The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Bruce Scott ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Amendment Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Amendment Bill 2012
Excise Tariff Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Amendment Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading and calls on the Government to immediately abolish all liability and scrap the carbon tax".
The SPEAKER (09:06): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided. [09:06]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (09:13): The question is that these bills be now read a second time.
The House divided. [21:13]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (09:17): In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 19 September, the bills will now be taken together. Any proposed amendments are to be moved and debated now. The question will be put on government amendments. One question will be put on amendments moved by opposition members and any necessary questions will be put on amendments moved by other members. Any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage will then be put.
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:18): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and congratulations on your election. I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together.
Leave granted.
Mr COMBET: by leave—I move:
(1) Schedule 1, page 55 (after line 11), after item 80, insert:
80A Paragraph 126(2)(a)
Omit “a particular provision of Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that provision”, substitute “Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that Division”.
80B Paragraph 126(2)(b)
Omit “that provision in so far as that provision”, substitute “that Division in so far as that Division”.
80C Subsection 126(4)
Omit “provisional emissions number of the person for the relevant eligible financial year under a particular provision of Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that provision”, substitute “total of the provisional emissions numbers of the person for the relevant eligible financial year under Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that Division”.
(2) Schedule 1, page 55, after proposed item 80C, insert:
80D Subparagraphs 127(1)(d)(ii) and (iii)
Omit “a particular provision of Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that provision”, substitute “Division 2 of Part 3 in so far as that Division”.
These amendments remove a potential ambiguity in some of the drafting of provisions of the Clean Energy Act 2011 concerning interim emissions numbers. The amendments ensure that there is no ambiguity about the application of the policy behind section 126 of the act. They make it clear that, apart from the specific circumstances set out in section 127 of the Clean Energy Act 2011, all liable entities for facilities will have an interim emissions number in 2012-13 and in subsequent fixed price years and will, therefore, have a provisional surrender obligation in those years.
The government made this policy position plain in paragraph 4.26 of the explanatory memorandum to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and therefore there is no material policy change. It is simply a clarifying amendment.
In particular, the two amendments make it clear that an interim emissions number is not dependent on having two provisional emissions numbers arising for a facility under the same provision of the Clean Energy Act 2011 for two consecutive years. Rather, they make it clear that a provisional emissions number for a facility may arise under different provisions of part 3, division 2 of the Clean Energy Act 2011 with respect to those years. I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (09:20): Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, on your appointment. On a day when the government are making much of a minor error elsewhere, this amendment is to clarify a minor error. Unlike the government, we will show good faith and good grace and let them correct their error without any major criticism. We just put that in the broader context. We will of course oppose the bill as a whole.
Question agreed to.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (09:21): I move Greens amendment (1) to the Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, page 59 (after line 8), after item 81, insert:
81A After section 160
Insert:
160A Review by Productivity Commission of financial assistance for coal-fired electricity generation
(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, the Productivity Minister must, under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, refer the following matters to the Productivity Commission for inquiry:
(a) the matter of the reasons for, and need for, financial assistance for coal fired electricity generation;
(b) the matter of the following impacts of the existing arrangements for financial assistance for coal-fired electricity generation:
(i) impacts on Australia’s electricity generation mix and timeframes for retirement of existing electricity generation plants and investment in new generation plants;
(ii) financial impacts for coal-fired generators in receipt of compensation and for other generators across the industry;
(iii) impact on Commonwealth finances;
(iv) impacts on the competitiveness of the Australian electricity market.
(2) In referring the matters to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Productivity Minister must, under paragraph 11(1)(b) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, specify the period ending on 31 December 2012 as the period within which the Productivity Commission must submit its report on the inquiry to the Productivity Minister.
Note: Under section 12 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, the Productivity Minister must cause a copy of the Productivity Commission’s report to be tabled in each House of Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, each matter mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is taken to be a matter relating to industry, industry development and productivity.
160B Commonwealth Government response
(1) If the report on an inquiry referred to in section 160A sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government:
(a) as soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Productivity Minister must cause to be prepared a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government’s response to each of the recommendations; and
(b) the Productivity Minister must cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament before the end of the period of 7 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Productivity Minister receives the report.
(2) As soon as practicable after the Productivity Minister tables the report in each House of the Parliament, the Productivity Commission must publish the report on the Productivity Commission’s website.
Note: The Productivity Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament—see section 12 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998.
160C No limit on Productivity Minister’s powers
This Division does not limit the Productivity Minister’s powers under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998.
When the price on the pollution package was agreed to, it was agreed to as a package. A number of people were coming from a number of different positions, all coming with goodwill, all wanting to see Australia take its first steps towards a clean energy future. As a result, there was a significant amount of negotiation, which is not surprising when you consider the disparate interests that were involved: Labor, the Greens and the rural Independents.
Ultimately there was agreement on the price to be put on pollution, even though people might have started from different positions and preferred a different outcome. There was agreement on the architecture, even though some people might have preferred that things had been a different way. There was agreement on the scope of what would be in and what would be out of this package of legislation, even though some people would have preferred the inclusion of certain kinds of transport, which were ultimately excluded because that was necessary in order to reach an accommodation. Agreement was also reached on compensation, not just to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries but also to coal fired power stations, even though it was also a contentious subject.
I think that everyone involved in the discussions was and remains agreed on the principle of energy security—that is, it is important that the transition to a clean energy economy be made in a way that does not compromise the energy security of this country. There was debate, however, about the best and most efficient way of making the transition. We as the Greens, along with Professor Garnaut, said publicly that one of the best ways to ensure that the transition, as it affected coal fired power stations, did not disrupt energy security would have been to offer loan guarantees to coal fired power stations, which would have meant that the Commonwealth did not have to expend any money, that security would have been guaranteed and that the stations could have had an orderly transition out of operation as had been intended. But that was not the government's position, and ultimately the package gave what we consider to be quite generous compensation, over and above what we argued was necessary, to coal fired power stations. But we as the Greens agreed to the compensation because, under the energy security heading, was a very important part of the package: the agreement to pay for the closure of around 2,000 megawatts of the dirtiest coal fired power stations in this country.
I read from the clean energy documents, where it is stated under the heading 'Energy security fund':
First, there will be scope for payments for the closure of around 2000 megawatts (MW) of very highly emissions-intensive coal-fired generation capacity by 2020. This will start the process of replacing existing, highly polluting electricity assets with cleaner generation.
They go on to say:
Closing some of our highest-polluting coal-fired generation capacity will make room for investment in lower-pollution plant.
That is right, and it was a key plank of the package which was negotiated. The fact that this plank was included in the package allowed us to sign off on what we felt was overgenerous compensation to coal fired power stations. We did so because, on the one hand, they would be getting the money, but, on the other hand, around 2,000 megawatts of their generating capacity would be closed.
The government has since decided not to proceed with the closure of 2,000 megawatts of the dirtiest power production in this country. Either the government did not proceed because the minister who was responsible, but who is not the minister sitting at the table now, did not have his heart in it, or they did not proceed because—and this is the public justification that is given—to do so would not have represented good value for money. (Extension of time granted)One of the only reasons that the companies which own the coal fired power stations could say there was no economic incentive for them to close the stations is that they are being so generously compensated. A $5.5 billion compensation package is going to these companies—$1 billion in cash and $4½ billion in free permits to come—and that influenced the companies in their discussions with the government on the package. If we accept that the discussions took place in good faith, then the companies went armed with the knowledge of changed international circumstances, a big stack of cash in the pockets and the promise of free permits to come and, as a result, the companies are not now closing the coal fired power stations as envisaged in the promise that the government made to the Australian people in the clean energy package. Even worse, there is the prospect that some of the dirty coal fired power stations, which were meant to transition out of operation as part of the package, will receive windfall profits. In other words, if the package is passed, the cash that they have already received plus the compensation in the form of free permits that they are about to receive might make them financially better off than if the package had not been passed.
Because the government changed the goalposts by taking out one key element of the package, it is important to adjust it, because the package was agreed on through compromise by all sides, and, if one part of it is taken out, we should recalibrate it. One of the best ways of doing so would be by taking this opportunity to say: 'Over the coming years, if these coal fired power stations aren't doing as poorly as might have been thought and if in fact they stand potentially to make a windfall profit, then they have potentially been overcompensated. Let's get the Productivity Commission in to give a genuine review of the adequacy of their compensation.' We accept that the payments in cash have been made—that is done and dusted—but there is no reason that the future $4.5 billion worth of compensation, in the absence of evidence that is absolutely necessary for energy security, needs to go to the companies. In fact, there is now a very strong case that the overcompensation of the companies which own the dirty coal fired power stations is distorting the intention of the legislative package and getting in the way of replacing dirty coal fired power with clean and renewable energy. In the context where the goalposts have been changed, in the context where they might be getting windfall profits that will keep them in business longer than they otherwise would be, in the context where we are not closing 2,000 megawatts of the dirtiest coal fired power, it makes absolute sense to preserve the integrity of the original agreement by having the Productivity Commission review whether or not this compensation is too generous. When one takes the compensation package as a whole, that is $275 per woman, man and child in Australia that is going into the pockets of these dirty coal fired power stations and that could be going to clean and renewable energy.
I commend this amendment to the House. It is a sensible amendment. One should have no concerns about the Productivity Commission looking at the adequacy of this compensation in the light of changed circumstances.
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:30): The government opposes the amendment put forward by the member for Melbourne because it is economically irresponsible and indeed breaches the agreement that the government entered into with the members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, and also for the reason that the existing provisions of the legislation in relation to energy security are absolutely fundamental to investment confidence in the sector.
I have no disrespect whatsoever for the member for Melbourne; I understand his motivations for moving this amendment. But the fact is that, contrary to his assertion, this amendment breaches an agreement that the Greens party reached with the government in the context of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. We entered into that agreement as a package, as he indicated. There have been no changes in the goalposts whatsoever. The government has discharged its obligations under that agreement to the word, and it is unprincipled to come in here and put forward an amendment that breaches that agreement.
The assistance to the generators, the Energy Security Fund payments, was a very important part of the agreement. The government made the decision after years of analysis into how to best transition highly emissions-intensive electricity generators into a cleaner energy environment. Of course, it is a transition that will take some period of time. The current arrangements that are in place are the result of in-depth electricity sector analysis and modelling since 2007, and nothing that has happened since the MPCCC agreement was concluded changes the reality and the conclusions that were reached as a result of that detailed work.
Since 1 July when the carbon price commenced, the pass-through of carbon costs in the energy market and to household bills reflects exactly the Treasury modelling which informed the decisions on the basis of the Energy Security Fund payments. Advice was taken from key energy market institutions like the Australian Energy Market Operator, who advised that the government's measures, reflected in the MPCCC agreement, reduced the extent of generator financial distress, supported investment confidence in the sector and could be expected to improve reliability and security outcomes in the short term and reduce spot prices and expedite the transition to a lower emissions fleet over the longer term.
The Energy Security Fund was legislated with the Clean Energy Act, and all the regulators have now been awarded certificates of eligibility by the regulator for those Energy Security Fund payments. To interfere with that and to create uncertainty in relation to that would be disruptive to the investors and to the lenders that are engaged in the electricity generation sector. Changes to those legislated entitlements will directly influence investor perceptions of sovereign risk in the energy market. It would increase the risk premiums for clean energy investors. The advice of my department, consistent with the government's assessment, is as follows: proposals to review or change those legislated entitlements will directly influence investor perceptions of sovereign risk. This risk is exactly the type of risk the package was designed to minimise so that energy security is assured until sufficient alternative capacity is available in Australia's electricity markets. Increased risk in the market would also likely push up wholesale electricity prices and result in further cost pressures for electricity consumers unnecessarily. In addition, all investors in the energy market, including investors in clean energy technologies, would face higher costs for financing due to increased risk levels.
The government is not going to entertain the proposition of the Greens, whether it be by amendment or by any other form, for these reasons. It is in bad faith, in the government's judgement, that this has been put forward. It is in breach of the agreement that we reached. I want to make clear to investors in the energy industry that the entitlements that we have legislated through the Energy Security Fund will not be tampered with by the government. We will not entertain this amendment. It is economically irresponsible. We have in place a comprehensive package to secure energy security for Australian households and businesses. This was a policy initiative entirely separate to the issue of the Contract for Closure, which the government discharged. We stand by the package that was legislated and firmly oppose this amendment.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (09:35): The government created two funds. It created a $2 billion Contract for Closure fund to close brown coal power stations and it created a $5½ billion Energy Security Fund to bail out brown coal power stations. It is not surprising that the smaller fund has failed. It is not surprising that the carbon tax is in chaos. It takes a certain type of genius to create one fund to close brown coal power stations and one fund to bail them out. I would ask the question: is there any other similar example in the western world in the last 20 years of two multibillion-dollar funds designed to do precisely the opposite things? I stand to be corrected but I am not aware of any other pairing of one fund to close power stations and one fund to keep them open. It is a unique policy achievement.
The member for Casey highlighted to me that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency raised the issue of sovereign risk. The entire carbon tax and the entire mining tax are about sovereign risk. They are about changing the ground rules in a way that creates uncertainty, that creates higher costs on Australian production, because this is an electricity ta The carbon tax is an electricity tax. Its theory is to close down the power stations; its reality is that, because they are not subject to import competition, the power stations are simply passing on the power price. So mums and dads right now are paying higher power prices.
In New South Wales, 50 per cent of the electricity price rise is coming from the carbon tax. In Victoria, two-thirds of the electricity price rise is coming from the carbon tax. In Western Australia, not 70 per cent but 72 per cent of the price rises are coming from the carbon tax. In the ACT, between 75 and 80 per cent of the price rise is coming from the carbon tax. In western Sydney, 80 per cent of the price rise in electricity is coming from the carbon tax. In Queensland, where Campbell Newman has frozen the bulk of retail tariffs, between 80 and 100 per cent of electricity price rises for the coming year are as a consequence of the carbon tax. So the theory behind these two funds is based on a simple flaw: that the carbon tax would have an impact on the generators. In reality they are passing through the electricity prices, as they were always intended to do.
I just want to make one more comment. Our view is that this motion fails. I respect the views of the member for Melbourne, but this motion fails because the carbon tax, the $2 billion to close brown coal power stations and the $5½ billion to keep them open should all be ditched. Dealing with one part of the three elements of the equation is fundamentally flawed.
But what I do want to acknowledge is the amount of money being given in cash to the largest brown coal generators in Australia. Going from the government's own announcement, there has been: $14.9 million to Alcoa's Anglesea Power Station; $59 million in cash to the Augusta power stations; $8 million in cash to the Collinsville Power Station; $27 million in cash to Green Energy Bricks, which was of course before the second round of bailouts two days before the carbon tax began; $265 million to Hazelwood Power Station in cash; $240 million in cash to Loy Yang A power station; $59 million in cash to Loy Yang B power station through International Power Australia and $57 million in cash through Gippsland Power; $8 million in cash to Redbank Power Station; and $257 million in cash to Yallourn W power station.
