, commentators and captains of industry alike, all speaking out against what is fundamentally flawed policy. The former managing director of the Patrick Corporation, Chris Corrigan, makes the point in yesterday's paper:
Industrial relations in Australia is based on a fundamentally false premise; namely, that the bargaining landscape is so skewed in favour of the employer that unions need to be given extraordinary privileges to compensate for the so-called inequality.
Mr Corrigan joins other business leaders, such as the chairman of Fairfax Media, Roger Corbett; the chairman of Nufarm, Donald McGauchie; Asciano's Malcolm Broomhead and Adelaide Brighton's managing director, Mark Chellew, who said:
… the industrial relations legislation is more likely to lead to disputation to the extent of strikes than what the old legislation was even 10 years ago.
The Prime Minister's laws are a throwback not only to what existed before the coalition's laws but to what existed before the Hawke-Keating government. Even the Australian Industry Group have voiced their concerns, with Heather Ridout saying:
The idea that the Fair Work Act represents the perfect balance between all the competing interests and should not be altered is simply not sustainable.
Economist Judith Sloan highlighted three key failings with the act:
The first is the type of industrial behaviour allowed under the protected action. The second is the lack of prohibited content in enterprise agreements. Finally, the thresholds in the act are too high for parties seeking the termination of projected action.
Clearly the government needs to review the act. (Time expired)
Shortland Electorate: Swansea Police Station
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:11): I was interested to hear the contribution by the member for Higgins. She was obviously advocating for Work Choices, but it was also obvious that she did not check her facts before standing up to speak in this parliament, because the number of strikes under the Gillard and Rudd governments has been significantly lower than under the Howard government—and that is under the Fair Work Act.
I reluctantly rise to bring up a state matter. I have always been quite critical of members raising state matters in this parliament, but this is an issue of enormous magnitude. The newly elected Liberal state member for Swansea was elected under the banner of having Swansea Police Station open 24 hours a day. There has been quite a controversy over a number of years over the Swansea Police Station. I actually served as the member for Swansea for 3½ years and during that time I managed to move from a situation where there was an empty police station sitting in Swansea to a situation where it was staffed from nine to five—still not good enough by a long way, but it was a step in the right direction. Subsequent members for Swansea had a new police station built, but there were still problems around the staffing of that police station. There was a definite feeling within the community that they would like that police station staffed for 24 hours a day, but it did not happen. In the lead-up to the last election, the state member for Swansea told the electorate that he was going to have that police station staffed 24 hours a day.
Yesterday I received an email from a constituent. I know there has been a lot of concern within the Swansea electorate about the closure—not the staffing for 24 hours but the closure—of the Swansea Police Station. The constituent said that he was turning to me for:
… some sort of assistance regarding the lack of Police support here and the news—
and this is the part that I am really upset about—
that Swansea Police Station is to be decommissioned.
The police station, which the now Liberal member for Swansea promised would operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is now to be decommissioned, according to an email I received from a constituent. I do not like becoming involved in state issues. I feel that, as a federal member of parliament, I should concentrate my energies and efforts on federal issues. But when it comes to constituents whom I represent being left without a police station I feel I need to investigate. That is exactly what I am going to do. I will contact the legislative councillor, Luke Foley, who actually is a Labor member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, and ask him to further investigate this matter. This is a matter of enormous concern to the people of Swansea. Swansea is an older area, but a newer area is also covered by that police station. The older people there are very fearful. The person who wrote to me said they suffer from a mobility disability and pointed out that many people in that area do and that there are also many retired and elderly people. They are afraid to go out after dark, as they fear they may be victims of crime. This constituent said he would not have been afraid as a younger man, but now, as he has got older, he is afraid. I call on the member for Swansea, Mr Garry Edwards, to be true to his promise and ensure that the Swansea police station stays open 24 hours a day. (Time expired)
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:11): I was interested to hear the contribution by the member for Higgins. She was obviously advocating for Work Choices, but it was also obvious that she did not check her facts before standing up to speak in this parliament, because the number of strikes under the Gillard and Rudd governments has been significantly lower than under the Howard government—and that is under the Fair Work Act.
I reluctantly rise to bring up a state matter. I have always been quite critical of members raising state matters in this parliament, but this is an issue of enormous magnitude. The newly elected Liberal state member for Swansea was elected under the banner of having Swansea Police Station open 24 hours a day. There has been quite a controversy over a number of years over the Swansea Police Station. I actually served as the member for Swansea for 3½ years and during that time I managed to move from a situation where there was an empty police station sitting in Swansea to a situation where it was staffed from nine to five—still not good enough by a long way, but it was a step in the right direction. Subsequent members for Swansea had a new police station built, but there were still problems around the staffing of that police station. There was a definite feeling within the community that they would like that police station staffed for 24 hours a day, but it did not happen. In the lead-up to the last election, the state member for Swansea told the electorate that he was going to have that police station staffed 24 hours a day.
Yesterday I received an email from a constituent. I know there has been a lot of concern within the Swansea electorate about the closure—not the staffing for 24 hours but the closure—of the Swansea Police Station. The constituent said that he was turning to me for:
… some sort of assistance regarding the lack of Police support here and the news—
and this is the part that I am really upset about—
that Swansea Police Station is to be decommissioned.
The police station, which the now Liberal member for Swansea promised would operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is now to be decommissioned, according to an email I received from a constituent. I do not like becoming involved in state issues. I feel that, as a federal member of parliament, I should concentrate my energies and efforts on federal issues. But when it comes to constituents whom I represent being left without a police station I feel I need to investigate. That is exactly what I am going to do. I will contact the legislative councillor, Luke Foley, who actually is a Labor member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, and ask him to further investigate this matter. This is a matter of enormous concern to the people of Swansea. Swansea is an older area, but a newer area is also covered by that police station. The older people there are very fearful. The person who wrote to me said they suffer from a mobility disability and pointed out that many people in that area do and that there are also many retired and elderly people. They are afraid to go out after dark, as they fear they may be victims of crime. This constituent said he would not have been afraid as a younger man, but now, as he has got older, he is afraid. I call on the member for Swansea, Mr Garry Edwards, to be true to his promise and ensure that the Swansea police station stays open 24 hours a day. (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate: Military Awards
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (12:16): It is with pleasure I rise this afternoon to acknowledge a most humble man who has accomplished many great things, both for his country and abroad. Allen Warren is a constituent in my electorate of Bonner who does not wish for recognition or acknowledgment, but these are so often the people who deserve it most.
I recently had the pleasure to award Allen with his Australian Defence Medal. As I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Australian Defence Medal recognises Australian Defence Force Regular and Reserve personnel who have demonstrated their commitment and contribution to the nation by serving for an initial enlistment period or four years service, whichever is the lesser. Allen undertook his national service in 1955 at Wacol Military Camp in 10 Platoon C Company. This was followed by service in Toowoomba, Beaudesert, Townsville and Kelvin Grove.
Allen is also a deeply spiritual man whose profound belief in God has seen him spend many years bringing hope to Third World Countries the world over. Allen pursued a career in finance throughout his working life but his real love and passion was his spirituality. It was in 1988 when Allen, a devout Christian, decided to follow his true calling and joined the Gideons, with his wife Gwen by his side.
Over the last 11 years Allen has travelled to the far reaches of the world doing great work in over 45 countries, sometimes in very dangerous conditions. I commend Allen's years of service to his country and to the people of the world whom he has touched through his self-sacrifice.
I would also like to mention several gentlemen in my electorate of Bonner who are recipients of service certificates. Service certificates are just one way that the Australian government expresses its gratitude to those who have given so much in protecting our country's interests and helping to restore and maintain peace all over the world.
I would like to acknowledge: Mr Ernest Blackwell, for his service during the Second World War; Mr Peter Corran, for his service in the Vietnam War and the Indonesian Confrontation; Mr James Jarrett, for his service during the Second World War; Mr William O'Mahoney, for his service during the Second World War; Mr Richard
Mann for his service to Australia's efforts in peace operations; Mr Robert Curry, for his service during the Second
World War; Mr Robert Jarrett for his service during the Second World War; Mr William Jarrett for his service during the Second World War; and Mr Patrick Flatley, for his service during the Vietnam War. I would like to praise the bravery and dedication that these men have shown to their country and I would like to thank each of these men for the sacrifices they have made to ensure that the Australian way of life is preserved for future generations.
It is with great sadness that I also take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to the families, friends and colleagues of Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, fellow Queenslanders whose lives were tragically stolen from them on Sunday whilst serving our country. No words can ever make up for the unimaginable pain caused by their loss, which is further compounded by the tragic circumstances surrounding this horror. I know that I speak for the rest of the Bonner community when I say that we are deeply aggrieved by their loss. Their passing is a reminder to us all of the grave dangers our service men and women place themselves in daily to preserve our way of life and to protect our freedom. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. My thoughts and prayers are also with the seven soldiers seriously wounded in the incident, and I wish them a speedy and full recovery.
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (12:16): It is with pleasure I rise this afternoon to acknowledge a most humble man who has accomplished many great things, both for his country and abroad. Allen Warren is a constituent in my electorate of Bonner who does not wish for recognition or acknowledgment, but these are so often the people who deserve it most.
I recently had the pleasure to award Allen with his Australian Defence Medal. As I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Australian Defence Medal recognises Australian Defence Force Regular and Reserve personnel who have demonstrated their commitment and contribution to the nation by serving for an initial enlistment period or four years service, whichever is the lesser. Allen undertook his national service in 1955 at Wacol Military Camp in 10 Platoon C Company. This was followed by service in Toowoomba, Beaudesert, Townsville and Kelvin Grove.
Allen is also a deeply spiritual man whose profound belief in God has seen him spend many years bringing hope to Third World Countries the world over. Allen pursued a career in finance throughout his working life but his real love and passion was his spirituality. It was in 1988 when Allen, a devout Christian, decided to follow his true calling and joined the Gideons, with his wife Gwen by his side.
Over the last 11 years Allen has travelled to the far reaches of the world doing great work in over 45 countries, sometimes in very dangerous conditions. I commend Allen's years of service to his country and to the people of the world whom he has touched through his self-sacrifice.
I would also like to mention several gentlemen in my electorate of Bonner who are recipients of service certificates. Service certificates are just one way that the Australian government expresses its gratitude to those who have given so much in protecting our country's interests and helping to restore and maintain peace all over the world.
I would like to acknowledge: Mr Ernest Blackwell, for his service during the Second World War; Mr Peter Corran, for his service in the Vietnam War and the Indonesian Confrontation; Mr James Jarrett, for his service during the Second World War; Mr William O'Mahoney, for his service during the Second World War; Mr Richard
Mann for his service to Australia's efforts in peace operations; Mr Robert Curry, for his service during the Second
World War; Mr Robert Jarrett for his service during the Second World War; Mr William Jarrett for his service during the Second World War; and Mr Patrick Flatley, for his service during the Vietnam War. I would like to praise the bravery and dedication that these men have shown to their country and I would like to thank each of these men for the sacrifices they have made to ensure that the Australian way of life is preserved for future generations.
It is with great sadness that I also take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to the families, friends and colleagues of Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, fellow Queenslanders whose lives were tragically stolen from them on Sunday whilst serving our country. No words can ever make up for the unimaginable pain caused by their loss, which is further compounded by the tragic circumstances surrounding this horror. I know that I speak for the rest of the Bonner community when I say that we are deeply aggrieved by their loss. Their passing is a reminder to us all of the grave dangers our service men and women place themselves in daily to preserve our way of life and to protect our freedom. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. My thoughts and prayers are also with the seven soldiers seriously wounded in the incident, and I wish them a speedy and full recovery.
Braddon Electorate
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (12:21): I would like to talk about some happenings in my electorate. I have just left the hospitality area after meeting with children from the Strahan Primary School, which is on the west coast of Tassie in the beautiful village of Strahan, on Strahan Harbour. It was great to see them and they were very pleased to be here. I really enjoy visiting the west coast of Tassie, which has been incorporated into the electorate of Braddon since the last election.
The first thing I would like to comment on and to congratulate this government for is that the north-west coast of Tassie has been selected as one of only two sites in Australia for an outpost of headspace. Headspace is an excellent national program developed to support and assist young people with health issues, particularly in relation to mental health and drug and alcohol use. Of course, most of these are interrelated. Headspace is specifically designed to assist and attract young people between 12 and 25 years of age, of which there are about 17,000 in my electorate.
I thank the Minister for Health and Ageing very much for listening to the case put by the community of the north-west coast to look to providing more services specifically for young people in relation to mental health. This is one innovative way for such a service to evolve. We are looking forward to working with headspace Launceston and developing and using their expertise to help us evolve a local headspace outpost. In many ways you hope that you do not develop it to a full-blown centre because that will mean you are doing the job and that young people are relying less on that service. So I do thank the minister and the Prime Minister very much for this commitment of an extra $197 million for mental health services at another 90 sites throughout Australia. I thank them for the opportunity for us to be an outpost and I look forward to working with Launceston and all my service providers and organisations to evolve a north-west coast headspace.
Not only did the Prime Minister and Minister Butler expand headspace throughout Australia; they also introduced eheadspace, which is a national online and telephone counselling service to offer flexible mental health support to young people and their families or friends. I would emphasise that it is not a crisis service. It is there to direct and refer, if that is of assistance to people. Eheadspace is a 24-hour service and, for the record, the online component operates from 1 pm to 1 am Australian eastern standard time and the telephone component operates from 10 pm to 1 pm Australian eastern standard time. That is great news for the north-west coast. I would also like to congratulate the Devonport City Council on the further evolution of its aquatic centre, with a 25-metre indoor aquatic centre to complement its 50-metre pool and other swimming and water awareness facilities that are being developed. The council made the decision to commit $4 million, the federal government committed $5 million, in 2010—and I was very pleased to be able to secure that funding—and the state government committed an equal measure of $5 million to bring about this $14 million complex.
The whole site is effectively being revamped by introducing a 25-metre pool to complement the 50-metre pool. The complex will also have an infant awareness pool, a warm-water pool, a foyer, a fitness gym, a cafe, a kiosk and change rooms. I congratulate the council on this and I look forward to working with them to bring about this really important piece of community infrastructure to make us even more waterwise and water careful.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (12:21): I would like to talk about some happenings in my electorate. I have just left the hospitality area after meeting with children from the Strahan Primary School, which is on the west coast of Tassie in the beautiful village of Strahan, on Strahan Harbour. It was great to see them and they were very pleased to be here. I really enjoy visiting the west coast of Tassie, which has been incorporated into the electorate of Braddon since the last election.
The first thing I would like to comment on and to congratulate this government for is that the north-west coast of Tassie has been selected as one of only two sites in Australia for an outpost of headspace. Headspace is an excellent national program developed to support and assist young people with health issues, particularly in relation to mental health and drug and alcohol use. Of course, most of these are interrelated. Headspace is specifically designed to assist and attract young people between 12 and 25 years of age, of which there are about 17,000 in my electorate.
I thank the Minister for Health and Ageing very much for listening to the case put by the community of the north-west coast to look to providing more services specifically for young people in relation to mental health. This is one innovative way for such a service to evolve. We are looking forward to working with headspace Launceston and developing and using their expertise to help us evolve a local headspace outpost. In many ways you hope that you do not develop it to a full-blown centre because that will mean you are doing the job and that young people are relying less on that service. So I do thank the minister and the Prime Minister very much for this commitment of an extra $197 million for mental health services at another 90 sites throughout Australia. I thank them for the opportunity for us to be an outpost and I look forward to working with Launceston and all my service providers and organisations to evolve a north-west coast headspace.