So the biggest polluters, according to the government, are getting the biggest cash handouts in Australian history. It is no wonder the Australian people think that this carbon tax is a dud, because the biggest polluters are being given literally $5½ billion in cash and permits and the Australian people are picking up the bill in terms of higher electricity, gas and grocery costs.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (09:40): I will speak just very briefly on this. There are two issues of risk and principles. When the clean energy package was agreed to, those people who wanted to come and invest in Australia's clean energy future and begin to build the wind farms and solar plants and investigate solar thermal and geothermal took heart from the package. One of the reasons they took heart from the package was that it said around 2,000 megawatts of coal fired power, the equivalent of Hazelwood plus a bit, would be closed, making space for them in the market. Many of them began to see a future in Australia and, in particular, in Victoria for clean and renewable energy.
Not only that but many people in the Latrobe Valley who I have spoken to have said: 'Now we understand where we're going. There is a prospect that some of these stations will be closed and we can begin now to transition out.' The only uncertainty and risk that has been brought in has been of Labor's own making, because it was Labor who decided not to proceed with something it said it was going to do, which is close these coal fired power stations.
On the question of principle, we would not be here making this amendment if Labor had stuck to the agreement and we had seen power stations like Hazelwood close. We would quite happily have said, 'We do not agree with all the other aspects of it, and perhaps there is some overgenerous compensation, but that is the price we pay because there are some things in it that are good for clean and renewable energy.' We wanted to be in a position where there was an orderly replacement of some of the dirtiest coal fired power stations with clean renewable energy. Labor made the first move and pulled out a key plank of the package, and we are responding in what we think is a very reasonable and measured way to restore the integrity of the package.
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:42): Without wishing to prolong the situation, I really do need to place on the record that the government has discharged its obligations that it entered into under the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee agreement. That agreement never guaranteed the closure of 2,000 megawatts of high-emission coal fired electricity generated capacity. It never guaranteed that. The commitment was that there would be a process entered into allowing those generators to tender and enter into a negotiation with the government in an appropriate way for the potential closure of up to 2,000 megawatts of high-emission electricity generating capacity, providing it provided value for taxpayers' money.
The suggestion by the member for Melbourne that the government have not met their commitments is completely wrong and false. We have met the commitments that we entered into. If the Greens did not understand what they were entering into then that is most unfortunate. But, nonetheless, at the end of the process for the discussion and negotiation with the owners of the high-emission electricity generation capacity that had voluntarily come forward and participated in the contract for closure negotiations, the government could not agree with those entities that the values that were being discussed for those assets represented value for taxpayers' money. Indeed, on our calculation the cost of emissions reductions to be achieved, should the government have accepted the valuations of those assets that those companies believed were appropriate, would have vastly exceeded the $23 per tonne carbon price. This is not the sole criterion, but of course it was a consideration in the government's thinking. The fact is that the market will now decide the life of those electricity generators. That was always the position that obtained under the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee agreement and it is the position that the government discharged.
Having said that, it is important also to note that the market has already led to the mothballing, closure or curtailment of hundreds of megawatts of high-emissions electricity generation capacity, such as the Playford B and Northern power stations in South Australia, and the curtailment of significant electricity generation capacity at Energy Brix in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. I think it is in order of 800 or 900 megawatts of brown coal high-emissions electricity generating capacity that has in fact been curtailed, without the necessity for the government to enter into contract for closure agreements with those particular operators. The market will attend to that issue under a carbon pricing arrangement. The government has met its obligations under the agreement. We therefore reiterate that we oppose the amendment.
Generally, in relation to the issues raised by the shadow minister, the package overall has been very carefully calibrated. There has been years of extensive engagement with stakeholders in every conceivable sector of the economy. It is not at all an issue of sovereign risk. Packages have been carefully designed and modelled in some of the most extensive modelling work ever undertaken by the Commonwealth Treasury and other organisations to ensure that this package will work, that it will lead to a reduction in emissions in our economy over time. We have attended to all of the issues that we believe are appropriate, particularly in the electricity generation sector and particularly in businesses that are in the trade-exposed and emissions-intensive part of the economy.
Furthermore, in relation to the pass-through of carbon pricing into electricity prices, it is of course the case that the majority of the carbon price revenue is being used to implement tax cuts, a tripling of the tax-free threshold, increases in family tax benefits and increases in the pension and other social security payments. Millions of people will be better off as a consequence of this important reform and Australia will play its fair share in global greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (09:47): The Greens and the ALP are squabbling over the deckchairs on the Titanic of electricity prices.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The question is that the amendment as moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting aye.
Third Reading
The SPEAKER (09:58): The question is that these bills be read a third time.
Bills read a third time.
The House divided. [09:58]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Fair Entitlements Guarantee Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (10:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In 2010 the Gillard Labor government made an election commitment to better protect the entitlements of Australian employees impacted by the insolvency or bankruptcy of their employer.
This commitment, entitled the Protecting Workers’ Entitlements Package, provides the strongest protection of employee entitlements working Australians have ever seen.
We made this commitment because Labor is the party of work and what work provides for us, financially but also for our families and sense of well being in society.
Today, I introduce a bill which embeds our commitment to this package as it relates to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.
In doing so the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Bill 2012 will replace the existing General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS) and enshrine the Fair Entitlements Guarantee in legislation.
The bill will provide certainty for Australian employees who find themselves without a job and left out of pocket when their employer becomes insolvent or bankrupt and cannot pay them the employment entitlements they are owed.
On this side of the House we know that employees who lose their job through insolvency or bankruptcy of their employer have enough to worry about. They have to worry about where their next mortgage repayment will come from. They have to worry about how to buy the children new clothes or pay school fees. They have to worry about what money will cover unexpected bills or an unexpected emergency. Those of us on this side of the House believe that these individuals should not have to worry about being paid what they have already earned.
It will be a good day for working Australians when this bill passes and they have certainty that their entitlements are protected even if the company they work for enters liquidation and cannot pay them what they are owed.
This bill will protect Australian employees under circumstances which are brought about through no fault or choice of their own.
This bill will ensure that Australian employees who are victims of employer insolvency or bankruptcy, where employment entitlements are owed, are supported by a government that supports Australian workers.
In doing so, this bill also enshrines Labor’s commitment to the Australian sense of a fair go by providing a legislative framework employees can rely on and an entitlement which, unlike the employment entitlements those opposite advocate for, cannot be scrapped with the flick of a pen.
Eligible entitlements
Under this bill, eligible employees will be covered for unpaid entitlements including:
Redundancy;
Annual leave;
Long service leave;
Wages; and
Payment in lieu of notice.
In the majority of cases, employees will be entitled to an advance for unpaid entitlements as provided for in the relevant industrial instrument under which they are employed.
The bill will protect redundancy pay, up to a maximum of four weeks per year of service. This will mean that most employees will receive all of the redundancy entitlements they are owed.
The bill will only enable payment of unpaid wages for up to 13 weeks and will provide payment in lieu of notice at five weeks. The bill also strengthens the recognition of eligible entitlements for employees who continue to be employed following the appointment of an insolvency practitioner. Under current arrangements, some employees lose out if they continue working through the administration of the company and neither the administrator nor GEERS covers their unpaid entitlement.
From now on, once this bill is passed, if you are an employee in this situation you will be entitled to receive unpaid entitlements accruing right up to your last day of working. No longer will there be a gap in entitlements paid.
Where an advance for entitlements is made, the Commonwealth is empowered to recover advances from the dividends payable once companies are wound up. In doing so, this bill proposes that the Commonwealth have the same rights as creditors in the winding up or bankruptcy of the business that the employee would have otherwise had. This measure strengthens the government’s commitment to working Australians and the taxpayer. It also makes clear that those companies who enter insolvency or bankruptcy due to irregular business practices can no longer avoid paying the entitlements of hardworking employees.
Eligible employees
I wish to make it clear that this bill establishes an important legislative safety net for genuine employee redundancy. It is not a scheme which can be used recklessly by employers seeking to purposely renege on their employer obligations. Under the bill, employees will only be eligible for an advance in genuine cases where they have lost their job as a result of the insolvency or bankruptcy of their employer.
Some people will not be eligible for advances under the proposed legislation. The bill maintains existing arrangements under GEERS that advances will not be payable to people that are excluded under the Corporations Act—contractors, directors and family members of a director.
This bill mirrors existing GEERS arrangements that assistance will not be available to support business restructures or where insolvent entities are able to pay employee entitlements within a reasonable period.
The government has also taken the opportunity to simplify the assessment of transfer-of-business arrangements. To this end, from 1 July 2014, only where a claimant’s entitlements and service are recognised by the new employer will they be ineligible for financial assistance under the bill.
This measure will overcome operational barriers in assessing claims and reduce unnecessary delays in employees receiving their entitlements.
To further reduce complexity, this bill will also remove the existing eligibility arrangements for employees affected by a deed of company arrangements (DOCA) or equivalent bankruptcy proceedings. Employees often get very little say in how a DOCA is structured and it simply is not fair that they be disadvantaged when they do not work well enough to save their job.
The bill maintains existing arrangements under GEERS that a claim for assistance will need to be made within 12 months.
The bill also clarifies that, to be eligible for assistance under the bill, a claimant must have met the residency requirements as at the date of termination, as this is the most relevant date to assess what level of assistance an employee is entitled to receive.
The bill also includes three important areas where capacity for flexibility is needed. By outlining the circumstances and conditions that must exist before flexibility can be used, the bill contains the following key areas:
ability to make payments in administration prior to liquidation;
early advance of a payment; and
a regulation-making power to enable regulations to be made to facilitate payments to people who are not employees.
Reviews and appeals
Ensuring a fair and transparent decision-making process is a key part of this bill. A person that makes a claim for an advance can be confident that their claim will be assessed in a just and transparent way.
Where a person does not agree with a decision in relation to their eligibility for an advance or the amount of an advance they are eligible for, they will have the right to apply for a review of the decision. As is currently the practice under GEERS, where a decision is able to be reviewed, the department will review the initial decision and advise the applicant of the review decision and the reasons for the decision.
Importantly, under this bill where a person does not agree with a review decision they may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for an external review. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal will conduct an impartial and timely review. This change to the review process will improve transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
I am proud that we are meeting the election commitment to better protect the entitlements of Australian employees impacted by the insolvency or bankruptcy of their employer. The Protecting Workers’ Entitlements Package provides the strongest protection of employee entitlements working Australians have ever seen.
Today, Labor delivers on that commitment and with the passing of this bill the government will deliver on its pledge to Australian employees by providing a clear, fair and robust framework to protect the entitlements Australians work so hard for every day.
The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Bill I am introducing today is supported by the Labor government and a range of stakeholders. We hope those opposite will also support this bill so as to ensure even stronger protections for working Australians across our nation.
Debate adjourned.
Fair Work Amendment (Transfer of Business) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (10:12): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to deliver on the government’s commitment to introduce legislation extending the existing transfer-of-business protections in the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Fair Work Amendment (Transfer of Business) Bill 2012 extends the existing transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act to certain former state public sector employees that transition into the national system as a result of a sale of assets or outsourcing of work to a national system employer.
The government does not accept that these employees should be worse off, or that they should have their entitlements put at risk, simply because their jobs are outsourced.
The bill is a necessary response to this challenge—to ensure that these employees generally retain the benefit of their existing terms and conditions of employment, which have been negotiated by them in good faith with their employer, by protecting them where a transfer of business occurs between their former state employer and an employer covered by the national workplace relations system.
These reforms mean that the Commonwealth will establish, for the first time, a nationally consistent set of transfer-of-business rules for public sector employees that will protect their entitlements when they transfer to a national system employer. Employees in the public sectors of the Commonwealth, Victoria and territories are already covered by the Fair Work Act and already have the benefit of these transfer-of-business protections. However, those protections do not currently extend to public sector employees in the remaining jurisdictions which leaves them as second-class citizens and at risk when decisions like outsourcing and asset sales occur. That is why this bill is necessary and a priority for our government.
The transfer-of- business rules under the FW Act
The bill will, as far as possible, reflect the transfer-of-business provisions in part 2-8 of the Fair Work Act.
The transfer-of-business rules in the Fair Work Act reflect the government's clear policy intention to protect employees' existing terms and conditions of employment where their employer changed but their work stayed the same.
These protections apply where the two employers enter into certain transactions such as an asset sale or an outsourcing arrangement.
These rules are designed to balance the protection of employee terms and conditions of employment with the interests of employers in structuring their assets and operations efficiently.
These rules also provide certainty for all parties. The arrangements they replaced were overly complex, often difficult to apply, legalistic and sometimes resulted in employees losing the benefit of their industrial instruments even though they were performing exactly the same work for the new employer. Those pre-existing rules also applied to a narrow set of business transactions—for example, they rarely covered the outsourcing of work.
The industrial terms and conditions negotiated by state public sector employees—for instance, in Queensland and New South Wales—have been entered into in good faith, and it is the case that frequently the wage outcomes accepted by employees have been discounted because of the promise of job security, and where the promise of job security is unilaterally changed by state governments then a problem arises.
The findings of the Fair Work Review
The recent post-implementation review into the operation of the Fair Work Act, which the government publicly released on 2 August 2012, had the following to say about the existing transfer-of-business rules:
'The [Fair Work Review] Panel considers there is a clear need to protect employees in transfer of business situations. The alternative is to allow employees to be exploited by the structuring of businesses and contracting arrangements.'
'On the basis of stakeholder submissions, academic advice … analysis of cases under the provisions and an examination of the provisions themselves, the broader legislative definition succeeds in providing better protections for employees than the previous arrangements did.'
'… The scope [within the transfer of business framework] for employers to determine the appropriate outcome for their business on application to FWA provides significant flexibility.'
So the overwhelming evidence suggests that the transfer-of-business provisions, which this government put in place in our Fair Work Act 2009, deliver a balanced framework that provides both fairness and flexibility to both employees and employers.
The panel made one recommendation in relation to a particular aspect of the transfer-of-business provisions and the government is considering that recommendation in the context of its response to the review.
What is a transfer of business ?
In broad terms, the transfer-of-business rules apply where:
an employee transfers to a new employer within three months of their employment terminating with their old employer; and
the employee performs the same or similar work for the new employer as they did with their old employer; and
the old employer transfers assets or outsources work to the new employer, or undertakes certain corporate restructuring activities, such as movements to associated entities.
Where these conditions exist, the default rule is that the transferring employees' existing workplace instrument transfers with them to their new employer. Fair Work Australia has broad powers to ensure that these rules operate fairly to both the transferring employees and the new employer.
The bill
However, the current rules, which I just described and which were positively endorsed by the review into the new act, only apply where both the old and new employers are covered by the national workplace relations system. In other words, they must both be covered by the Fair Work Act.
Employees in the Commonwealth, Victorian, ACT and Northern Territory public sectors are already covered by the Fair Work Act and already have the benefit of the transfer-of-business protections. However, public sector employees in the remaining jurisdictions, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, do not.
That is why the bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable certain employees in these jurisdictions to retain their existing terms and conditions of employment—which they have negotiated in good faith—where they transfer from a public sector employer to the national workplace relations system as a result of a transfer of business.
The bill will do this by:
providing for the transfer of employees' terms and conditions of employment from an old public sector employer to a national system employer where there is a connection between the two employers;
preserving the transferring employees' existing terms and conditions of employment, whether those terms are reflected in a relevant state award or agreement, by the creation of a federal instrument containing those terms and conditions and recognising service and certain accrued entitlements such as annual leave;
enabling Fair Work Australia to make orders that modify the general effect of the transfer-of-business rules, where appropriate;
providing for the interaction between the transferring terms and conditions of employment and the Fair Work Act, including the National Employment Standards, and other necessary transitional and technical provisions.
Preserving entitlements for certain transferring employees
Transferring employees' terms and conditions of employment from the old employer to a national system employer will be protected under the bill through the creation of a new federal instrument—a 'copied state instrument'.
The instrument will copy the existing terms and conditions of employment for a transferring employee where those terms are derived from a state award or agreement. This will enable those terms and conditions to transfer across to the national system with the employee where there has been a decision to sell assets or outsource work so that the employee will continue to benefit from the conditions in their existing industrial instruments which they had previously negotiated in good faith with their employer.
To put it plainly, transferring employees' existing terms and conditions of employment as set out in their industrial instrument will be protected.
The bill also ensures that a term of a copied state instrument has no effect to the extent that it is detrimental to an employee, in any respect, when compared to an entitlement of the employee under the National Employment Standards. The bill will also generally ensure that an employee’s service with the old employer counts as service with the new employer for the purpose of determining the employee’s entitlements under the copied state instrument.
This means, for example, that an employee’s accrued annual leave entitlement is preserved when they transfer to the new employer and their entitlement has not already been paid out by the old employer. A laundry worker working at the Townsville Hospital who gets transferred to a new national employer by Queensland Health cannot arbitrarily have their accrued service written off and the clock start running again on their new service.
Orders to modify the effect of a transferred instrument
Similar to the position under the existing Part 2-8 of the Fair Work Act, the bill confers power on Fair Work Australia to make orders that modify the general effect of the transfer of business rules in certain circumstances.
In particular, Fair Work Australia will be able to make orders regarding the coverage of certain instruments, including enabling transferring workplace instruments to better align with the new employer’s business operations.
In some circumstances it may also be in the interests of the transferring employees and of a new employer to consolidate terms and conditions of employment in a copied state instrument, so that they can apply to more than one employee. This may be the case, for example, when differing instruments set out similar terms and conditions for transferring employees.
To this end, Fair Work Australia will also have the power to make orders that ‘consolidate’ various workplace instruments applying at a workplace. For example, Fair Work Australia may order that a copied state instrument for a particular transferring employee is also a copied state instrument for both transferring and non-transferring employees, having regard to the views of the relevant employees and of the new employer.
Conclusion
So, in conclusion, this government takes very seriously moves by any employer to attempt to restructure their business operations that would have the effect of undermining employee entitlements. This government will not countenance employees incurring real cuts to their pay and conditions because of decisions by their employer to sell assets or outsource work.
Employees should be able to retain the benefit of their existing terms and conditions of employment in circumstances where there is a transfer of business—that is, where their employer changes but the work stays the same.
There are some who might say that this bill is unnecessary, because employers can already agree in the course of contractual negotiations for any transferring employees to maintain their existing terms and conditions of employment with the new employer.
However, this approach, of saying, 'It'll be all okay and we don't have to worry about protecting people,' does not provide certainty for employees and it does not provide guaranteed protection for their hard earned and negotiated entitlements. This bill allows employers to restructure their businesses. However, we will not stand by and see no ongoing protection for employees’ terms and conditions.
Indeed, further, the approach which says that this bill is unnecessary fails to reflect the policy intent underlying the Fair Work transfer of business rules. The idea that you can simply transfer people's jobs and cut their pay and conditions is not grounded in fairness, nor does it provide the nationally consistent and transparent set of rules which this bill provides.
Our bill will protect all state public sector employees who are moving from the state public sector to the national workplace relations system. It does so by putting in place, as far as possible, a nationally consistent set of rules which will protect public sector employees’ existing terms and conditions as set out in their industrial instrument where a transfer of business occurs between a former state employer and an employer covered by the national system.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Arrangement) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (10:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation and superannuation laws to introduce a voluntary scheme for Australians and New Zealanders to permit them to transfer their superannuation savings between Australia and New Zealand.
This new scheme will permit Australians and New Zealanders who have lived and worked in both countries to make the most of their retirement savings.
The Australian government is committed to the closest possible relations with New Zealand. In 2009 the Australian government and the New Zealand government signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a trans-Tasman retirement savings portability scheme. The scheme is scheduled to commence on 1 July 2013 and is expected to assist the thousands of Australians and New Zealanders who move across the Tasman each year. The New Zealand Parliament passed the legislation necessary for the new scheme in 2010.
Currently, New Zealanders working in Australia must leave their superannuation behind when they permanently leave Australia.
More than 50,000 New Zealanders moved to Australia last year, whilst 14,000 people left Australia permanently for New Zealand.
In 2007, a working group of Australian and New Zealand officials was established to investigate options for the portability of retirement savings between Australia and New Zealand.
On 16 July 2009, the Australian and New Zealand governments jointly announced the scheme and signed a memorandum of understanding establishing the scheme and outlining its working arrangements.
Consistent with the memorandum of understanding, this bill will permit the transfer of retirement savings between APRA regulated Australian superannuation funds and New Zealand KiwiSaver schemes.
New Zealanders who move to Australia will be able to transfer their New Zealand retirement savings to Australia and add them to their Australian superannuation benefits.
Similarly, Australians moving to New Zealand, and New Zealanders returning to New Zealand, will be able to take their Australian benefits with them, to consolidate with their New Zealand retirement savings.
As the scheme is voluntary, Australians and New Zealanders can leave their superannuation behind, if they wish.
Superannuation is to be transferred tax free between Australia and New Zealand, although New Zealand transfers into the Australian superannuation system are subject to the contribution cap arrangements, consistent with the terms of the memorandum of understanding.
In general, the tax and superannuation laws of the host country will be applied to the transferred savings, with a couple of exceptions where source country rules will apply. These exceptions are designed to preserve unique features of each country’s retirement savings scheme.
The portability scheme enhances the development of a seamless trans-Tasman labour market, by removing an impediment to labour mobility between these two nations.
The introduction of the scheme is an important step in our closer economic relations with New Zealand, and it supports ongoing progress toward a single economic market. Both governments are committed to this goal through the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. At a personal level, the scheme will enable Australians and New Zealanders to streamline their financial affairs when they move across the Tasman. Individuals will be able to consolidate their superannuation in their country of residence, and avoid paying unnecessary fees and charges on multiple accounts held in the two countries.
This is the first time an international superannuation portability scheme has been implemented in Australia and is another Gillard government measure to improve the efficiency of Australia’s world-leading superannuation system.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Malaysia and Sri Lanka
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:30): I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Malaysia and Sri Lanka from 5 to 14 December 2011, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Ms VAMVAKINOU: I would like to make some brief comments in relation to the parliamentary delegation's visit to Malaysia and Sri Lanka between 5 and 14 December 2011. Our visit reaffirmed already strong ties with both countries. We share with Malaysia and Sri Lanka membership of the Commonwealth, and we have similar parliamentary systems. We also have frank and constructive dialogues, through parliamentary exchanges and visits such as the one that was undertaken by this parliamentary delegation. We were warmly received in each country and had significant access to senior decision makers, local officials and community representatives. The parliaments of both nations were generous with their time and hospitality.
Visits to Malaysia are frequent, as a consequence of the ASEAN bilateral delegation program. Our visit had the following objectives: to renew contacts with Malaysia's parliament and explore further avenues for dialogue and cooperation; to gain an enhanced understanding of multilevel governance and discuss recent political developments; to review the progress of Australia-Malaysia educational cooperation; to consider national and regional efforts to deal with transnational issues, including defence and security, and refugees and asylum seekers; and to explore topical issues concerning trade and investment between Australia and Malaysia. Our visit underlined the multidimensional nature of Malaysia-Australia relations. It also strengthened institutional ties between our two parliaments. In our report, we note our support for freedom of expression in Malaysia's ethnically and religiously diverse society.
Our visit to Sri Lanka was the first official visit by an Australian parliamentary delegation since the military victory by the Sri Lanka Army over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in May 2009. Our visit had the following objectives: to renew links with the parliament and assess progress towards establishing a Parliamentary Select Committee on Devolution; to gain an enhanced understanding of political, economic and social factors associated with reconciliation following the civil conflict; to consider the humanitarian, infrastructure and security aspects of the rehabilitation, resettlement and reconstruction efforts, particularly in relation to persons displaced by the conflict; to visit Australian funded aid projects in the north of the country; and to explore the potential for enhanced trade and investment, including higher education, between Australia and Sri Lanka. Our program included visits to several projects funded by AusAID and other international donors in the northern provinces of Jaffna and Kilinochchi—two provinces particularly affected by the civil war. In our report, we commend these international development projects and support continued development assistance to Sri Lanka.
We appreciated the frank nature of discussions held with ministers, members of parliament and representatives of political parties. The visit gave us a firsthand insight into the current political, economic and social situation in Sri Lanka. It also served to strengthen institutional ties between our parliaments. We concluded that reconciliation is the basis for a durable and sustainable peace, and we support ongoing engagement between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil diaspora here in Australia. We also stress the need to address alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights by all parties to the conflict. This is particularly important to me and other members of the delegation who have large Sri Lankan communities in our electorates. We are fully aware of the concern that our communities have in relation to outstanding issues in Sri Lanka at the moment.
Finally, on behalf of the delegation I would like to thank the member for Grey, in particular, who so ably served as the deputy chair of this delegation. I would like to thank the Malaysian and Sri Lankan parliaments for hosting our visits. I also sincerely thank all those who took time to meet with us. I also recognise, on behalf of the delegation, the support of the Australian missions in Kuala Lumpur and Colombo and all agencies involved in arranging our visit to northern Sri Lanka. Finally, I thank DFAT and AusAID officers here in Canberra for their tremendous support.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (10:36): I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies have been placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Mr HAYES: by leave—The Publications Committee sits on each occasion that the parliament sits, to authorise publication of papers which are not specifically authorised for publication by the House or the Senate. The committee has been working very diligently to ensure the efficient publication of papers. We are encouraging the Presiding Officers to give greater consideration to expanding the electronic papers series, where papers will be presented other than to the House and to the other chamber, in electronic form, for distribution. This will result in not only less duplication but certainly greater efficiencies, both in cost and in time. This is something to be encouraged. It is something that the committee has been working on diligently for some time. We have now written to the Presiding Officers, and we seek to expand the electronic paper series come the opening session of the 2013 parliament. On that, I conclude my remarks. I will keep the House informed about the developments of the committee.
BILLS
Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (10:39): 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 (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (10:39): I move:
That Federation Chamber orders of the day, private Members' business, as listed on the document circulated to Honourable Members in the Chamber, be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (10:40): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following items of private Members’ business being called on and considered immediately in the following order:
Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011—Order of the day No. 12;
Payment of GST revenues to local government—Notice No. 17;
Royal Australian Navy in the Middle East—Order of the day;
Domestic violence and the workplace—Order of the day;
Peter Norman—Order of the day;
Military superannuation—Order of the day;
Australia-Serbia relations—Order of the day;
Victorian education system cuts—Order of the day;
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative—Order of the day;
Pension assistance—Order of the day No. 14;
Carbon price—Order of the day No. 18;
Flooding of communities in the Torres Strait—Order of the day;
Australian Greens’ policy costings—Order of the day No. 23;
National Landcare Week—Order of the day;
Meniere’s disease—Order of the day; and
Mitochondrial disease—Order of the day No. 26.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The SPEAKER (10:46): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [10:46]
The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Goods and Services Tax
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:53): I move:
That this House request the Prime Minister and Treasurer to:
(1) direct the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate an annual fixed percentage of Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue directly to the 654 local councils throughout Australia;
(2) include this annual allocation as part of the GST Review currently underway and for implementation through any required legislative or executive government processes; and
(3) consider constitutional recognition of local government only in the event of any successful legal challenge to the direct annual allocation of GST revenue to local councils within Australia.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Katter: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I put this motion because local government in Australia is resource deprived, the local road network in Australia is failing—peak engineers groups throughout the country have identified that fact—and the revenue structure to support local government is a problem which needs to be fixed. This motion is just one suggestion to try to start the policy debate. It does not look like the vote is going to go well today, but I hope that we can pretty quickly do something to establish a better revenue flow to local government in Australia, particularly considering the significant failure of the local road network throughout the country.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:54): State governments have taken on responsibility after responsibility. Every time there is an article in the newspaper, they race off and legislate to create greater responsibilities for themselves. But they do not shoulder the responsibilities themselves; they put the responsibilities upon the local authorities. The policing of the pollution act in Queensland is very costly indeed. All of the policing is of the building laws, which the state government has implemented but for which the local authorities have to pick up the bill.
Both the member for Lyne and I have a number of key bridges in our electorates which are falling to pieces, almost to the point where they are becoming dangerous. There is simply no money in north Queensland, where we have very, very limited access to the high-elevation rainforest. One of the Survivor episodes was shot at the Kirrama Range Road to Blencoe Falls because the scenery there is very spectacular, and at the top of the Kirrama Range Road there is a stand of the magnificent Eucalyptus grandis, the biggest tree in Australia. But there is no money to improve access to the Eucalyptus grandisand theBlencoe Falls, two magnificent tourist attractions which are of world standard. The road has fallen to pieces, and it would be very difficult for the local government by itself to restore it. The member for New England often refers to the 'decaying' state governments. I think that that is probably a true characterisation of them, and I most wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by the member for Lyne.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): The question is that the member for Lyne's motion be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Royal Australian Navy in the Middle East
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the excellent work undertaken by Australian naval forces in the Middle East Gulf Region, in particular the important tasks of:
(a) opposition to the smuggling of arms, drugs and other contraband;
(b) counter piracy operations; and
(c) maritime protection; and
(2) applauds the contribution made by the Royal Australian Navy as part of the international coalition in the Middle East.
Question agreed to.
Domestic Violence and the Workplace
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that two thirds of Australian women who have experienced domestic violence with their current partner are in paid employment;
(2) recognises the:
(a) significant impact that domestic violence can have on the employment of women who are subjected to it, including:
(i) lost productivity as a result of anxiety and distraction in the workplace;
(ii) absenteeism due to sustaining physical and psychological injuries;
(iii) disrupted work histories as victims often frequently change jobs;
(iv) lower personal incomes and reduced hours of work; and
(v) risks to personal safety in the workplace as well as to co-workers; and
(b) positive impact of the inclusion of domestic violence clauses in contracts of employment to ensure protections for victims, including:
(i) additional paid leave to enable employees subjected to domestic violence to, for example, attend court hearings and medical appointments without exhausting other forms of personal leave;
(ii) access to flexible working arrangements where possible; and
(iii) assurance that employee details will be treated confidentially and disclosure will not lead to discriminatory treatment;
(3) acknowledges the introduction of domestic violence clauses for public sector employees in both Queensland and NSW, and congratulates organisations in the private sector that have also moved to incorporate these clauses in contracts of employment; and
(4) urges all private companies and public sectors to include domestic violence clauses in their enterprise agreements to provide victims with important protections such as access to leave in addition to existing entitlements.
Question agreed to.