Not only did the Prime Minister and Minister Butler expand headspace throughout Australia; they also introduced eheadspace, which is a national online and telephone counselling service to offer flexible mental health support to young people and their families or friends. I would emphasise that it is not a crisis service. It is there to direct and refer, if that is of assistance to people. Eheadspace is a 24-hour service and, for the record, the online component operates from 1 pm to 1 am Australian eastern standard time and the telephone component operates from 10 pm to 1 pm Australian eastern standard time. That is great news for the north-west coast. I would also like to congratulate the Devonport City Council on the further evolution of its aquatic centre, with a 25-metre indoor aquatic centre to complement its 50-metre pool and other swimming and water awareness facilities that are being developed. The council made the decision to commit $4 million, the federal government committed $5 million, in 2010—and I was very pleased to be able to secure that funding—and the state government committed an equal measure of $5 million to bring about this $14 million complex.
The whole site is effectively being revamped by introducing a 25-metre pool to complement the 50-metre pool. The complex will also have an infant awareness pool, a warm-water pool, a foyer, a fitness gym, a cafe, a kiosk and change rooms. I congratulate the council on this and I look forward to working with them to bring about this really important piece of community infrastructure to make us even more waterwise and water careful.
Petition: Childcare Funding
Ms LEY (Farrer) (12:26): I rise to table a petition on funding for occasional childcare. I am therefore pleased to present this petition.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the withdrawal of Federal funding support for occasional childcare services.
For thousands of families in Australia alternate short term care arrangements for their children is neither a financial or practical option. The withdrawal of this funding will remove a parent's option of accessing occasional care at hundreds of community run centres, resulting in more children forced out of formal and regulated care.
This directly disregards the committed aim of all Australian Governments to ensure safe and quality controlled 'early childhood care' nationwide.
We therefore ask the House to support the immediate reinstatement of the $12m in occasional care removed in the Federal budgets of 2010/11 and 2011/12.
from 2,333 citizens
Petition received.
I want to remind the House about how divided and directionless this Labor government is. We have seen a pattern of incompetence, a pattern of failure, whether it be roof batts, school halls, the live cattle trade or the NBN. Today I want to talk about another train wreck under this Labor government: childcare reform.
Child care under Labor is heading towards the cliff edge, with Minister Ellis and Minister Garrett greasing the wheels. Their one-size-fits-all approach is casting aside the very people that Labor purports to represent—working families, working mums and dads with children, who are battling rising costs under this government and battling a fragmented family way of life.
Under the new national quality framework, childcare centres are pushing up their fees by as much as $100 a week. Without even blinking an eye at that, the government keep telling us how much more generous their childcare rebate is. Then they have the hide to cut $700 from it and cap it for three years. Under their new universal access arrangements for kindergarten, preschools are now tossing out their three-year-old children just to squeeze in the mandatory 15 hours a week for four-year-olds. Visiting American Professor Joseph Sparling, who attended the House yesterday, spoke very passionately about the fact that early education is critical, not necessarily at the age of four years or in the preschool years but at three months and younger. Yet the government's rigid one-size-fits-all approach is not allowing some of that allocated money to flow to the most disadvantaged children in our society.
Every time someone stands up to tell the government what is wrong and to offer suggestions, they go back to their default position of hiding under the protection of a COAG agreement. COAG agreed to Labor's ideology in principle only to see this government botch the actual implementation.
Then we come to the 'occasional care' debacle, which I wish to highlight today, the cuts of $12 million to annual funding two years ago. Thousands of children across the nation are set to miss out on their own quality early childhood learning because of this government fumbling its responsibilities. Occasional care is set to be subject to the same onerous rules and red tape under the national quality framework but without any federal support. Not all of us can or do work full time. Not all of us can afford or need full-time child care. Minister Ellis needs to understand we cannot all fit within her tick-a-box approach to the industry. The minister said a week ago:
The Australian government has never had a direct funding relationship with these services …
But on 22 July this year the minister said:
Child care funding is a shared responsibility between the Australian, state and territory governments. Nothing has changed on that front.
The coalition, the Greens, parents and even the minister's own department know it is the Australian government which is responsible for supporting occasional care. The only remaining piece to complete the puzzle is the minister. On the subject of occasional care particularly, I wish to formally lodge this petition which calls on this federal government to reinstate the $12 million in funding that it cut from occasional child care in the last two budgets. The withdrawal of this funding is removing parents' option to access occasional care at hundreds of community run centres, resulting in more children being forced out of formal and regulated care.
This directly disregards the committed aim of all Australian governments to ensure safe and quality controlled early childhood care nationwide. This petition contains several thousand signatures. It has been considered by the standing committee this morning—it might have been yesterday morning—and it is in accordance with the standing orders. I take this opportunity to table it before the House.
In the remaining time I have I remind the minister, as we approach the edge of the cliff—the implementation date for these rules is 1 January next year—that when I go to the website under which I read about what is happening in terms of progress I find one thing which I want to point out. It says, 'Services will receive documentation about the new rules. Expect to receive them before Christmas.'
The new rules start on 1 January next year. And the government is sending out final copies of the documentation relating to the new rules, which people should expect to receive before Christmas. I make the point that there is quite a bit of work to do before implementation only five days later.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I understand that the honourable member for Farrer has sought to present a petition. I am advised that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions has said that the petition is in order so it is now received pursuant to standing order 207.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (12:26): I rise to table a petition on funding for occasional childcare. I am therefore pleased to present this petition.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the withdrawal of Federal funding support for occasional childcare services.
For thousands of families in Australia alternate short term care arrangements for their children is neither a financial or practical option. The withdrawal of this funding will remove a parent's option of accessing occasional care at hundreds of community run centres, resulting in more children forced out of formal and regulated care.
This directly disregards the committed aim of all Australian Governments to ensure safe and quality controlled 'early childhood care' nationwide.
We therefore ask the House to support the immediate reinstatement of the $12m in occasional care removed in the Federal budgets of 2010/11 and 2011/12.
from 2,333 citizens
Petition received.
I want to remind the House about how divided and directionless this Labor government is. We have seen a pattern of incompetence, a pattern of failure, whether it be roof batts, school halls, the live cattle trade or the NBN. Today I want to talk about another train wreck under this Labor government: childcare reform.
Child care under Labor is heading towards the cliff edge, with Minister Ellis and Minister Garrett greasing the wheels. Their one-size-fits-all approach is casting aside the very people that Labor purports to represent—working families, working mums and dads with children, who are battling rising costs under this government and battling a fragmented family way of life.
Under the new national quality framework, childcare centres are pushing up their fees by as much as $100 a week. Without even blinking an eye at that, the government keep telling us how much more generous their childcare rebate is. Then they have the hide to cut $700 from it and cap it for three years. Under their new universal access arrangements for kindergarten, preschools are now tossing out their three-year-old children just to squeeze in the mandatory 15 hours a week for four-year-olds. Visiting American Professor Joseph Sparling, who attended the House yesterday, spoke very passionately about the fact that early education is critical, not necessarily at the age of four years or in the preschool years but at three months and younger. Yet the government's rigid one-size-fits-all approach is not allowing some of that allocated money to flow to the most disadvantaged children in our society.
Every time someone stands up to tell the government what is wrong and to offer suggestions, they go back to their default position of hiding under the protection of a COAG agreement. COAG agreed to Labor's ideology in principle only to see this government botch the actual implementation.
Then we come to the 'occasional care' debacle, which I wish to highlight today, the cuts of $12 million to annual funding two years ago. Thousands of children across the nation are set to miss out on their own quality early childhood learning because of this government fumbling its responsibilities. Occasional care is set to be subject to the same onerous rules and red tape under the national quality framework but without any federal support. Not all of us can or do work full time. Not all of us can afford or need full-time child care. Minister Ellis needs to understand we cannot all fit within her tick-a-box approach to the industry. The minister said a week ago:
The Australian government has never had a direct funding relationship with these services …
But on 22 July this year the minister said:
Child care funding is a shared responsibility between the Australian, state and territory governments. Nothing has changed on that front.
The coalition, the Greens, parents and even the minister's own department know it is the Australian government which is responsible for supporting occasional care. The only remaining piece to complete the puzzle is the minister. On the subject of occasional care particularly, I wish to formally lodge this petition which calls on this federal government to reinstate the $12 million in funding that it cut from occasional child care in the last two budgets. The withdrawal of this funding is removing parents' option to access occasional care at hundreds of community run centres, resulting in more children being forced out of formal and regulated care.
This directly disregards the committed aim of all Australian governments to ensure safe and quality controlled early childhood care nationwide. This petition contains several thousand signatures. It has been considered by the standing committee this morning—it might have been yesterday morning—and it is in accordance with the standing orders. I take this opportunity to table it before the House.
In the remaining time I have I remind the minister, as we approach the edge of the cliff—the implementation date for these rules is 1 January next year—that when I go to the website under which I read about what is happening in terms of progress I find one thing which I want to point out. It says, 'Services will receive documentation about the new rules. Expect to receive them before Christmas.'
The new rules start on 1 January next year. And the government is sending out final copies of the documentation relating to the new rules, which people should expect to receive before Christmas. I make the point that there is quite a bit of work to do before implementation only five days later.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I understand that the honourable member for Farrer has sought to present a petition. I am advised that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions has said that the petition is in order so it is now received pursuant to standing order 207.
Operation Open Heart
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (12:31): I recently had the privilege of being part of a parliamentary delegation to Indonesia and Tonga as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. When in Tonga we had the privilege of attending a reception at the official residence of the Australian High Commissioner. At that reception I had the honour of meeting a number of health professionals from Australia who were part of a group people who were performing vital work in assisting the Tongan population as part of Operation Open Heart.
Operation Open Heart provides free life-transforming cardiac surgery to underprivileged men, women and children throughout Australasia, South-East Asia and various Third World countries with the assistance of individual humanitarian volunteer medical, nursing and other health professionals. The program has been running for over 25 years. It is assisted by AusAID, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, community groups such as Rotary and the Lions club, and numerous local and international civic minded corporate and individual community supporters. Sydney Adventist Hospital has coordinated more than 80 trips by volunteer teams that have resulted in more than 2,000 surgeries. In addition to their time and expertise, volunteers also make a significant financial contribution towards the cost of each program. A conservative estimate of the value of contributions by the volunteers since 1986 is in the region of $7.5 million.
In addition, Sydney Adventist Hospital now directly invests over $200,000 per year into that program for management and operational expenses. This ensures that supporters' contributions are directed specifically to the individual programs. Depending on the location, surgery type and numbers, the total cost of one of the annual trips can be as much as $200,000.
Since 1986 more than 1,500 health professional volunteers from hospitals around Australia have been coordinated by Sydney Adventist Hospital for an average of four to six trips per annum. An innovative feature of Operation Open Heart is the training program conducted by the visiting teams pre, during and post surgery. Host team members assist and learn from the visiting teams with the aim of becoming self-sufficient once visiting teams return home.
Some 12 countries are covered by this program: Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Nepal, China, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam and, most recently, Rwanda. This is a particularly impressive program in which all those involved can be very proud. I found the logistics that are involved in such an exercise quite astounding. Certain programs may require the transport of up to four tonnes of freight, but because they have relationships with freight forwarders and airline partners this can be done at very small cost on an overall basis.
Once the volunteers arrive in a country they will often work between eight and 10 hours a day. Nursing staff are rostered to ensure post surgical care is provided 24 hours a day. It is common to do more than 50 surgeries in a 14-day visit. As anyone who has been involved in the medical area would know, that is a phenomenal level of activity. While talking to volunteers at the reception, I was very impressed by their commitment to and their enthusiasm for the work that they were doing and the fact that it was actually providing real and concrete support and assistance to people who would otherwise be in a situation where they just would not get the assistance that they need. The arrival of these trips is coincided with the development of demand and they really rip through things in a very professional manner. The individual stories that we were told of some of the cases and some of the circumstances of the work that was being done were absolutely uplifting and they made me very proud to be an Australian.
The activities of these groups, particularly in the context of Operation Open Heart, are something that all involved with them can be very proud of. Some of the individual volunteers have on occasions actually received awards from countries where they have provided assistance. For example, in Fiji, two members were awarded the Order of Fiji, while in Papua New Guinea eight team members received a prestigious government award, the Order of Logohu. Individual team members have also been recognised by a range of other organisations.
I commend the work of Operation Open Heart and all those involved in it. I certainly say to the volunteers, 'Well done. You are providing real and concrete support to people in communities who need it. You are doing it in a cooperative fashion. You are providing training and skills to those you seek to help so that they can help themselves into the future, and you are ensuring that many people who live in isolated locations, in awkward circumstances and in poverty are able to get life-saving surgery, using your skills in a manner in which you can all be very proud of.'
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (12:31): I recently had the privilege of being part of a parliamentary delegation to Indonesia and Tonga as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. When in Tonga we had the privilege of attending a reception at the official residence of the Australian High Commissioner. At that reception I had the honour of meeting a number of health professionals from Australia who were part of a group people who were performing vital work in assisting the Tongan population as part of Operation Open Heart.
Operation Open Heart provides free life-transforming cardiac surgery to underprivileged men, women and children throughout Australasia, South-East Asia and various Third World countries with the assistance of individual humanitarian volunteer medical, nursing and other health professionals. The program has been running for over 25 years. It is assisted by AusAID, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, community groups such as Rotary and the Lions club, and numerous local and international civic minded corporate and individual community supporters. Sydney Adventist Hospital has coordinated more than 80 trips by volunteer teams that have resulted in more than 2,000 surgeries. In addition to their time and expertise, volunteers also make a significant financial contribution towards the cost of each program. A conservative estimate of the value of contributions by the volunteers since 1986 is in the region of $7.5 million.
In addition, Sydney Adventist Hospital now directly invests over $200,000 per year into that program for management and operational expenses. This ensures that supporters' contributions are directed specifically to the individual programs. Depending on the location, surgery type and numbers, the total cost of one of the annual trips can be as much as $200,000.
Since 1986 more than 1,500 health professional volunteers from hospitals around Australia have been coordinated by Sydney Adventist Hospital for an average of four to six trips per annum. An innovative feature of Operation Open Heart is the training program conducted by the visiting teams pre, during and post surgery. Host team members assist and learn from the visiting teams with the aim of becoming self-sufficient once visiting teams return home.
Some 12 countries are covered by this program: Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Nepal, China, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam and, most recently, Rwanda. This is a particularly impressive program in which all those involved can be very proud. I found the logistics that are involved in such an exercise quite astounding. Certain programs may require the transport of up to four tonnes of freight, but because they have relationships with freight forwarders and airline partners this can be done at very small cost on an overall basis.
Once the volunteers arrive in a country they will often work between eight and 10 hours a day. Nursing staff are rostered to ensure post surgical care is provided 24 hours a day. It is common to do more than 50 surgeries in a 14-day visit. As anyone who has been involved in the medical area would know, that is a phenomenal level of activity. While talking to volunteers at the reception, I was very impressed by their commitment to and their enthusiasm for the work that they were doing and the fact that it was actually providing real and concrete support and assistance to people who would otherwise be in a situation where they just would not get the assistance that they need. The arrival of these trips is coincided with the development of demand and they really rip through things in a very professional manner. The individual stories that we were told of some of the cases and some of the circumstances of the work that was being done were absolutely uplifting and they made me very proud to be an Australian.