Norman, Mr Peter
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises the extraordinary athletic achievements of the late Peter Norman, who won the silver medal in the 200 metres sprint running event at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, in a time of 20.06 seconds, which still stands as the Australian record;
(2) acknowledges the bravery of Peter Norman in donning an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge on the podium, in solidarity with African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who gave the ‘black power’ salute;
(3) apologises to Peter Norman for the wrong done by Australia in failing to send him to the 1972 Munich Olympics, despite repeatedly qualifying; and
(4) belatedly recognises the powerful role that Peter Norman played in furthering racial equality.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:02): by leave—I move:
Omit paragraph (3), substitute:
(3) apologises to Peter Norman for the treatment he received upon his return to Australia, and the failure to fully recognise his inspirational role before his untimely death in 2006; and,
The apology to Peter Norman recognises a great Australian who stood with the black power protestors at the 1968 Mexico Olympics. This amendment simply broadens that apology in that it apologises to Peter Norman for the treatment that he received upon his return to Australia and for the failure to fully recognise his inspirational role before his untimely death in 2006.
I would like to thank members on both sides of the House who spoke in this debate. Thelma Norman, Peter's mum, was here in the gallery when we debated the motion and it meant a great deal to her. I have been in contact with Peter's sister, Elaine, and she has told me about the outpouring of public support that was received. A local school in Queensland got each of their students to go back and research the Peter Norman story to find out what it meant to them and to think about how each of them could be a Peter Norman in their own lives, how they could take a stand against racism and intolerance and make those snap decisions that come along with so little warning but that mark the character of an individual, as they marked Peter Norman's character.
I am grateful to those in this House and in the broader community for their support for this motion and I trust that the amendment to the motion, which provides a broad, community-wide apology to Peter Norman for his treatment upon his return from Mexico, will be accepted unanimously by this House as an apology posthumously to Peter Norman. It is something that I know will mean a great deal to Peter's family, friends and the huge family of supporters across Australia.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:05): I have followed this debate closely and I wanted to congratulate the member for bringing on this motion. It is a good example of private members' business having the ability to progress its way through the parliament. Through this debate, I had the honour, as did many others, of meeting many members of the Norman family and the extended network of people who either knew Peter Norman or know the story of Peter Norman. It has been an eye-opener as to what he did and the contribution to Australia that Peter Norman's story is. I hope through this that more people know the story and are proud of what he did at the Mexico Olympics and that they challenge themselves in the same way on that question of what you would do in that same situation.
I hope this is not the end of work we do for the Norman family. In correspondence that has followed, there have been conversations around some sort of tribute on a greater scale to Peter Norman in Australia. One option, just as an example, is a similar type statue to the one that is in San Jose State University in the United States, where you have the opportunity to stand where Peter Norman stood alongside the two American athletes. That would be a fitting tribute somewhere in Australia, but some other idea may come forward, and I think that would round out the work that has been done by the member and through this debate very well. Congratulations.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Military Superannuation
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises the:
(a) involvement of Australian service men and women in war and peacekeeping operations; and
(b) role of family, friends and community networks in supporting those Australians who have served in our military; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) consider increasing the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme Pension, Defence Force Retirement Benefit Pension and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Pension twice annually by the greatest of the Consumer Price Index, the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index and the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings; and
(b) do this in recognition of the unique circumstances of military service compared to all others within the public service.
Question agreed to.
Australia-Serbia Relations
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are well over 100,000 people of Serbian origin currently living in Australia, with approximately 5 per cent in the electoral division of Fowler;
(b) the Australian Federal Police and Serbian Police recently signed an agreement to co-operate on trans-national crime including money laundering and drug trafficking, which is an example of the growing strength of Australia's bilateral relationship with the Republic of Serbia;
(c) the Republic of Serbia recently gained European Union candidate status which suggests an increased potential for future economic cooperation and provides an opportunity for large-scale investment from Australia and a strong cultural and educational exchange;
(d) in 2011, the trade between our two countries increased by 23.8 per cent; and
(e) since March 2012, Serbia has been awarded the preferential status under Australian Customs Act 1901, which has the potential to further increase the trade relations; and
(2) recognises:
(a) that significant progress has been made in Serbia and other countries in the region that participated in the devastating civil war, in moving away from conflict and towards reconciliation and cooperation; and
(b) the great economic, social and cultural contribution of the Serbian people to the vibrancy of our multicultural society.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:08): by leave—I move:
Omit paragraph 2 (a), substitute:
(a) that significant progress has been made in Serbia and other countries in the region who were affected by the devastating war, to move away from conflict and towards reconciliation and cooperation.
The original words of the motion were constructed to solely attempt to fix a datum point from which to recognise that progress had been made throughout the Balkans. The words were not used in any way to attempt to redefine the nature of the conflict but rather to recognise that through a concerted effort from all countries in the Balkans positive progress had been made towards peace and reconciliation. Clearly what I have tried to do through the amendment is place a focus on the fact that this is about recognising peace and the benefits it brings.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Fitzgibbon: I second the amendment.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:10): I am not going to jump on every single vote; I am confident this will be the last one. In recognising the significance of this vote, I just wanted to pay tribute to the Serbian ambassador in light of the events of Tuesday night, which involved very difficult issues for this parliament. One of the side stories is that everyone involved in the events of this week still managed to keep a Serbian cultural evening functioning. That could have very easily gone off the rails. But to the Serbian ambassador and to everyone in this chamber who made that work, I say: hats off to you all.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Victoria: Technical and Further Education
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) considers that the extreme funding cuts to Victorian TAFEs announced by the Victorian Liberal Government will:
(a) damage the opportunities of hundreds of thousands of Victorian students for a decent education and for skilled employment;
(b) damage industry in Victoria which relies on TAFEs to provide skills and training to a local workforce; and
(c) result in job cuts and cuts to course offerings, including cuts of up to $300 million across Victorian TAFEs and up to 2000 Victorian jobs; and
(2) calls on the Victorian Liberal Government to abandon its irresponsible cuts to TAFE funding immediately, and reinstate proper funding to the sector.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (11:11): by leave—I move:
That paragraph 1 of the motion be amended to read as follows:
(1) opposes the Victorian Liberal Government’s scrapping of the ‘School Start Bonus’ and ‘School-based Education Maintenance Allowance’ payments and calls for them to be immediately reinstated.
The effects of the amendment are that this House will reaffirm its opposition to the Victorian Liberal government's scrapping of the school start bonus and education maintenance allowance. The balance of the motion remains the same and reflects the longstanding view of many members in this place that cuts to education in Victoria are causing significant impacts at a primary, secondary and TAFE level, have significant impacts for pathways for education and ultimately for pathways to employment opportunities for students in Victoria and for the families who will ultimately come to rely on jobs that are available to those people who are appropriately skilled and have significant and long-term impacts for members of the Victorian community.
The scrapping of the school based education maintenance allowance and the school start bonus in Victoria has had the effect in some schools of meaning that principals have had to search for an extra $40,000 in the school budget. That is an extraordinary amount for principals to have to find. It is an extraordinary amount for principals and schools in school communities which have backgrounds of low-income families. It is particularly difficult for those schools to find the funds to be able to fill those gaps in their budgets. We know that this will impact disproportionately on people who are of low income. It will mean that their children are unable to get things like textbooks and uniforms and pay for things like stationery and excursions.
This is simply another indication of what a Liberal government means to education, to families and to family budgets. It comes on the back of very significant cuts to the TAFE sector which have meant that one TAFE in my electorate is facing 220 job cuts this year alone and the closure of Swinburne's Lilydale campus. These are yet more indications of precisely what it means to have a Liberal government in office. I commend the amendment. It reflects the concern of many members not only from Victoria but from other states which are facing similar cuts to education. It reflects the concern and the sentiment of very many people in Victoria who are troubled by the impact of the Baillieu government on their primary schools, secondary schools and TAFE sector.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Symon: I second the motion as amended.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (11:14): I hope that I am assisting the House by devoting some time to this important issue. I wish to congratulate the member for La Trobe for the way in which she has put this important issue, which is of national significance, before the House. Regrettably, the Victorian government is displaying the sort of behaviour that we are seeing from many other coalition states, with disregard for the way in which we should invest in one of our most important resources—that is, our human resources. Just as it is in regions such as those of the members for La Trobe and Deakin, I know that my colleague the member for McEwen sees that what is happening in the northern suburbs of Melbourne is problematic. The member for Maribyrnong is here, championing the western suburbs and the importance of technical education, which is being impinged upon by coalition governments in a very false economy. The thought that they are actually cutting their budgets and saving money in this way, with total disregard for the long-term impact of their mendacious ways, is a great problem.
If we look at the history of the way in which coalition governments in Victoria have treated this sector, we will understand that it was predictable that the Baillieu government would do this. I cite as an example a school in the electorate of Batman, Northland Secondary College, which did so much for and developed so many programs for disadvantaged and low-socioeconomic communities. It then suffered the cuts of the Kennett government. It continued to survive with community support and now, in its latest iteration, has become the Northern College of the Arts and Technology and has benefited from the investment that this government has made in trades training. I think that is important.
In the Whittlesea municipality, which serves the electorates of Scullin and McEwen, we have seen the rebadging of the Peter Lalor Secondary College as the Peter Lalor Vocational College. On the campus of the Peter Lalor Vocational College we see a trades training centre about to be completed, but those who invested their time and vision in that are very fearful that the penny-pinching attitude of the Baillieu government might destroy the great impact that the trade training centre could have because of the lack of continuity.
Because I spend nights in the electorate of Eden-Monaro, in the fine town of Queanbeyan—I will not mention the suburb that I live in—I agree with the interjection from the member for Eden-Monaro that we see the O'Farrell government continuing the same sort of behaviour. These are important issues that need to be ventilated here in the national parliament. As I said, I think it is appropriate that somebody who champions their community, like the member for La Trobe, should bring this issue in front of the House. I hope that even those opposite will see that there is great value in all spheres of government continuing to invest in the important technical education of young Australians.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:18): I am very pleased to support this amendment and to support the motion. I have seen firsthand, especially in my electorate, the effect of some of the devastating cuts, cuts that were not announced and cuts that have had significant impact on people's technical and further education. Given that this is a motion that descends into urging Victorian state parties to do one thing or another, I would urge the Victorian Labor Party to adopt a position that they will fully reverse the cuts. To date the Labor Party has been loud in its condemnation of the Victorian Liberal government but has not been prepared to say that it will reverse the cuts. I am not going to move an amendment to the motion to that effect, but I would hope that at some point we see a bit of even-handedness and we hear Victorian Labor saying that they will reverse the cuts.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:19): Can I also put on record my support for this motion and the urgent need for a co-investment strategy from the Commonwealth and the states in education generally and in the pathways from secondary to vocational and tertiary education in Australia today. I am deeply concerned that agreements reached in this place two years ago around the $500 million regional round of the Education Investment Fund are being held back because of that lack of a co-investment strategy and because of significant cuts of over $1 billion by the three Eastern States in particular. I would hope we can get that co-investment strategy sometime soon and we can start to put a focus on the importance of education to the standard of living for Australia for the next 40 or 50 years among all governments in this country.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House instructs the Attorney-General to, as soon as practicable, draft and introduce legislation to curb the facility for creditor litigation in Australia against those countries who have been deemed by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, eligible for debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, with similar effect to the United Kingdom's Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 which received tripartite support in the United Kingdom Parliament.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:20): by leave—I move:
That the motion be amended to read:
That this House requests the Government, as soon as practicable, to commence a process to examine the risks and benefits of enacting legislation to curb the facility for creditor litigation in Australia against those countries who have been deemed by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank eligible for debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, with similar effect to the United Kingdom’s Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 which received tripartite support in the United Kingdom Parliament, and to report back to Parliament in the Autumn Session 2013,
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Jenkins: I second the amendment and I do it simply formally.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:26]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mrs D'Ath)
Pension Assistance
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) after almost 12 long years of inaction by the former Australian Coalition Government, the current Australian Labor Government has delivered historic pension reforms that have provided increases of $154 per fortnight for max-rate single pensioners and $156 per fortnight for max-rate pensioner couples;
(b) the NSW Government increased public housing rents for pensioners in 2011, taking away some of the Australian Government’s 2009 pension increase;
(c) the Australian Government is delivering extra assistance to millions of Australian pensioners through the Household Assistance Package;
(d) this new assistance is being delivered as a stand-alone pension supplement, separate from the base pension rate, so that pensioners living in public housing could receive the full benefit of this assistance without it affecting their social housing rents; and
(e) the NSW Government has announced that it will include this assistance when calculating social housing rents from March 2013, meaning pensioners living in public housing will not receive the full benefit of the Australian Government’s assistance.
(2) condemns the NSW Government for increasing rents for about 84,000 NSW pensioners and taking away part of their pension increase; and
(3) calls on the Opposition to guarantee it would not take away the pension increases as part of the Household Assistance Package if in government.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:32): by leave—I move:
That paragraph 2 of the motion be amended to read as follows:
(2) opposes the NSW Government’s increase in rents for about 84,000 NSW pensioners and the taking away of part of their pension increase; and,
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Jenkins: I formally second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:37]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mrs D'Ath)
Carbon Pricing
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the carbon price came into effect on 1 July 2012;
(b) the Government's repeated assertions that only Australia's '500 biggest polluters' will pay the carbon price;
(c) community concern that the social and economic impacts of the carbon price have not been fully investigated;
(d) research that indicates the carbon price will have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, regional industries, and regional communities;
(e) concern:
(i) regarding the impact of the carbon price on at least 104 councils in rural, regional and urban Australia which have received notices of potential liability from the Clean Energy Regulator; and
(ii) within regional communities that the $200 million Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Package is inadequate to meet the needs of adversely affected communities, particularly those exposed to the Government's 'contract for closure' policies; and
(f) that the Government's $36 million advertising campaign to promote the Household Assistance Package provides no information on the policy that has led to the payments to households; and
(2) highlights that the Government should have deferred the introduction of the carbon price until after the Australian public has had its say at the next election.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:41]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mrs D'Ath)
Flooding of Communities in the Torres Strait
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes the motion agreed to on 18 August 2011 in relation to the severe flooding of Torres Strait Islands;
(2) acknowledges the commitment the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government made on behalf of the Government to address the problem;
(3) condemns the Minister for reneging on the promise to restore and rebuild the damaged sea walls on the outer islands of the Torres Strait to protect the island communities from further devastation; and
(4) calls on the:
(a) Minister to publicly comply with the resolution that this House passed on 18 August 2011; and
(b) Government to investigate:
(i) any remediation works required to bring the affected sea walls to a standard high enough to prevent tidal flooding;
(ii) the maintenance of sea walls to a safe standard; and
(iii) how these works might be funded.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:46): by leave—I move:
That the motion be amended to read as follows:
That this House:
(1) notes the motion agreed to on 18 August 2011 in relation to the severe flooding of Torres Strait Islands;
(2) acknowledges the commitment the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government made on behalf of the Government to address the problem;
(3) calls on the:
(a) Minister to publicly comply with the resolution that this House passed on 18 August 2011; and
(b) Government to investigate:
(i) any remediation works required to bring the affected sea walls to a standard high enough to prevent tidal flooding;
(ii) the maintenance of sea walls to a safe standard; and
(iii) how these works might be funded;
(4) acknowledges the announcement made by the Minister on 4 June 2012 that the Commonwealth has committed up to $12 million to restore and rebuild sea walls of the Torres Strait Islands, representing one half of the overall cost of the project;
(5) notes that the Torres Strait Regional Authority and Torres Strait Island Regional Council welcomed the Commonwealth contribution and called on the Queensland Government “...to recognise the serious nature of this issue for our communities and at least match the Commonwealth contribution”; and
(6) calls on the Queensland Government to match the Commonwealth’s commitment to restoring and rebuilding the sea walls of the Torres Strait Islands.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Jenkins: I have now realised what a duty backbencher is supposed to do! I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved an amendment. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:51]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The House divided. [11:56]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Australian Greens' Policy Costings
Debate resumed upon the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Australian Greens can formally submit an unlimited number of new policy proposals to the Government for analysis and costing under the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform, signed on 7 September 2010 to establish ‘a basis for stable and effective government’; and
(b) on 20 July 2012, The Treasury made a decision on a Freedom of Information request to refuse access to 12 documents relating to Australian Greens’ policy costings because the documents ‘would allow a direct inference to be drawn about subsequent Cabinet deliberations’ and they contained ‘material prepared to inform deliberations of Government’;
(2) recognises that the Government has previously released policy costings, namely:
(a) an Executive Minute detailing costings of the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan, released in full by The Treasury on 2 September 2011;
(b) updated costings on reopening the detention facility in Nauru, released by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 27 January 2012; and
(c) Treasury modelling provided to unaligned Members, released by The Treasury on 24 February 2012; and
(3) calls on The Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation to release all costings of policy proposals that the Australian Greens have formally submitted to the Government for analysis since the 2010 Federal Election.