The activities of these groups, particularly in the context of Operation Open Heart, are something that all involved with them can be very proud of. Some of the individual volunteers have on occasions actually received awards from countries where they have provided assistance. For example, in Fiji, two members were awarded the Order of Fiji, while in Papua New Guinea eight team members received a prestigious government award, the Order of Logohu. Individual team members have also been recognised by a range of other organisations.
I commend the work of Operation Open Heart and all those involved in it. I certainly say to the volunteers, 'Well done. You are providing real and concrete support to people in communities who need it. You are doing it in a cooperative fashion. You are providing training and skills to those you seek to help so that they can help themselves into the future, and you are ensuring that many people who live in isolated locations, in awkward circumstances and in poverty are able to get life-saving surgery, using your skills in a manner in which you can all be very proud of.'
White Ribbon Day
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (12:36): Mr Deputy Speaker, as White Ribbon Day approaches, on 25 November, I am sure that you and everyone in this chamber will agree with me when I say that all forms of violence are unacceptable. The White Ribbon organisation believes the prevention of violence against women will change society for the better. Through primary prevention initiatives and an annual campaign, White Ribbon works to change the attitudes and the behaviours that lead to men's violence against women.
The former federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Susan Halliday once said that it is of grave concern that we still live in a society where physical, sexual and emotional acts of violence against women are prevalent in our streets, workplaces and homes. Every woman has a right to feel free of domestic violence. Violence against women is a serious problem in our society, and statistics show that one in three Australian women over the age of 15 have reported experiencing physical or sexual violence at some time in their lives.
In addition to the obvious personal costs to the women involved, this violence costs our community dearly. In the 2009 Time for action report, KPMG estimated that violence against women and their children cost the Australian economy $13.6 billion annually, and this is expected to rise to a figure of $15.6 billion by 2021. Domestic and family violence is also the major cause of homelessness for women and children, and White Ribbon Day works to stop this insidious violence.
Violence against women is a deeply personal issue for women, and as an employer in my time before entering this place I was often faced with the terrible spectre of staff experiencing violence at home. It affects us all profoundly. Not only is this an important issue for me but it is very much a men's issue, because it is their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends whose lives are being harmed by violence and abuse. It is also a men's issue because a minority of men treat women and girls with contempt and violence, and it is up to the majority of men to create a culture that says this is unacceptable.
I am privileged to have been able to take part in the joint AusAID-US Pacific Women's Empowerment Policy Dialogue currently here in Canberra. I was delighted to be able to engage in this dialogue. I look forward to seeing some very positive results.
Last night US ambassador Mr Jeffrey Bleich gave a heartfelt and deeply personal speech at the launch of the conference. His long-time commitment to this cause is very evident. Also evident is the joint commitment of the US and Australian governments to eradicating violence against women and to empowering women through undertaking this policy dialogue.
We were fortunate today to hear a taped address from the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, to open the dialogue, and this morning we heard an impassioned address from the leader of the US delegation, Ms Tina Tchen, the Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and chief of staff to Michelle Obama. Ms Tchen's knowledge in this area not only comes from high-level government roles but also from being a front-line domestic violence shelter worker. She recounted how in those days there was very little support given by governments and women's domestic shelters had to be in secret locations. It is good to see that we have come a very long way now; we can discuss these issues in the open.
I welcome the work done by this government in launching the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, building on the work done by the former Howard government in this important area. I want to commend the very fine work of the White Ribbon organisation, which is working towards preventing the common and pervasive form of male violence against women. I want to commend their efforts in bringing this terrible problem to everyone's attention. I encourage everyone to get behind the White Ribbon campaign, which is fast approaching—25 November—and do their bit to say that all forms of violence against women should end.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (12:36): Mr Deputy Speaker, as White Ribbon Day approaches, on 25 November, I am sure that you and everyone in this chamber will agree with me when I say that all forms of violence are unacceptable. The White Ribbon organisation believes the prevention of violence against women will change society for the better. Through primary prevention initiatives and an annual campaign, White Ribbon works to change the attitudes and the behaviours that lead to men's violence against women.
The former federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Susan Halliday once said that it is of grave concern that we still live in a society where physical, sexual and emotional acts of violence against women are prevalent in our streets, workplaces and homes. Every woman has a right to feel free of domestic violence. Violence against women is a serious problem in our society, and statistics show that one in three Australian women over the age of 15 have reported experiencing physical or sexual violence at some time in their lives.
In addition to the obvious personal costs to the women involved, this violence costs our community dearly. In the 2009 Time for action report, KPMG estimated that violence against women and their children cost the Australian economy $13.6 billion annually, and this is expected to rise to a figure of $15.6 billion by 2021. Domestic and family violence is also the major cause of homelessness for women and children, and White Ribbon Day works to stop this insidious violence.
Violence against women is a deeply personal issue for women, and as an employer in my time before entering this place I was often faced with the terrible spectre of staff experiencing violence at home. It affects us all profoundly. Not only is this an important issue for me but it is very much a men's issue, because it is their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends whose lives are being harmed by violence and abuse. It is also a men's issue because a minority of men treat women and girls with contempt and violence, and it is up to the majority of men to create a culture that says this is unacceptable.
I am privileged to have been able to take part in the joint AusAID-US Pacific Women's Empowerment Policy Dialogue currently here in Canberra. I was delighted to be able to engage in this dialogue. I look forward to seeing some very positive results.
Last night US ambassador Mr Jeffrey Bleich gave a heartfelt and deeply personal speech at the launch of the conference. His long-time commitment to this cause is very evident. Also evident is the joint commitment of the US and Australian governments to eradicating violence against women and to empowering women through undertaking this policy dialogue.
We were fortunate today to hear a taped address from the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, to open the dialogue, and this morning we heard an impassioned address from the leader of the US delegation, Ms Tina Tchen, the Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and chief of staff to Michelle Obama. Ms Tchen's knowledge in this area not only comes from high-level government roles but also from being a front-line domestic violence shelter worker. She recounted how in those days there was very little support given by governments and women's domestic shelters had to be in secret locations. It is good to see that we have come a very long way now; we can discuss these issues in the open.
I welcome the work done by this government in launching the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, building on the work done by the former Howard government in this important area. I want to commend the very fine work of the White Ribbon organisation, which is working towards preventing the common and pervasive form of male violence against women. I want to commend their efforts in bringing this terrible problem to everyone's attention. I encourage everyone to get behind the White Ribbon campaign, which is fast approaching—25 November—and do their bit to say that all forms of violence against women should end.
Rhiannon, Senator Lee
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (12:42): As you would be aware, much has been said about the systematic campaign by comrade Lee Rhiannon in the other place to sanitise her Marxist revolutionary past. Many questions have been asked on both sides of this chamber of comrade Rhiannon about her history of Stalinist activism within the Socialist Party of Australia, a pro-Moscow group that split from the Communist Party of Australia, questions that comrade Rhiannon has systematically ducked in a vain game of hide and go seek.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The member for Casey is aware that the senator is a member of the other place and that is not an appropriate way to describe her in debate in the Main Committee.
Mr TONY SMITH: I will correct myself from now on, Mr Deputy Speaker. The twists and turns of the senator's contortionist evasions are recounted in great detail by Gerard Henderson of the Sydney Institute in his excellent 'Media Watch Dog' column. In a letter to Senator Rhiannon, Mr Henderson posed a dozen questions about her communist past, about whether she was telling the truth when she claimed on Channel 10's Meet the Press that she had merely 'assisted with the production' of Survey, the SPA's Kremlin funded propaganda sheet. It was quite a reasonable question to ask in light of the fact that Senator Rhiannon signed off in August 1990 on the final edition of Survey under her then married name by-line, 'Lee O'Gorman, Editor'.
Mr Henderson also inquired about reports by former fellow travellers that Senator Rhiannon studied at Moscow's infamous International Lenin School, where Marxists from around the world were apparently instructed in the dark arts of fomenting communist revolution. These are entirely legitimate questions, questions that arise from Senator Rhiannon's public statements and personal history. Yet, how did she respond to these queries? Senator Rhiannon responded with the time honoured Marxist tactic of cheat and retreat. Despite her attempt to deny the undeniable, the objective record is becoming clearer and clearer. From the late 1960s until the demise of the Soviet Union, Senator Rhiannon was clearly a Kremlin parrot, slavishly regurgitating whatever Marxist nonsense was dictated by her Politburo masters.
During one interview, Senator Rhiannon tried to plead dewy eyed innocence as an explanation of her dubious history of shilling for totalitarianism. But when the Berlin Wall finally fell in 1989, Senator Rhiannon was 39 years of age, hardly a spring chicken. So, even if the claim of youthful exuberance was used as a defence, in Senator Rhiannon's case the statute of limitations had well and truly expired.
By 1990 the writing was well and truly on the wall for the Soviet Union. That meant trouble for Senator Rhiannon and her fellow travellers. With the Soviet Union collapsing because of its internal contradictions, there was a drying up of the Kremlin gravy train that had supported communist movements throughout the world. When the Marxist going got tough, Senator Rhiannon got going. She was left politically homeless. But, miraculously, she engineered a seamless political transition. Senator Rhiannon would have us believe that she went to bed one night wearing red pyjamas and woke up the very next morning wearing green pyjamas. Hallelujah!
Our main concern today should be whether Senator Rhiannon's past will be the Greens future. We should see where the Greens are today and we should think where she might take them tomorrow. The Australian Greens can no longer be considered a mere protest party. They have the balance of power in the other place. They should be held to account the same as every other member of this place. This is a continuing story; it is one that Senator Rhiannon should confront. She should apply to herself the same standards she demands of everybody else.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (12:42): As you would be aware, much has been said about the systematic campaign by comrade Lee Rhiannon in the other place to sanitise her Marxist revolutionary past. Many questions have been asked on both sides of this chamber of comrade Rhiannon about her history of Stalinist activism within the Socialist Party of Australia, a pro-Moscow group that split from the Communist Party of Australia, questions that comrade Rhiannon has systematically ducked in a vain game of hide and go seek.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): The member for Casey is aware that the senator is a member of the other place and that is not an appropriate way to describe her in debate in the Main Committee.
Mr TONY SMITH: I will correct myself from now on, Mr Deputy Speaker. The twists and turns of the senator's contortionist evasions are recounted in great detail by Gerard Henderson of the Sydney Institute in his excellent 'Media Watch Dog' column. In a letter to Senator Rhiannon, Mr Henderson posed a dozen questions about her communist past, about whether she was telling the truth when she claimed on Channel 10's Meet the Press that she had merely 'assisted with the production' of Survey, the SPA's Kremlin funded propaganda sheet. It was quite a reasonable question to ask in light of the fact that Senator Rhiannon signed off in August 1990 on the final edition of Survey under her then married name by-line, 'Lee O'Gorman, Editor'.
Mr Henderson also inquired about reports by former fellow travellers that Senator Rhiannon studied at Moscow's infamous International Lenin School, where Marxists from around the world were apparently instructed in the dark arts of fomenting communist revolution. These are entirely legitimate questions, questions that arise from Senator Rhiannon's public statements and personal history. Yet, how did she respond to these queries? Senator Rhiannon responded with the time honoured Marxist tactic of cheat and retreat. Despite her attempt to deny the undeniable, the objective record is becoming clearer and clearer. From the late 1960s until the demise of the Soviet Union, Senator Rhiannon was clearly a Kremlin parrot, slavishly regurgitating whatever Marxist nonsense was dictated by her Politburo masters.
During one interview, Senator Rhiannon tried to plead dewy eyed innocence as an explanation of her dubious history of shilling for totalitarianism. But when the Berlin Wall finally fell in 1989, Senator Rhiannon was 39 years of age, hardly a spring chicken. So, even if the claim of youthful exuberance was used as a defence, in Senator Rhiannon's case the statute of limitations had well and truly expired.
By 1990 the writing was well and truly on the wall for the Soviet Union. That meant trouble for Senator Rhiannon and her fellow travellers. With the Soviet Union collapsing because of its internal contradictions, there was a drying up of the Kremlin gravy train that had supported communist movements throughout the world. When the Marxist going got tough, Senator Rhiannon got going. She was left politically homeless. But, miraculously, she engineered a seamless political transition. Senator Rhiannon would have us believe that she went to bed one night wearing red pyjamas and woke up the very next morning wearing green pyjamas. Hallelujah!
Our main concern today should be whether Senator Rhiannon's past will be the Greens future. We should see where the Greens are today and we should think where she might take them tomorrow. The Australian Greens can no longer be considered a mere protest party. They have the balance of power in the other place. They should be held to account the same as every other member of this place. This is a continuing story; it is one that Senator Rhiannon should confront. She should apply to herself the same standards she demands of everybody else.
Qantas
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (12:47): There has been a lot said this week about the Qantas dispute but, beyond the tactical question of which industrial relations processes should have been used, there is a broader question: why has this government effectively abandoned the economic reform process which in the aviation sector as in so many other sectors has delivered huge benefits to consumers? In effect we have a government standing idly by while emboldened unions seek to dictate the way that Qantas should manage its business.
Let's take a historical perspective here. For many years there was a government-mandated duopoly in aviation: TAA and Ansett were the only companies permitted to operate. One was government owned; one was privately owned. This arrangement was pretty cosy for the airlines inside the club but left routine air travel unaffordable for the majority of Australians.
Quite correctly, in 1990, the Hawke government kicked off the deregulation of the airline sector and abolished the two-airline policy. The sector was opened up to new entrants, and there have been a series of them. Some have survived and some have not. They have included Compass Mk I, Compass Mk II, Virgin and Tiger. Airfares have dropped dramatically. Rather than being a luxury, for the great majority of Australians air travel can now be a routine part of daily life. The result of this deregulation process has been much more choice for consumers and much lower fares. Consumers are better off. Many more people fly and there are many more trips each year. In 1991-92, approximately 18 million passenger embarkations occurred. In 2010-11, approximately 48 million occurred, an enormous increase in less than 20 years.
However, deregulation of the aviation sector has made life less comfortable for companies in the industry. That is the nature of competition; it creates pressures which industry participants must respond to. Just over 10 years ago, in September 2001, one of those two traditional duopoly airlines, Ansett, collapsed. It had a high-cost structure, legacy work practices, a high degree of unionisation and an inefficient fleet. Ansett failed to match the more efficient new entrants. While Ansett did a poor job of responding to change, so far Qantas has managed its way through change effectively. But the management team of an airline must be ever vigilant. The airline business is a very tough one. It is highly capital intensive, with aircraft costing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars each. Key cost inputs like fuel fluctuate sharply and labour is a large cost component.
The Ansett collapse shows what happens when a management team fails to adjust a company's operations to new competitive realities. Anybody who thinks that because Qantas has been around for the best part of 100 years its future is guaranteed is indeed naive. For Qantas to assure its survival, its management must be able to take the necessary actions so it remains a viable and competitive business in a fast changing and ruthlessly competitive sector.
As Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, pointed out, its TWU staff are paid 12 per cent more than their equivalent at Virgin and its long-haul pilots earn 50 per cent more than their Virgin counterparts. Yet the unions are pressing Qantas to a commitment to 'job security'. No company can provide its employees with greater security than it enjoys itself. A guarantee of job security from a company which was forced into collapse would be nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.