To which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"this House:
(1) notes that the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has now been established in accordance with the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform, signed on 7 September 2010;
(2) notes that the establishment of the PBO is a significant reform that will increase budget honesty and transparency; and
(3) calls on all interested parties, including the Coalition, to submit their policies to the PBO for costing.".
The SPEAKER (12:00): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:00]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (12:04): The question is that the motion, as amended be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:06]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)]
National Landcare Week
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that National Landcare Week (3 to 9 September) will celebrate the extraordinary contribution by volunteers to practical environmental projects throughout Australia;
(2) highlights the outstanding contribution of Australian farmers and other rural landholders to enhance the environment on public and private land; and
(3) recognises the need for ongoing public funding to:
(a) employ Landcare facilitators and coordinators who manage volunteer programs;
(b) support Landcare groups to achieve strategic goals; and
(c) assist in maximising the volunteer effort.
Question agreed to.
Meniere's Disease
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House notes:
(1) the work of Meniere’s Australia in developing and improving services in Australia for people living with the distressing consequences of Meniere’s disease and other unseen vestibular disorders;
(2) that vertigo, dizziness, balance problems, hearing loss and tinnitus are common symptoms of Meniere’s disease which lead to sudden debilitating attacks, loss of employment, social isolation and loss of confidence and personal capabilities in everyday living activities;
(3) that the exact number of people affected by vestibular disorders is not known as the conditions are under-diagnosed and under-reported;
(4) that the research from the United States of America indicates that up to five per cent of the population may be living with one or more vestibular conditions which translates to one million Australians; and
(5) that with more support, Meniere’s Australia support groups would be able to provide much needed counselling, practical advice, information and peer support to both individuals and their families and carers.
Question agreed to.
Mitochondrial Disease
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) mitochondrial disease:
(i) is an incurable and debilitating genetic disorder that saps the body’s cells of their energy; and
(ii) reduces the ability of mitochondria to produce energy required for vital bodily functions, disrupting important muscle and organ function and leading in some cases to organ failure or death;
(b) a child is born every 30 minutes who will develop a mitochondrial disease before their tenth birthday;
(c) one in every 200 people is affected by mitochondrial disease, but many are misdiagnosed;
(d) each year 50 children will develop a severe or life-threatening form of mitochondrial disease;
(e) there:
(i) is a widespread lack of awareness about this disease, its symptoms or effects;
(ii) are few effective treatments for this disease; and
(iii) is currently no cure for this disease;
(f) clinical trials are underway, however research into this disease requires greater monetary and community support and recognition;
(g) scientists have linked mitochondrial dysfunction to other major diseases including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes; and
(h) advances in treatment for mitochondrial dysfunction could also improve treatments for millions of people who suffer these other illnesses;
(2) recognises that:
(a) 16 to 22 September 2012 is Global Mitochondrial Disease Awareness Week;
(b) 23 September 2012 is Global World Stay in Bed Day to raise awareness and funds for research into mitochondrial disease; and
(c) the Australian Mitochondrial Disease Foundation has been working since 2009 to support patients and their families, spread information and raise the profile of this disease in the community and medical field; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) encourage the public and private sectors to promote greater awareness of mitochondrial disease;
(b) help raise the profile of mitochondrial disease within the medical profession to overcome the lack of knowledge that contributes to misdiagnosis and improper treatment of this condition; and
(c) ensure there is appropriate support for patients of mitochondrial disease and their families.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Bill 2012
Report from Committee
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (12:11): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating additional comments, on the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Bill 2012.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Ms O'NEILL: by leave—On 13 September, the House of Representatives referred the Corporations Legislation (Derivative Transactions) Bill 2012 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report. As chair of that committee, I am pleased to be able to table the committee's report today.
The committee received 11 submissions and held a public hearing in Sydney on 5 October. The committee extended thanks to all who contributed to the inquiry process.
The proposed legislative measures demonstrate Australia's commitment to uphold the G20 agreement to increase the transparency of, and reduce the risk attached to, the over-the-counter derivatives market.
As this House would be aware, the global financial crisis highlighted a lack of transparency in the OTC derivatives market. International regulators have found that it was this lack of transparency, this lack of regulation, that contributed to the global financial crisis.
The G20 agreed to implement over-the-counter derivatives regulatory reforms by the end of 2012. As a G20 member Australia is committed to implementing the OTC derivative market reforms. The bill before the House delivers on Australia's commitment and will allow Australian regulators to more effectively manage the risks attached to over-the-counter derivative transactions.
The bill will amend the Corporations Act 2001 to introduce a legislative framework that would allow the operational details of the new over-the-counter derivatives scheme to be largely established by subordinate legislation. The evidence before the committee is clear that this structure will allow regulators to readily respond to changes in the OTC derivatives market. The flexibility will mean that regulations can keep pace with market changes and continue to ensure transparency and—very important, in response to the very real lessons that need to be learned from the GFC—this will reduce systemic risk.
In terms of the exercise of delegated authority, submitters to the inquiry raised three areas of concern with the bill. While acknowledging the need for flexibility, some submitters were concerned to ensure that the authority delegated to the responsible minister and to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is exercised appropriately. To this end, the committee has made three recommendations to provide industry greater guidance on the operation of the new regulatory scheme.
The committee recommended that:
Treasury and ASIC issue guidance material outlining the consultation process for the development of OTC derivatives regulations and rules;
ASIC further release a regulatory guide explaining the derivative transactions and trade repository rules; and
that ASIC report to the committee on the operation of the new OTC derivatives regulatory framework, as part of the committee's ongoing oversight of the commission.
In terms of the electricity sector in particular, three industries also sought exemptions from the new OTC derivatives transaction requirements. Notably, representatives of the electricity sector strongly opposed the application of the new OTC derivatives regulatory requirements to participants in the national electricity market. Representatives put forward several arguments to support the application. In essence, it was put to the committee that the national electricity market is currently sufficiently robust to not present systemic risk to market integrity.
The committee found persuasive the view put forward by Treasury that amending the bill to expressly exclude any sector or class of derivative would not be best practice, particularly in the light of the international regulations and requirements around this issue. Rather, we found that it would limit regulators' capacity to respond appropriately to market changes.
However, I can report that the evidence before the committee was clear that, at this time, the government does not intend to prescribe the electricity sector as a class of derivatives to which the new OTC derivatives framework would apply.
The committee recommended that the Minister for Resources and Energy be consulted prior to making recommendations on rules that would affect the energy sector.
The committee recommends that the bill be passed without amendment.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (12:17): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading and:
(1) calls on the Government to extend the operation of the Wheat Marketing Authority for not less than six months after the resumption of the 44th Parliament to enable the government of the day to modify Wheat Exports Australia or replace it with a another body, to better represent the needs of the wheat industry; and
(2) notes that the Coalition commits to a consultation process that will commence immediately and provide stakeholders with a forum to outline what wheat industry issues need to be addressed."
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (12:18): I commenced this speech on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 in the House over a month ago, on 10 September, so I feel as though I have been detained awhile, it having been interrupted by other House business. But I was obviously very persuasive in my previous remarks because, since I made them, we have seen a plethora of opposition MPs come out in support of the government's bill.
We saw the member for O'Connor say that he was going to support it and, if need be, cross the floor. We saw the member for Hume say that he was not going to vote against it and would, if necessary, abstain from the vote. Opposition Senator Alan Eggleston is in support of the government's legislation. There are others, and that is fair enough, too. This opposition always professes its love for the free market, but it is so hostile to anything the government does that its reflex position is to vote no to everything. It is time that it got a little bit positive for a change.
As I said before the interruption, the Cole inquiry was established by the Howard government in 2005 to investigate claims of bribery and corruption. The inquiry found that the claims against AWB were substantiated and that the actions taken by the Australian Wheat Board were deliberate. In 2006, the Australian Grain Exporters Association asked that the Australian Wheat Board's monopoly be disbanded and that competition be allowed in the export market. In 2008, Labor introduced a bill to deregulate the wheat export arrangements. Wheat was one of the very last federally regulated commodities in Australia. The Wheat Export Marketing Act 2008 required the Productivity Commission to conduct a review of wheat export marketing arrangements by 1 July 2010. The commission's report was tabled in the parliament in October 2010.
This bill is a welcome reform in addressing the consequences when a monopoly such as the Australian Wheat Board is allowed to operate without the rigours of competition and where an organisation which has the market cornered does business with an undemocratic and corrupt regime. Serious questions remain unanswered in the oil-for-food scandal, including why the Australian Federal Police dropped an investigation into possible criminal charges against Australian Wheat Board executives in 2009.
In a joint investigation by the Age and the ABC TV's 7.30 program, the acting coordinator of the Australian Wheat Board oil-for-food task force within the Australian Federal Police, Ross Fusca, revealed his view that the task force created to investigate those responsible for paying the kickbacks failed to reach its full potential. He said Australians deserve to know why. The Age reported:
This is one of those investigations where there has been a wilful blindness [in the handling of it] ... people need to be held accountable.
The task force was established in late 2006 and was given a $30 million budget after Commissioner Cole found 11 former Australian Wheat Board executives and a British based former BHP manager may have committed criminal offences by knowingly allowing the company to make $300 million in illicit payments to Saddam Hussein's regime in breach of United Nations sanctions.
Due to his considerable experience in leadership roles, as acknowledged in performance reviews within the Australian Federal Police, Ross Fusca was chosen to help lead the multi-agency Australian Wheat Board task force. Despite the difficulties the task force confronted around staffing and other issues, such as appropriate accommodation and access to computers, Mr Fusca believes it was building the backbone of a strong criminal case, a view that he says was endorsed in 2008 by lawyers from the Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Cole commission's senior barrister, John Agius QC, told the Age that police had plenty to work with. He said that there was a strong case that Commonwealth and perhaps Victorian state laws had been breached, that there were cases to answer and that the matter would be in court and people would be prosecuted.
Among the evidence Mr Fusca and his team discovered were emails in which some Australian Wheat Board managers discussed the need to keep the kickbacks a secret. Mr Fusca further claimed that an informant to the task force had indicated that federal government officials were aware of the kickbacks. A confidential legal opinion obtained by the Age and written by Peter Hastings QC confirms that the inquiry had a sound legal basis from which to build a criminal case. This advice was given in a memorandum to the Australian Federal Police in April 2008, more than a year after the task force was formed. It is astonishing, given the progress of the task force, that Mr Fusca says that he was offered a promotion to make the inquiry go away and was subsequently demoted from the position of coordinator after emailing his superiors seeking more staff and indicating his intention to pursue the inquiry as vigorously as he could.
The task force was shut down in August 2009 based on advice that a criminal prosecution of former managers of the Australian Wheat Board was unlikely to be successful. This advice has not been made available to the public. Of the $30 million earmarked for the task force, the Australian Federal Police spent $5.95 million, according to a letter released to the Saturday Age. Mr Fusca says that the Australian Federal Police's decision to shut down his task force was premature. I believe that the public deserves a full explanation as to why Australian law enforcement agencies have so little to show for their efforts six years after the Cole royal commission exposed one of the nation's biggest corruption scandals.
Overseas, many company executives who rorted the United Nations oil-for-food program to pay kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein have been jailed or given huge fines. America moved fastest in probing misdeeds by firms. Prosecutors took seven companies to court, and millions of dollars—in Chevron's case, $30 million—were forfeited by way of fines or restitution. In April 2011, it was reported by the Telegraph in the United Kingdom that a British businessman had been 'jailed in the seventh conviction in a series of prosecutions for bribery offences under the Iraqi oil-for-food programme'. His conviction after pleading guilty was the seventh to flow from the Volcker report into the manipulation of the oil-for-food program. The prosecution team, which was led by the Serious Fraud Office, was commended for its work in bringing the cases to court. The highest-profile conviction was against engineering firm Mabey & Johnson. Three executives were convicted for their part in paying bribes. For their crimes all three received prison sentences, although one of the sentences was suspended.
In Australia we have not seen any criminal prosecution action like those which have taken place in the US and UK, despite the fact that the scale of the Australian Wheat Board payment of kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime which flouted the United Nations' oil-for-food program were greater than anything which happened in the US or the UK. I was therefore very troubled to read Mr Fusca's statements about the AFP's handling of the kickbacks issue. At stake is Australia's international reputation of upholding rigorous standards of corporate governance and accountability.
As the accountability roundtable has stated to me, the wrongful dismissal claim from Mr Fusca again focuses attention on the issue of whistleblower protection. There is strong community support for whistleblower protection legislation, and it is a matter of real regret to me that this parliament has not yet delivered it. We have been talking about it and thinking about it for a very long time, but the legislation is still awaited. Mr Fusca's case strengthens, in my view, the already strong case for whistleblower protection legislation to be brought on. The case for whistleblower protection is also strengthened, in my view, by reports that a supply-chain manager at the Reserve Bank's note-printing subsidiary, Securency, developed a strong suspicion as early as 1999 that Securency was paying bribes but felt he was too junior to speak out and feared for his job. It seems clear to me that whistleblower protection can help bring corrupt behaviour or misconduct to light, and I urge the government to introduce it sooner rather than later.
This bill is an important step forward in the government's deregulation of the wheat industry. It enjoys the support of many wheat growers—most conspicuously wheat growers from Western Australia, who have made it clear that they do not support the position that the opposition has taken and that they do not understand why the opposition is taking a different position now from the position it took back in 2008. I hope that the opposition reflects on the statements which have been made by wheat growers. I hope that the opposition reflects on the background to the legislation before the House and on the disgraceful position in which Australia was put by the breaches of the sanctions regime applied to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. I hope that the opposition, which has been divided on the issues we have been debating, reflects in a serious and mature way on this legislation and sees its way clear to supporting it. It seems to me remarkable in this day and age that we can say to wheat growers that we are going to decide who they can sell wheat to and in what circumstances. Not many wheat growers are endorsing that position. I hope that the House supports this legislation, which represents a logical extension of the decision taken by this government quite some years ago to deregulate the wheat industry.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (12:28): I seek leave to make a correction to the amendment that I have moved on behalf of the coalition to the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012.
Leave granted.
Mr JOHN COBB: I correct the second reading amendment as follows:
Omit "the Wheat Marketing Authority", substitute "Wheat Exports Australia".
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012
Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:30): I rise to speak on the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012 and the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) 2012. At the outset I indicate that the coalition is concerned that the government are trying to rush through this legislation through the House after this bill was introduced into this place just yesterday. Late last night the government contacted the opposition to request that we assist them in facilitating its expedient and urgent passage through the House. Normally, a bill is introduced, a week is allowed for the opposition parties to consider the bill and to take it to opposition committees, the party room and to the shadow cabinet. That is the normal process which applies and which has applied, whoever has been in government in this country, for many decades.
Despite the alleged urgency of this bill, departmental officials that met with opposition advisers this morning could not provide any substantive reasons for the urgent rush. Indeed, the 1 December start date was suggested by the government in its joint submission to Fair Work Australia and it first committed funding for this in last year's MYEFO, released almost 12 months ago. The handling of this bill is symbolic of the shambolic nature of this government and its contempt for the parliament. Indeed, if I can say it, if we had a Prime Minister who spent less time playing the victim and more time getting on with governing this nation then this parliament might act in a better way.
The coalition welcomed the finalisation of the long-running case involving the social and community sector. Given the important role played in and services provided to our communities right throughout Australia by this sector, care must now be taken to ensure that these services are not reduced or jeopardised and that jobs are not lost. The government must ensure that community service organisations do not close or reduce services as a result of any cost pressures that this decision may cause. Equal remuneration is important, but so is the maintenance of the significant services that organisations in almost every community across this country provide. Indeed, in the Australian newspaper today we have seen concerns being raised in the community that this funding:
… will lead to job losses and service cuts to programs for the nation's most vulnerable.
Indeed, the full bench of Fair Work Australia expressed concern about the impact of this decision on some parts of the sector that provide services for which costs cannot be recovered or receive any government funding.
The coalition continues to harbour some serious concerns that the Gillard government's plan to fund pay rises in the community sector will change the workplace landscape and fuel further wage pressures across the economy. Indeed, to date the government has refused to provide the details of how the funding will be met. Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister dressed up an announcement of $2.8 billion in funding for the social and community services sector workers who will be receiving pay rises courtesy of a Fair Work Australia decision. This is not just old news; it is a $300 million cut in Labor's promise. Further, Ms Gillard announced $2.1 billion, then an additional billion, before reducing it back to $3 billion, and now today it is right back to $2.8 billion. So the question is: what is the amount of money which the Commonwealth is committing to this venture?
On the other hand, Labor continues to dish out millions of dollars in grants to union bosses. Ms Gillard and Mr Shorten, the responsible minister, today need to explain why they seem to have broken yet another promise. Further, the government cannot even tell us if the $2.8 billion has been set aside today or will be drawn down from future budgets. It is also worth noting that the government, ahead of putting its submission to Fair Work Australia, only consulted the unions—not the providers, not the state governments and not the employees on the ground. And today we see the Victorian government already expressing its concerns about how this is going to operate into the future and about the legislation.
Unlike the government, the coalition genuinely believes in supporting low-paid workers but also, in the parliament, operating in a proper and ordered manner. We are disappointed that the government are once again using this place as their plaything so that the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible can go and hold a doorstop. If the government were genuine about supporting low-paid workers they would scrap the carbon tax, stop the borrowing and cut the cost of living for ordinary Australians.
In summary, the government have had 12 months to introduce this legislation. They have not done so until yesterday, and now they now want it expedited through this parliament within a period of 24 hours. The government introduced the bill yesterday and they want a vote today, something out of the ordinary so far as the normal processes of this chamber and indeed this parliament operate. A briefing provided today about the proposed legislation has raised more questions than answers, and there is no guarantee that the government will be able to give us the necessary further briefings even today.
There has been chopping and changing about the amounts promised. For example, the $2.1 billion amount, then a further $1 billion, thus a total of $3.1 billion and now apparently $2.8 billion. The coalition has had little chance to speak with stakeholders or to consider practical implications of the bill. There is a good reason that in a democracy like Australia there is normally at least a week's space between the introduction of legislation and the debate on that legislation. It is to enable the opposition parties—the non-government parties—and indeed the government backbench to go out and consult with people in the community, particularly those most affected by a piece of legislation, to ascertain what the effects of that legislation are. How can we do that with less than 24 hours notice in relation to this particular proposition?
As I said, even people in the sector are out in the media today saying they have concerns about it. We have at least one state government expressing concerns about it within the space of 24 hours. The ability to do that is therefore being denied in this chamber. Obviously, there will be an opportunity in the Senate to do that but surely the people's House should have an opportunity to examine legislation in a proper manner, something which this shambolic government is not allowing.
The government is asking us to consider a $2.8 billion spend with less than 24 hours to do so—the hallmark of the Labor government's lack of due care or diligence for $3 billion of taxpayers' money being spent. It may well be appropriate that $3 billion be spent in this way but surely this House and, indeed, the members of this House have some responsibility to each of their constituents to make an assessment about the appropriateness of the expenditure in this manner.
Finally, parliament should not be forced to consider a bill just to impress the Australian Services Union because they happen to be in town. Let us not forget the other occasions on which the government has rushed large spending bills quickly and they have ended up being total disasters, such as the BER, which will remain a hallmark of the inefficiency and the infamy of this government. The coalition will not oppose the bill but we intend to have a fulsome consideration with the wider community prior to this bill being debated in the other place.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012. If there is no objection to that the Chair will allow that course to be followed.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:39): I speak in support of the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012 and the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012. The member for Menzies was the architect, the author and the apostle of Work Choices, imposed on the community sector. What a mean-spirited response we saw from those opposite there today, saying they will support this bill! But they did nothing to support low-paid workers, particularly the 120,000 women of the 150,000 employees in this sector who will get assistance from this particular legislation today. It will make a big difference in my home state of Queensland and I particularly thank the Secretary of the Queensland branch of the ASU, Kath Nelson, and the Assistant Secretary Jenny Thomas for the work they do and the great work they have done on behalf of Queensland women, particularly those who work in the social and community sector.
Those opposite should hang their heads in shame for their inaction, their inertia and their inactivity in this sector. The fact is that we are putting close to $3 billion on the table, putting in a special account providing for those women particularly, and for those men who work in women and children's refuges, run support centres for people with a disability, lead counselling, family support services and emergency housing services—organisations in my electorate such as Focal Extended, Our House, IRASI, Ipswich Women's Centre Against Domestic Violence, Riverview House and many others. What are those opposite going to say about this when they go back to their electorates? 'We did nothing for nearly 12 years about this issue.'
We have put money on the table to achieve this just and fair outcome for the low-paid workers of this country. Those opposite say words but when it came to the legislation that they passed when they were on this side of the chamber it was not for workers—it was antiworkers. This legislation is for workers, for those people who make our community a more decent and humane place. That is what we are doing here today—150,000 workers will get assistance across the years from this legislation and what it does for them.
Under the terms of the equal remuneration order handed down by Fair Work Australia, about 150,000 SACS workers will get that assistance. From 1 December, wage rises are the nine instalments until 20 June 2021 totalling between 23 per cent and 45 per cent. It is a significant win, especially for women. For those employees in Queensland this is the fulfilment in large part of that heads of agreement signed between the Australian government by the then Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Julia Gillard, and Linda White on 30 October 2009 in relation to low-paid workers across the country, preserving the new rates for Queensland employees and also achieving similar outcomes with the submission made to Fair Work Australia for employees in other states through pay equity and work value claims.
What we are doing here is making sure that those workers in those areas get the kind of wage justice they deserve. The decision to create a special account demonstrates our commitment to working families across the country, to SACS workers and, through our submission to Fair Work Australia on an historic equal pay case, for wage justice in this sector. The funding here will go towards funding the wages of those workers.
I am pleased that those organisations in Queensland will get the help that they need pursuant to this legislation. This includes Commonwealth funded service providers subject to the transitional pay equity order made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 12 June 2009. Those Queensland social and community sector workers will be transitioned over time to the Fair Work Australia equal remuneration order. That is a good outcome for my home state of Queensland when Campbell Newman and the LNP government are financially plundering the social and community sector and organisations like TASC funding through Queensland, which we had to step in and support because people were at risk of homelessness. Indeed, workers in those sectors were supported by this federal Labor government when those opposite said nothing while those services were being taken away from tenants and those other people who were struggling—people with a disability, people who are semi-literate, people who are financially challenged. Those opposite said nothing about that.
This legislation will help workers in those sectors to make sure that they create the kind of society we want—decent and humane, a fairer system, a stronger economy but a fairer society. That is what this federal Labor government is all about. We are committed to making sure those workers get it. This legislation will provide it for them. The ASU across the country, but particularly in my home state of Queensland, deserves recognition, acknowledgment and applause for what they have done. It goes to show what a federal Labor government does: it stands up for the poor, the vulnerable, the weak and those with a disadvantage, while those opposite stand up for everything that is mean and tricky. It was once again shown by the speech made by the honourable member for Menzies that they are committed to the pernicious, destructive attitude and legislation which we call Work Choices, and which we got rid of after the election of this federal Labor government. I commend the legislation and I commend the Minister for Community Services Julie Collins for the great work she has done.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (12:44): I want to address some of the issues raised in the debate on the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012. Whilst I appreciate the House's assistance in getting this bill through, the timing was raised by the shadow minister and I just want to put on the record some comments in relation to the timing. The bill is obviously about making payments to organisations and to states and territories. This argument that we could have done this 12 months ago is indeed nonsense because the equal remuneration order by Fair Work Australia was not finalised until late June and the Prime Minister made an announcement in July that we estimated the additional cost from the ERO to be around $1 billion. We have had to go away and do our costings since that time and the total is $2.82 billion.
This bill will establish a special account under the Financial Management and Accountability Act, supporting the Commonwealth's contribution of around $2.8 billion to Australia's social and community services sector workers following Fair Work Australia's historic equal pay ruling earlier this year. As we have heard, workers in the social and community services sector make a real difference to the lives of many vulnerable members of our community, taking on some of the most demanding jobs, including counselling families in crisis, running homeless shelters and working with people with disability and with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. We know that around 150,000 workers in the sector have been affected by this equal remuneration order—approximately 120,000 of them, the vast majority, are women.
The Fair Work Australia order means that some of Australia's lowest-paid workers will benefit from pay rises of between 23 and 45 per cent to be phased in from December this year. Around $2.8 billion in funding will be delivered over the eight years to meet the Commonwealth's share of the costs of these pay rises for social and community sector workers in Commonwealth funded programs, including programs funded under agreements with and payments to states and territories such as the national partnership payments and national specific purpose payments. Eight Commonwealth agencies will be able to draw on funding from the special account to assist employers who are directly and indirectly funded by the Commonwealth, as prescribed under the new legislation, and who have employees who qualify for rises under the order.
The phased introduction recognised the complex funding arrangements in the sector and will allow community sector organisations delivering Commonwealth funded programs to pay the new rates without reducing services to the community. A significant amount of Commonwealth funding will be provided to the sector through states and territory governments for agreements with and payments to states and territories such as national partnership payments and national specific purpose payments. This bill will enable funding to be paid to the COAG Reform Fund established under the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008 for this purpose. This government expects that the states and territories to pass on the full amount of funding and to meet their own obligations by committing their share of funds.
Every day the social and community services sector delivers vital services to the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians. We want to make sure the sector is strong and productive now and into the future. Not only are these workers deserving of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work but properly valuing caring work and providing decent wages in industries dominated by women is also an important part of keeping our economy strong and resilient.
The government will continue to work collaboratively with state and territory governments to ensure the historic Fair Work Australia order is fully implemented and fully funded for the benefit of workers in the sector. The government will also work with the sector to ensure the smooth implementation of the Fair Work Australia order across the states and territories.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (12:49): I seek leave to move the third reading.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (12:50): Mr Deputy Speaker, prior to that I wanted to make the point that had been made by the shadow minister in speaking on the second reading and that is why I was on my feet. But you, of course, were on your feet as well, so we had a bit of a difficulty. I think it is important in consideration in detail, which we seem to have—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! The honourable member is seeking the call on the third reading?
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: As we seem to have skimmed by the consideration in detail, I will speak on the third reading, yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the third reading?
Leave granted.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (12:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (12:51): I make the point that has been made by the shadow minister who had the carriage of this bill; that is, about the speed and haste of it being improperly brought forward. Notice was given only yesterday and no proper attention or time was given to allow the opposition to go through the proper formalities for consideration of the bill. It is quite unseemly. I think it is most important that the opposition states that this sort of behaviour from the government cannot be tolerated. If you are the government, you have procedures to follow and you must follow them, and that includes giving the opposition the correct amount of time to allow proper consideration of legislation. This is an appropriation. This is a large amount of money. It will have a very large impact. As the shadow minister, Mr Andrews, pointed out, it will have an impost on many NGOs and other organisations, and there should have been adequate time for consultation, from the opposition's point of view, for the proper consideration of this bill. The fact that we have chosen not to oppose it simply says that we on this side of the House have a solid conscience on the matter, but I say to the government that it may not and must not proceed in this way: it shows a complete contempt for the seriousness of the bill and the manner in which things must be dealt with in this parliament.
Bill read a third time.
Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (12:53): The Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 enables funds to be transferred from the special account we established with the last bill into the COAG Reform Fund, enabling payments to social and community sector workers in the states and territories. It is a companion bill to the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill and, as I said, that bill establishes a special account under section 21 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to fund the Commonwealth's contribution to the historic pay rise awarded by Fair Work Australia earlier this year to our social and community service sector workers.
This supplementation from the Commonwealth will be delivered through funding drawn from the special account for eight Commonwealth agencies and allocated to assist employers who are directly or indirectly funded by the Commonwealth for the purposes of a program prescribed under the new legislation, and who are required to make payments to their employees under the pay equity arrangements. This consequential amendments bill makes one minor amendment to the existing Commonwealth legislation to complete the new arrangements. This amendment will insert into the COAG Reform Fund Act a note pointing out that an amount may be credited to the COAG Reform Fund under the new Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account 2012.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (12:55): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading and:
(1) calls on the Government to extend the operation of the Wheat Marketing Authority for not less than six months after the resumption of the 44th Parliament to enable the government of the day to modify Wheat Exports Australia or replace it with a another body, to better represent the needs of the wheat industry; and
(2) notes that the Coalition commits to a consultation process that will commence immediately and provide stakeholders with a forum to outline what wheat industry issues need to be addressed."
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:56): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 and the consequent amendment. To cut to the chase, the amendment is to defer the winding up of the WEA, the Wheat Export Authority, until some other measures are taken within the reform and deregulation of the Australian wheat export industry.