The current showdown between unions and Qantas is about whether Qantas will be able to maintain a viable operating model given the competitive pressures it is facing. This is the playing out of a public policy direction rightly put in place over 20 years ago. It is a policy direction which serves the interests of the many—airline customers, including millions today who are able to fly when 20 years ago they could not have afforded to, as opposed to the concentrated interests of the few. But it is a policy direction which is now under direct threat from the Gillard Labor government. It was a tragedy when one great Australian airline collapsed after failing to adapt to a more competitive market. It would be a double tragedy if another great Australian airline were prevented from taking the necessary steps to secure its future because, under this government, the union bullies are back in control.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (12:47): There has been a lot said this week about the Qantas dispute but, beyond the tactical question of which industrial relations processes should have been used, there is a broader question: why has this government effectively abandoned the economic reform process which in the aviation sector as in so many other sectors has delivered huge benefits to consumers? In effect we have a government standing idly by while emboldened unions seek to dictate the way that Qantas should manage its business.
Let's take a historical perspective here. For many years there was a government-mandated duopoly in aviation: TAA and Ansett were the only companies permitted to operate. One was government owned; one was privately owned. This arrangement was pretty cosy for the airlines inside the club but left routine air travel unaffordable for the majority of Australians.
Quite correctly, in 1990, the Hawke government kicked off the deregulation of the airline sector and abolished the two-airline policy. The sector was opened up to new entrants, and there have been a series of them. Some have survived and some have not. They have included Compass Mk I, Compass Mk II, Virgin and Tiger. Airfares have dropped dramatically. Rather than being a luxury, for the great majority of Australians air travel can now be a routine part of daily life. The result of this deregulation process has been much more choice for consumers and much lower fares. Consumers are better off. Many more people fly and there are many more trips each year. In 1991-92, approximately 18 million passenger embarkations occurred. In 2010-11, approximately 48 million occurred, an enormous increase in less than 20 years.
However, deregulation of the aviation sector has made life less comfortable for companies in the industry. That is the nature of competition; it creates pressures which industry participants must respond to. Just over 10 years ago, in September 2001, one of those two traditional duopoly airlines, Ansett, collapsed. It had a high-cost structure, legacy work practices, a high degree of unionisation and an inefficient fleet. Ansett failed to match the more efficient new entrants. While Ansett did a poor job of responding to change, so far Qantas has managed its way through change effectively. But the management team of an airline must be ever vigilant. The airline business is a very tough one. It is highly capital intensive, with aircraft costing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars each. Key cost inputs like fuel fluctuate sharply and labour is a large cost component.
The Ansett collapse shows what happens when a management team fails to adjust a company's operations to new competitive realities. Anybody who thinks that because Qantas has been around for the best part of 100 years its future is guaranteed is indeed naive. For Qantas to assure its survival, its management must be able to take the necessary actions so it remains a viable and competitive business in a fast changing and ruthlessly competitive sector.
As Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, pointed out, its TWU staff are paid 12 per cent more than their equivalent at Virgin and its long-haul pilots earn 50 per cent more than their Virgin counterparts. Yet the unions are pressing Qantas to a commitment to 'job security'. No company can provide its employees with greater security than it enjoys itself. A guarantee of job security from a company which was forced into collapse would be nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.
The current showdown between unions and Qantas is about whether Qantas will be able to maintain a viable operating model given the competitive pressures it is facing. This is the playing out of a public policy direction rightly put in place over 20 years ago. It is a policy direction which serves the interests of the many—airline customers, including millions today who are able to fly when 20 years ago they could not have afforded to, as opposed to the concentrated interests of the few. But it is a policy direction which is now under direct threat from the Gillard Labor government. It was a tragedy when one great Australian airline collapsed after failing to adapt to a more competitive market. It would be a double tragedy if another great Australian airline were prevented from taking the necessary steps to secure its future because, under this government, the union bullies are back in control.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax
Mr HAASE (Durack) (12:52): Today I bring the House's attention to the pivotal point we are at in Australia. Well known across Australia and understood by the population is the fact that we are a resource rich country and that, through the process of royalties, we have compensated the people of Australia, in each state, for the value of the natural resources extracted and traded for revenue. At the same time we have created jobs, infrastructure and tax collection opportunities. The return to the Australian people of the value of those resources has been predominantly through royalties, which is a very important point to remember. We are now on the brink of changing the state collection of royalties, whose value compensates for extracted resources, which are distributed within the state by way of the construction of infrastructure. We must also remember that, because of that longstanding process, we have incredibly highly valued, low sovereign risk across the world.
Today one of the most mobile assets around the globe is capital and to extract resources in this country today we need capital—and lots of it. The extraction process and the transportation of raw materials is a very complex and expensive business. Because you need to do a lot of it you need to be exceptionally efficient, and to do that you need to invest capital. That capital comes, in the main, from overseas. If we had 200 million people in Australia it would be less so but we are 22 million people in Australia, which creates a capital flow problem. We have been considered globally to be low sovereign risk to this point in time. With the introduction of the MRRT, we will destroy that low sovereign risk image and say to the world, 'Don't come Down Under; we have the resources, but who knows when you are going to be hit with an additional tax.' And the appeal—especially with iron ore, which we have in abundance in this country—and the attraction will suddenly be in west Africa and the Americas. And exploration for the resources in those countries will become increasingly more attractive, because the capital that is floating around the world looking for a place to land is averse to high sovereign risk. The message we are sending globally right now is, 'Don't come Down Under because we are liable to wake up tomorrow morning with a different idea and dud you, and your investors will not get the predetermined return on their capital and your company will go down the gurgler.'
So we are on the brink of destroying our international reputation, all for the sake of this government's Treasury getting their grubby hands on the dollars from the states. The states I refer to predominantly are of course Western Australia and Queensland, and in Western Australia we have ample need for the investment of capital derived from our royalties. If the people of Western Australia considered that they were not being compensated sufficiently for the extraction of Western Australia's minerals then the answer would be to increase royalties; it would not be to introduce a new tax—especially at this time, globally, when the cost of living is ever increasing and the returns to the individual are reducing.
Capital investment in Western Australia in mineral extraction provides jobs. It provides infrastructure. It provides opportunities for the collection of taxes. But those taxes collected appropriately and efficiently ought to be in the form of royalties. If the royalties collected today are not sufficient then the royalties ought to be increased. It is a very long-standing tradition that it is royalties that compensate the people of Australia for the minerals of Australia that are extracted. To change that is to fly in the face of common sense. The MRRT is a dud.
Mr HAASE (Durack) (12:52): Today I bring the House's attention to the pivotal point we are at in Australia. Well known across Australia and understood by the population is the fact that we are a resource rich country and that, through the process of royalties, we have compensated the people of Australia, in each state, for the value of the natural resources extracted and traded for revenue. At the same time we have created jobs, infrastructure and tax collection opportunities. The return to the Australian people of the value of those resources has been predominantly through royalties, which is a very important point to remember. We are now on the brink of changing the state collection of royalties, whose value compensates for extracted resources, which are distributed within the state by way of the construction of infrastructure. We must also remember that, because of that longstanding process, we have incredibly highly valued, low sovereign risk across the world.
Today one of the most mobile assets around the globe is capital and to extract resources in this country today we need capital—and lots of it. The extraction process and the transportation of raw materials is a very complex and expensive business. Because you need to do a lot of it you need to be exceptionally efficient, and to do that you need to invest capital. That capital comes, in the main, from overseas. If we had 200 million people in Australia it would be less so but we are 22 million people in Australia, which creates a capital flow problem. We have been considered globally to be low sovereign risk to this point in time. With the introduction of the MRRT, we will destroy that low sovereign risk image and say to the world, 'Don't come Down Under; we have the resources, but who knows when you are going to be hit with an additional tax.' And the appeal—especially with iron ore, which we have in abundance in this country—and the attraction will suddenly be in west Africa and the Americas. And exploration for the resources in those countries will become increasingly more attractive, because the capital that is floating around the world looking for a place to land is averse to high sovereign risk. The message we are sending globally right now is, 'Don't come Down Under because we are liable to wake up tomorrow morning with a different idea and dud you, and your investors will not get the predetermined return on their capital and your company will go down the gurgler.'