I must say that farmers generally—not all of them, but generally—have welcomed the deregulation of the wheat industry, and younger farmers in particular are participating very strongly in what is now a fully deregulated market. There are around 40 exporters out of Australia now, and those who would suggest that there are still some constraints on the operations of those companies or their ability to set up business in the first place are not being strictly truthful.
This debate is not so much about wheat at all; it has now moved on and is about the grain handling chain and the path to export for all grains—not just wheat. In fact, we have reached a situation where what were government-protected and grow-our-own monopolies in the handling and port system of Australia have largely moved into other hands and are presenting impediments in the marketplace for some of these other operators to work within. The coalition is urging the government to show a little bit of caution and hold back on winding up the WEA until we fix up some of these problems that are still within the industry.
The WEA was established primarily to approve new companies into the export market, and it has done so quite well indeed. In fact, I agree that it is doing very little at the moment; it is collecting a levy of 22c a tonne from growers. It is right to ask the question: why not shut it down? What is it doing? The problem is these issues of unfinished business. I am still involved in the wheat industry—I own a farm—and at the moment wheat is worth somewhere between $200 and $300 a tonne on average, and yet it is costing growers up to $90 a tonne to get it onto a ship and into that export market. So growers are intensely interested in the cost in the path to market for their products. It is interesting to note—and we are fully aware of this—that there is a somewhat different opinion in Western Australia to the rest of Australia. It is worth, in the House's interest, pursuing why that is the case. At around the time that the single desk in Australia was wound up, the community owned assets built up by farmers under government regulations and government protection for many years and those assets were passed into corporatised bodies, and for most of Australia from there into privately owned institutions. In Western Australia the primary bulk handling company is still owned by the growers. In the rest of Australia those companies are owned by independent companies, and that is why we have a different opinion in the West from the rest of Australia on this issue—bearing in mind that I believe that sometime in the future there will be a push to corporatise CBH Western Australia and in the future the temptation to realise those assets could be as strong in Western Australia as it was for the rest of Australia, so Western Australia too will face the same issues, some of which are apparent at the moment.
One of the biggest bones of contention for those people operating in the export market is that the three regional monopolies control the market information. If as a grower I deliver grain to the local silo system and I have unsold product, I know where the unsold product is and the body that receives the grain knows where it is—in this case, these three regional monopolies. The three regional monopolies also operate marketing arms. In the case of most of Australia those marketing arms know exactly where those pools of grain are and other marketers do not. They have privileged information and this is the biggest issue the industry is grappling with at the moment. For instance, I come from the Eyre Peninsula region of South Australia which is entirely an export market. To get grain off the peninsula I need to engage a bulk carrier to move a load of about 40,000 tonnes. That bulk carrier needs to dock at the Viterra site which is a regional monopoly in Port Lincoln, and my grain must be delivered at some stage into the system. Whether or not I have sold to a different buyer becomes academic, because at some stage the grain has to enter the system. That means that buyers in the market have to be certain when they book shipping space, sometimes some months in advance, that they can fill the ship. If they have committed to the shipping program and later find they can only accumulate 15,000 tonnes or 10,000 tonnes then they are left with an unfilled order. They do not have the information to know where to go to accumulate extra tonnage, but their competitors do. Those that control the bulk handling system do have that information, so this is a very serious issue for the industry.
It is true that the Wheat Export Authority in their current form cannot fix this. They do not have the authority to fix it, but they are in an ideal position to become the authority that can fix it. When we talk about an unregulated market, which is basically what we have, we can throw our mind to the operations of other markets—the financial services sector, the banking sector, the superannuation sector. Sure, we have free and open competition, but we do not have it without any rules at all. In this case, we are asking for the other companies to have access to that market information so they can accumulate their tonnage, they can go to farmers and offer them prices on the same basis as their competitors. Talking about the marketing information that the bulk handlers hold, the WEA in their submission to the Senate inquiry into the operational issues in the grain export networks said:
This results in a significant marketing advantage to the associated accredited exporter of the bulk handling company. The committee will note a number of public submissions presented to this enquiry state that the retention of stock and quality information by the bulk handling companies creates market asymmetry, providing them unfair advantage in marketing and trading of grain and reduces effective competition in the market.
Surely all sides of politics agree that we want open and fair and vigorous competition in the marketplace. For the bulk handling companies to make the assertion that it is not in the growers' interest to have this information in the marketplace I find very difficult to comprehend. It does not matter what you are selling—if it is real estate, cars, washing machines or even Tim Tams—you want the world to know that you have some Tim Tams, washing machines, cars or real estate to sell. You do not want to keep it a secret, but at the moment that is the case. That information is held tightly by one company. You can understand why growers are frustrated about this.
We have an opportunity, before the WEA is finally wound up, to give it some new instructions and say we need to get this cleared up before we remove the last vestiges of regulation. I believe that the message is getting through somewhat to the bulk handling companies at the moment. I believe there are moves afoot to try and establish a code of conduct. I believe they are recognising that growers have a genuine interest. But if we signal that this parliament has lost interest in achieving this outcome, I think we will take away the pressure to continue on the reform path. If that is the case, we will be dragged back here within a few years to reinstitute something similar to the WEA to do exactly what we should be asking it to do now. In this case, we are saying hold off for a couple of years and give the industry a chance to sort it out and we will sit down with the industry and come up with the new guidelines in which it can operate. If the bulk handling companies have moved that far in the interim period that we do not have a problem then we will not have any work to do, will we?
But to just wash our hands of it and say that this parliament no longer has any interest in the issue is abandoning our farmers.
Those who say that this is a stalking horse to bring back the single desk could not be more wrong. This is not about the single desk; this is about having properly functioning bulk handling and port authorities around Australia. It has nothing to do with the particular commodity. It is the fact that all of these products have to be funnelled through the one set of infrastructure. There is a similarity in Western Australia that I know the member for Brand will be very familiar with. We had a High Court case within the last two weeks wherein Fortescue Metals had a win to say they will be able to use Rio Tinto's railway lines. They will be able to put their trains on existing infrastructure. This is a very big move, and it has been in the courts for a number of years. There are great similarities here, because in the end farmers pay for all the infrastructure. They do not want to have to go out and invest in a whole heap of new infrastructure to allow new companies to operate in the same space.
There are some other loose ends to be tied up too. There are cases, particularly in South Australia, in the industry that I know the best. There are changes, and the ACCC has made some moves, but we have had a system where all companies have had to book places on the shipping stem for their export program. All companies have been charged a fee of $5 a tonne; but, in the case of the company that actually controls the shipping stem, if they default, they pay the $5 to themselves. It is a nice little deal if you can get it. After all, if you buy a monopoly you expect to be able to operate like a monopoly. There is some movement in that area, because the ACCC said we have to go to a full auction. I am looking forward to seeing how that operates. But it is yet to be proven.
There are concerns among the growers about upmarket access, about delivery fees—because of course if you deliver to a private operator and then it has got to come out of his private storage and go back into the bulk handling authorities, there are extra receiver fees. So all these things are extra impediments that make it harder for the competition to operate.
Not everything is bad. Like I say, I think there is some movement in the industry. But I do not think now is the time to just walk away, for this parliament to wash its hands and say, 'We don't want to have anything more to do with the Wheat Export Authority. Twenty-two cents a tonne—sure. I do not like paying any fees out of my wheat either. Growers are particularly incensed about the number of levies they have to pay. But 22c a tonne is certainly not one of the big ones. And I am getting no feedback from my growers about that particular 22c a tonne.
It is interesting: in this debate, as we have gone through the period of deregulation of the wheat industry, the grower representatives of the wheat growers in South Australia were some of the strongest allies of the Western Australians in the abandonment of the single desk. This was where the strongest voice came from. It made sense because, as has been said in other speeches, South Australia and Western Australia are pretty much totally export markets. But those same grower representatives—many of them friends of mine—are coming to me now and saying, 'No, it's different this time.' I understand the Western Australians have a different point of view because of the reasons that I outlined at the beginning of my speech. They still have grower control of the bulk handling company. But I ask them to have some understanding for the rest of Australia and also to realise that maybe their control of that bulk handling company is not forever and they can face exactly the same issues, for other operators trying to get into the market, as the rest of Australia is facing at the moment.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (13:11): I listened intently to the member for Grey's observations, and I have absolute confidence in his knowledge of his local circumstances, given his own background. But I have to say: how can members opposite turn a blind eye to the numerous public appeals by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia, such as the WA Farmers Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association—groups which represent the majority of Western Australian farmers and are their voice on this subject. Even the Western Australian Liberal Premier has pleaded for Western Australian Liberal members to support this bill.
The CBH terminal in Kwinana is in my electorate and stands to lose up to $1 million a year if the coalition votes down this final step towards deregulation by dismantling Wheat Export Australia. The CBH terminal is a cooperative. It is owned by farmers. Farmers will lose that $1 million. In addition to that, individual wheat growers in Western Australia stand to lose a further $3 million in revenue for their own farm businesses.
Western Australia is the biggest export wheat state. This is Western Australia's biggest agricultural industry. It is worth around $3.5 billion a year. It is one of the great pillars of the Western Australian economy, and it is beyond belief that some members on the other side, who claim to represent the interests of WA wheat growers, are prepared to betray them and sell them short for purely political reasons.
It is beyond belief that they are prepared to reject this Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 and cost wheat growers in Western Australia millions of dollars in lost revenue and continue to add to the administrative, regulatory red-tape burden of the CBH operation in Kwinana and the administrative, regulatory red-tape burden of all farmers in Western Australia. It is beyond belief that the personal appeal of 10 senior Liberal Party members in Western Australia who, on 4 October, wrote to all Liberal MPs and senators, will have the door slammed in their faces.
I seek leave to table the letter to all Western Australian Liberal MPs and senators from those 10 senior Western Australian Liberals: Barry Court—a substantial and thoughtful Western Australian Liberal; Murray Nixon; Andres Timmermanis; Steve Martin; Alex Butterworth and Gordon Thomson, President of the Durack Division; Richard Wilson; Sandra Brown; Steve Cleaver and James McLagan. They deserve to have their voices heard and their opinions heard within the Liberal Party. Their voices and their opinions count on this matter and their voices and their opinions are the voices and opinions of agricultural Western Australia—that great pillar of our state that built our state through its first hundred years of existence.
I hear members opposite speak of whether or not you are selling cars, washing machines or Tim Tams. I can say this: whether or not you are selling cars, washing machines or Tim Tams, you actually want to have a free market, and that is what we are talking about here—a free market. All of us would believe—and anyone involved in primary production would believe—that it is a reasonable proposition that, before you take your crop off, you should know and understand the conditions under which that crop will be marketed. You should understand that. And I believe that members opposite do understand that. I believe that there is still an opportunity for members opposite to be brought to their senses before an industry is brought to its knees. There is time for thought and for consideration of the critical matters which Western Australian wheat farmers have sought quite properly to bring to the attention of this parliament.
The Kwinana grain terminal in my electorate is a fantastic piece of infrastructure. It was built in the 1960s as a courageous act by Co-operative Bulk Handling. It cost $90 million, and these days, when you talk about the wheat terminal in Kwinana, you get the NIMBYs who would prefer, because it is bright blue, that it not blight their skyline. You get the people who do not like the dust that occasionally settles on the sea and helps grow fantastic mussels. You get the people who question whether or not that terminal is in the right spot. That terminal is a critical piece of Australian infrastructure. It cost a cooperative $90 million 40 years ago. It is an investment that today would not be made. Today, if you had to replace it, it would cost over $2 billion. It is an investment for future generations of Western Australians from great farmers who made a decision to build it. The beneficiaries today are a grateful generation of farmers and of workers in my electorate who work at that terminal. It exports our principal export crop. When you are dealing with a principal export crop, you want to deal with the freest, most open market circumstances that can be created, and you want to deal with that before you take your crop off.
The grain industry in Western Australia has a courageous and a unique history. From the days of its creation in the middle 1830s, at a time of starvation and malnutrition, our farmers in Western Australia began to understand the poor nature and the poor quality of their soils and they began to understand the importance of trace elements. The development of that industry grows in concert with the understanding of the addition of trace elements. It also grows at a time of the expansion of mechanised farming, the introduction of the internal combustion engine, and the opening up of a fantastic grain belt, made available to farmers in Western Australia because of science and because of an appropriate combination of agricultural common sense and know-how and industrial technology. So we develop a grain belt in Western Australia which is beyond any doubt the envy of the world.
Just the other day I was at a CBH function which marked a massive investment in grain rail infrastructure, an investment in infrastructure to carry five billion tonnes of grain around Western Australia and to bring it to our ports and our silos. Of those five billion tonnes, 3½ billion tonnes are our wheat crop, and it is that wheat crop that we discuss in this bill here today. The grain industry in Western Australia is a critical pillar of our social development, our community development, our own sense of being and, importantly, our economy. It is why our Premier supports this bill. But, unfortunately, our Premier does not have a voice in this parliament on this issue, because his own party in this place has deserted him.
The Western Australian grain rail system involves 1,200 kilometres of rail capacity to carry this crop to our markets. Five hundred million dollars from the Western Australian government, from the Commonwealth government and from CBH, from farmers, has been invested in the latest technology upgrade and uplift to bring our grains to market. We want it to come to the best possible market. We want it to come to a deregulated market. We want it to come to a transparent market. We want it to come to the market that our farmers want to take it to. All of us in this place should celebrate the removal of regulation and not seek to extend regulation, even for limited periods of time. Where we can, we should take regulations out of the system. We all know that. A decision not to support this bill is a decision to send a bill of $3 million to our farming community and to then impose a further bill of $1 million on our combined bulk-handling operations.
Today, wheat is exported from Western Australia to more than 20 countries. Major shipments go to China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Iran and Pakistan. They go in bulk and they go in containers. Our systems for managing and handling our grain exports in Western Australia are built on the great insight that is brought to this industry by combined bulk handling, by the insightful decision made in the 1960s by Mick Gayfer to put into the industry a $90 million investment, which at that time people would have thought was mad. The generation who are the beneficiaries of that courageous investment, of that courageous decision, now want to say, 'Let's really get the benefit of what our forefathers have done.' By putting in place the best grain-gathering system, by investing in that grain-gathering system, by investing in our export infrastructure, we have made available the capacity to deliver great gains and great benefits for Western Australian farmers. This season is not going to be a great season. It did not rain much in June or July. The August rains did not really get into our grain belt and much of the September rains did not get into our southern wheat belt, although some did get through to the northern part of our wheat belt. But it is not going to be a bumper crop like last year's 14 million tonnes. It is probably going to be closer to nine million tonnes. At a time of pinched markets and difficult circumstances for our farmers because of increased costs and the difficult situation with the high Australian dollar, why would we want to make it harder for our principal export market industry, the grains industry in Western Australia? Why make it harder?
Members opposite have conceded: 'In time, we will get around to it. In time we will get around to this deregulation.' The time is now, a month before the grain crop is taken off in Western Australia, a month before up in the northern part of the grain belt they start to get their machines going to harvest their crops, and six weeks before they start to do that around my family's wheat properties in Kellerberrin and Doodlakine. It is around a month before they will do it in other parts of the southern wheat belt.