So we are on the brink of destroying our international reputation, all for the sake of this government's Treasury getting their grubby hands on the dollars from the states. The states I refer to predominantly are of course Western Australia and Queensland, and in Western Australia we have ample need for the investment of capital derived from our royalties. If the people of Western Australia considered that they were not being compensated sufficiently for the extraction of Western Australia's minerals then the answer would be to increase royalties; it would not be to introduce a new tax—especially at this time, globally, when the cost of living is ever increasing and the returns to the individual are reducing.
Capital investment in Western Australia in mineral extraction provides jobs. It provides infrastructure. It provides opportunities for the collection of taxes. But those taxes collected appropriately and efficiently ought to be in the form of royalties. If the royalties collected today are not sufficient then the royalties ought to be increased. It is a very long-standing tradition that it is royalties that compensate the people of Australia for the minerals of Australia that are extracted. To change that is to fly in the face of common sense. The MRRT is a dud.
Australia-India Relationship
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:57): On Sunday I had the great pleasure of going to a Deepavali celebration here in Canberra in Glebe Park, where I joined with hundreds of members of the Indian community to celebrate what is one of my favourite Indian festivals, the Festival of Lights. It was a great day of eating fantastic Indian food, but also it provided both the Indian community and the rest of the Canberra community with the opportunity to experience Indian culture through a range of dances and singing and presentations, and it was just a lovely, wonderful day of celebrating this beautiful Festival of Lights.
I also attended a Deepavali celebration here at Parliament House on Monday night with a number of my parliamentary colleagues and some senior members of the Indian community, and last night I attended an Australia India Business Council event here at Parliament House where the keynote address was given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen. Again that event underscored to me the strength of the Australia-India relationship, and the strength of the Indian community in Australia and in Canberra.
At that event last night, I learnt that India is one of the top five sources of skilled migration to this country, and I know, from having lived in India, that it is a great nation that is becoming, if it has not already become, a huge economic powerhouse, and I look forward to it thriving and growing and becoming an even stronger powerhouse in the future. The Indian people are a great people; they are a very well educated, very passionate and very committed people, and they are also great entrepreneurs, which is why I really welcomed the opportunity to go to the business council event last night. Business between the two countries has been growing exponentially over the last decade. When I was living in India it was still in the very early stages of liberalising. It has now liberalised and is burgeoning and growing and just powering ahead.
So it was a great pleasure to focus on India again this week through the Deepavali celebrations on Sunday and on Monday, and to be reminded last night of the strength of the bilateral business relationship and the skilled migration relationship—the relationship in so many areas. I was also heartened to hear that the exchanges between governments has improved over recent years. It has really been strengthened. I understand there have been more than 30 ministerial visits from India in the last three years and that there have been more than 20 ministerial visits from Australia to India in that same period. So the relationship is just strengthening and growing each day of each year, and I look forward to it becoming even stronger over the next decade and also to being part of that.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:01.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:57): On Sunday I had the great pleasure of going to a Deepavali celebration here in Canberra in Glebe Park, where I joined with hundreds of members of the Indian community to celebrate what is one of my favourite Indian festivals, the Festival of Lights. It was a great day of eating fantastic Indian food, but also it provided both the Indian community and the rest of the Canberra community with the opportunity to experience Indian culture through a range of dances and singing and presentations, and it was just a lovely, wonderful day of celebrating this beautiful Festival of Lights.
I also attended a Deepavali celebration here at Parliament House on Monday night with a number of my parliamentary colleagues and some senior members of the Indian community, and last night I attended an Australia India Business Council event here at Parliament House where the keynote address was given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen. Again that event underscored to me the strength of the Australia-India relationship, and the strength of the Indian community in Australia and in Canberra.
At that event last night, I learnt that India is one of the top five sources of skilled migration to this country, and I know, from having lived in India, that it is a great nation that is becoming, if it has not already become, a huge economic powerhouse, and I look forward to it thriving and growing and becoming an even stronger powerhouse in the future. The Indian people are a great people; they are a very well educated, very passionate and very committed people, and they are also great entrepreneurs, which is why I really welcomed the opportunity to go to the business council event last night. Business between the two countries has been growing exponentially over the last decade. When I was living in India it was still in the very early stages of liberalising. It has now liberalised and is burgeoning and growing and just powering ahead.
So it was a great pleasure to focus on India again this week through the Deepavali celebrations on Sunday and on Monday, and to be reminded last night of the strength of the bilateral business relationship and the skilled migration relationship—the relationship in so many areas. I was also heartened to hear that the exchanges between governments has improved over recent years. It has really been strengthened. I understand there have been more than 30 ministerial visits from India in the last three years and that there have been more than 20 ministerial visits from Australia to India in that same period. So the relationship is just strengthening and growing each day of each year, and I look forward to it becoming even stronger over the next decade and also to being part of that.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:01.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Broadband
(Question No. 587)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 12 September 2011:
In respect of a number of public statements made by the Minister, including on ABC's 7.30 on 26 June 2011, that the previous government had 18 'failed' broadband programs, (a) what were the names of these programs, and (b) on what basis did the Minister make these claims?
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
In relation to your query, your own 'broadband briefing' on your website dated 15 September 2011 identifies 16 of the failed broadband plans. The two additional failed plans were Networking the Nation (1997) and the Expert Taskforce (2007).
Asia-Pacific: Cataract Surgery
(Question No. 632)
Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 September 2011:
Since 24 November 2007, how many cataract surgeries have been performed in the Asia-Pacific region.
Mr Rudd: The answer to the honourable member s question is as follows:
The Australian aid program has supported over 80,000 cataract and sight restoring surgeries performed in the Asia-Pacific region since 24 November 2007.
Asia-Pacific: Eye Screening
(Question No. 635)
Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 September 2011:
Since 24 November 2007, what sum of funding has been spent on eye screening of primary school children (ages 5 to12 years) in the Asia-Pacific region.
Mr Rudd: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Since 24 November 2007, about $55 million has been spent on eye health in the Asia-Pacific region. This has included funding for eye screening for over 150,000 school aged children in Cambodia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Solomon Islands and Vietnam.
Specific age disaggregated data is not available on a financial basis for all of the countries in which Australia provides funding for avoidable blindness.
Broadband
(Question No. 587)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 12 September 2011:
In respect of a number of public statements made by the Minister, including on ABC's 7.30 on 26 June 2011, that the previous government had 18 'failed' broadband programs, (a) what were the names of these programs, and (b) on what basis did the Minister make these claims?
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
In relation to your query, your own 'broadband briefing' on your website dated 15 September 2011 identifies 16 of the failed broadband plans. The two additional failed plans were Networking the Nation (1997) and the Expert Taskforce (2007).
Asia-Pacific: Cataract Surgery
(Question No. 632)
Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 September 2011:
Since 24 November 2007, how many cataract surgeries have been performed in the Asia-Pacific region.
Mr Rudd: The answer to the honourable member s question is as follows:
The Australian aid program has supported over 80,000 cataract and sight restoring surgeries performed in the Asia-Pacific region since 24 November 2007.
Asia-Pacific: Eye Screening
(Question No. 635)
Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 September 2011:
Since 24 November 2007, what sum of funding has been spent on eye screening of primary school children (ages 5 to12 years) in the Asia-Pacific region.
Mr Rudd: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Since 24 November 2007, about $55 million has been spent on eye health in the Asia-Pacific region. This has included funding for eye screening for over 150,000 school aged children in Cambodia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Solomon Islands and Vietnam.
Specific age disaggregated data is not available on a financial basis for all of the countries in which Australia provides funding for avoidable blindness.