Farmers deserve to know the conditions under which they will sell their crops before they take off their crops. I can do no more than politely plead with this House and the members opposite to heed the views of Western Australian wheat farmers, heed the views of the Western Australian Premier on this matter and heed the views of those farmers who genuinely want to gain the best dollar they can for the crop into which their families have invested their livelihoods—a crop which saw an extremely uncertain 90 days at the start of this growing season and which is critical to the sustained health and welfare of our farming sector in Western Australia.
I know and I understand what difficult decisions look like. I know and I understand that the Australian wheat industry is not the same on the east coast as it is on the west coast. But I am a Western Australian and a person whose family connections are with this industry, a person who knows it and cares about it. Every November I take great pride in taking my sons with my father-in-law up to the family farm to watch the crop being taken off. It is reasonable that at the time at which we watch that crop being taken off, my brother-in-law and his family should understand the conditions under which it will be sold. That is a reasonable proposition. It is a sensible proposition.
What the government and the parliament are attempting to do here in this bill is consistent with years of discussion. It is consistent with undertakings given by this parliament on many occasions to seek to remove the wheat export arrangements currently in place. It is good public policy. It is good policy for the farmers of Western Australia. They have reasonably sought that their Western Australian parliamentary representatives support them in this place, and I am extremely pleased that Mr Crook has agreed to do just that. I am extremely pleased that people are listening to the Western Australian farmers. But I plead: this is an important matter, and there is time before this vote is taken for people to change their views and consider the central, thoughtful proposition that farmers, before they take their crop off, should understand the conditions under which their crop is to be marketed. I thank the House for its indulgence.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:26): The Australian wheat industry is heavily exports focused, with as much as 70 per cent of wheat production each year being exported throughout the world. Australia, historically, has been one of the top five major wheat-exporting countries. Let me from the outset declare a passionate interest in wheat growing and the future viability and prosperity of the industry. I grew up on wheat farms at Marrar until 1968 and then until 1986 at Brucedale between Wagga Wagga and Junee. My late father, Lance, grew wheat, and two of my brothers-in-law, Gary Brill and Ian Buchanan, are wheat growers at Wallacetown and The Gap respectively.
In 2010-11, Australia was the third largest wheat exporter, behind the United States of America and the European Union. On 4 June 2008, the transition to a deregulated wheat export market began with the abolition of the single-desk wheat-marketing arrangements, a dark day in the eyes of most growers to whom I have spoken. The Wheat Export Marketing Act 2008 established a system for regulating the export of bulk wheat such that exporters of bulk wheat had to be accredited under the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme, which is administered by Wheat Exports Australia and primarily funded from the wheat export exchange. A total of 32 companies have been approved for export by Wheat Exports Australia, all of which have operated effectively. Nineteen of these are actively exporting.
In 2010-11, 18.5 million tonnes were exported; however, only seven companies exported more than one million tonnes. This wheat was exported to 52 countries for a value of $5.9 billion. Of the exported grain, 16.3 million tonnes were bulk and the remaining 12 per cent was in containers. These statistics highlight the regional monopolies which are operating in the grain market. Furthermore, of the 16 ports, 13 are dominated by the exporter who owns the port.
New South Wales Farmers, Grain Producers Australia, the Victorian Farmers Federation, AgForce, the South Australian Farmers Federation and Grain Producers South Australia all have concerns on the public record about the grain supply for bulk exports currently being dominated by three established bulk handlers, stifling a competitive environment which could benefit farmers. The infrastructure networks belonging to these bulk handlers allow a natural monopoly as they have the integrated receiver, up-country storage and the port terminal services. This undoubtedly provides an advantage in the wheat export market when they become grain-trading entities.
The bill before the House implements the government's response to the Productivity Commission's recommendations on wheat-exporting marketing arrangements. If passed, this bill will remove the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme and wheat export charge on 30 September 2012, abolish Wheat Exports Australia on 31 December 2012, and continue the operation of the port access test, to be administered by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission from 1 October 2012 until at least 30 September 2014. The access test will then be abolished on the condition that a non-prescribed, voluntary industry code of conduct covering access to grain export terminals is in place.
The coalition does not support this bill to abolish Wheat Exports Australia and believes consultation with industry is the best way to address the outstanding issues. Consultation with all of the industry is something that has been severely lacking in this, as with so many other Labor policies brought before this House in recent times. The government did not widely consult with farm organisations on this bill and relied on a task force predominantly made up of large grain trader representatives.
The coalition has consulted with a large number of farmer groups and grain marketers and is of the view the majority support the retention of Wheat Exports Australia, at least until unresolved issues are addressed. As a result of these discussions, the shadow minister for agriculture and food security has moved an amendment to the second reading, calling on the government to extend the operation of the wheat marketing authority for not less than six months after the resumption of the 44th Parliament to enable the government of the day to modify Wheat Exports Australia or replace it with another body to better represent the needs of the wheat industry.
Further, the coalition commits to a consultation process that will begin immediately and provide stakeholders with a forum to outline what wheat industry issues need to be addressed. The majority of growers have presented a position that calls for oversight of the market to ensure transparency and competition, which has not currently been achieved. Former National Farmers' Federation president Graham Blight has said there is 'no equity in the marketplace', and he is right, of course. The proposed abolition of all statutory oversight is premature and such a decision should be based on evidence of the effective and efficient operation of the export wheat supply chain.
Many growers feel there is a need for a statutory body to oversee the industry and for it operate in a similar way to the old Wheat Export Authority. This is certainly the feeling amongst growers in my electorate of Riverina, and Ian Munro of Rankins Springs, better known as Jock, has been the most vocal about wheat issues in my time in parliament. I appreciate his forthright stance and his ongoing passion for the industry. Mr Munro describes the current system as 'unfair and inequitable' and believes a statutory body could police the ports and ensure equitable access for traders, especially the smaller traders who struggle against the regional monopolies.
A code of conduct is not viewed by growers as having enough power to ensure all parties will abide by it and it will benefit only the traders, not the growers. Evidence also suggests the export wheat supply chain is not mature enough to self-regulate and there is no precedent for an industry code of conduct in the agricultural sector.
Mr Munro also voiced concerns about the imbalance of the availability of wheat stocks information. This is an important mechanism to determine pricing levels throughout the wheat export supply chain, and Mr Munro's concerns were shared by many submissions from growers and exporters made to the Senate inquiry into the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012. Lack of access to this information has led to dissatisfaction amongst grower groups, market and price discovery inefficiencies and an inability for growers to make informed decisions on what crops to grow.
The current accreditation system also needs improvement to ensure accreditation is based upon performance and not character. The scheme does not need to be and should not be inflexible but must ensure symmetry in the supply chain around stocks intelligence, which could be anti-competitive, and maintain the integrity of the Australian wheat varietal classification system, ensure contract terms and specification compliance and recognise the need for greater transparency and improved confidence in the integrity and quality of Australian wheat.
The farmers organisations that have banded together have called for amendments to the present regulations to ensure accreditation is not a bureaucratic threshold to a competitive market but rather a tool to create a market environment where everyone is on an equal playing field. There is also the need for a monitoring role for export cargoes, bulk and non-bulk, to provide assurances around the quality and varietal integrity of wheat exports.
New South Wales Farmers supports the creation of a scheme to protect and continue to build a premium for Australian grain through quality assurance systems for exported wheat. This view is shared amongst other growers who are concerned a few dodgy operators would have the potential to ruin Australia's reputation for providing quality wheat if the industry goes down this path. Currently, by utilising the wheat export charge as the primary funding source to provide ongoing effective oversight of the export wheat markets, there are adequate capacity and resources. In order for any structure to provide effective oversight it will need a charter that provides appropriate oversight for the new role and function.
New South Wales Farmers President Fiona Simson has voiced her concern about this bill. Her organisation believes the liberalised wheat export market has not yet delivered the purported market benefits to grain farmers in terms of competition for wheat and improved on-farm returns. New South Wales Farmers would also like to see a scheme that requires reporting of information on available stocks of wheat and the quality of uncommitted wheat warehoused by grain exporters. They believe this would also ensure fair terms of access to port terminal services and benchmark the market to build competition for farmers' grain.
This bill certainly has had vocal opposition towards it from the grain industry and has forced grain marketers to address the issues of port access, the voluntary code and other sectors of grain producer representation to try to get a cohesive arrangement working in the best interests of Australian grain. There have been positive signs and industry now needs to build on this with the WEA.
The coalition is committed to continuing discussions with the wheat industry to help create the best environment for it to be able, given good seasons, to prosper. Whilst the coalition is eager to partake in this process, yet again this situation underscores the inability of this Labor government to understand and resolve issues, especially in the agricultural sector. For Australia to continue to be a top quality wheat exporter it is essential that systems are in place to ensure the product being exported has the necessary quality assurance programs and all growers have the necessary access to wheat stocks information to make informed decisions about which crops to grow and what their returns will be.
The latest issue of the Grains Research and Development Corporation journal Ground Cover, for June-July, tells of our quality issues in Asia, the fact the USA is stealing a march on us and that our wheat is losing its relative value. Alexandra Roginski writes:
Australian grain traders need to improve the traceability and consistency of grain within shipments if Australian wheat is to meet the functional needs of end-users and maintain its hard-won foothold in South-East Asian markets.
She added this was the finding of a GRDC funded study by the Centre for Grain Food Innovation in Perth. While Asia is a fast-growing market for wheat and flours derived from Australian wheat, its bakery sector is not satisfied with the traditional bulk commodity approach to Australian exports. This is another reason why the retention of Wheat Exports Australia is important until a proven structure or arrangement is put in place to address the issues that have arisen since deregulation. Professor of Food and Agribusiness Marketing at Curtin University, Peter Batt, who conducted the research with Associate Professor Fay Rola-Rubzen, says Australia still treats wheat as a commodity to be sold en masse. Instead, he argues, there needs to be an urgent shift in focus to maximising value through product differentiation for the range of end-uses in South-East Asia. Tellingly, Professor Batt says that many of those in the industry bemoaned the lack of Australian technical support and people to talk to in the absence of a single selling desk.
Import statistics show that it is a matter of value. In an increasingly competitive South-East Asian market, Australia is a dominant wheat supplier. But Professor Batt says that that volume does not automatically equate to higher prices per tonne. The most recent import statistics per country reveal the position of Australian wheat. Australia was the biggest exporter of wheat to Indonesia and Singapore in 2010, Malaysia in 2008 and Vietnam in 2009. Thai statistics for 2010 show Australian wheat coming second to the US. Where available, statistics on wheat flour by country show Australia as 12th on the list of exporters to Singapore and ninth on the Thai list. In Indonesia's wheat and wheat flour market in 2010 Australian wheat accounted for about 60 per cent of imports, but realised only 58 per cent of the value. This two per cent gap equated to about US$34 million in lost income to Australian growers. By comparison, Canada supplied 13.6 per cent of the wheat but took home 14.9 per cent of the payments. The US provided 11 per cent of the wheat and took home 11.63 per cent of the earnings. In the Thai market in 2010 Australian wheat was priced at US$272 per tonne, compared to US$297.50 per tonne for US wheat and US$282 per tonne for Canadian wheat. Between 2009 and 2010 Australian wheat decreased in price by about $13 per tonne, while US wheat increased by about $4.60 per tonne. Again, this highlights the need to remain steady on this valuable export industry, to get things right, to put in place measures to maximise our potential and to help and protect growers, who have been through more than enough angst in recent times.
National Farmers' Federation President Jock Laurie, on his recent return from Indonesia, said grain importers there raised concerns about the quality of our exports, saying the final delivered product is failing to match the standards of what had been promised in the original contracts. The Indonesian concerns follow the demise of the single desk. Mr Laurie was part of an Australian delegation including the federal trade and agriculture ministers that visited Indonesia in July for important talks on market issues and opportunities. According to Wheat Exports Australia, Indonesia has been Australia's biggest export market over the past seven years, buying an average of almost 2.5 million tonnes per year.
Many growers will steer away from pools and rely on spot cash prices at harvest, which will further weaken the harvest price if this bill goes through. The WEA was able to demonstrate how beneficial it could be to the industry by conducting research into an important aspect of grains marketing, and reporting to industry and government. That is how it should be. If Labor really cared about the Australian wheat industry, instead of shutting down the WEA it would give the authority powers to benchmark the performance of accredited exporters and bulk and container shipments and to publish export information.
Not only is Labor intending to shut down the accreditation process but the bill redirects possibly up to $2 million of paid, unused levy money to the minister to control in a vague, unspecified fund that will almost certainly be used to pay for other government functions in a cost-shifting exercise. You cannot trust Labor with money. How many times have we seen this in recent years? If the WEA is to be shut down, and that is far from settled, grain growers should be the ones deciding where unused levy funds are spent.
This is another example of Labor's contempt for agriculture. Labor has cut $2 billion from the agriculture department in the past four years, and the scrapping of the WEA is just another step in the process of getting rid of the agriculture department. I commend to members an article written by the New South Wales Farmers' Association grains committee chair, Mark Hoskinson, from Kikoira, in The Land, headed 'Bill breaches government promise,' and seek leave to table the opinion piece. (Time expired)
Leave granted.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:41): As the member for Riverina and other members on the other side of the House well know, wheat is one of the very last federally regulated commodities in Australia. The Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012 is continuing a process of deregulating the bulk wheat export market. That is bringing wheat into line with other agricultural commodities markets and it is doing so for the benefit of wheat farmers, so they can maximise their return, be globally competitive and continue to occupy their place in the national landscape.
I had the privilege of working in the late 1990s with the late Senator Peter Cook, a Western Australian senator, who I know was passionate about two things. One was wheat; the other was free trade. Senator Cook played a key role in the period in which the wheat-for-weapons scandals were being uncovered. The subsequent Cole inquiry began the process that is now underway. This steady movement away from a single desk towards a more market oriented approach is a process that was supported by Liberals on the other side of the House as recently as 2008. But as a media release from the chairman of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, John Snooke, has noted:
The reason the Liberal Party split from their coalition partners in 2008 and supported Labor's deregulation Bill was that the Nationals' policy on wheat export marketing was proven to be an abject failure.
It goes on to say:
What is very clear is that Mr Abbott has fallen for the old Nationals’ chestnut of confusing everyone into thinking that you can deregulate through regulating.
It finishes up by saying:
All Mr Abbott's joint statement will do is show that the Liberal Party is no longer prepared to stand against the protectionist policies of the Nationals.
I do think it is a pity when those opposite who understand the importance of free markets and deregulation end up falling back into the old DLP tendencies that are so strong in the National Party and that have now come to prevail in the Liberal Party, whether it be scaring the Australian people over foreign investment, whether it be conducting outrageous scare campaigns on market based environmental solutions such as water buybacks in the Murray-Darling or a price on carbon or whether it be siding with the Nationals on protectionism over free markets.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Fraser will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
United States Presidential Election
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (13:45): The US presidential election is tightening. Monday's Pew Research Centre poll found 49 per cent of likely voters favoured Republican candidate Mitt Romney and 45 per cent favoured President Barack Obama. Gallop and Rasmussen polls had the candidates level pegging. This is a massive 12-point turnaround from where the polls were a month ago and can be traced back to Mitt Romney's barnstorming performance in the first presidential debate.
What this means is that the presidential race is now game on—anyone can win—which makes the Australian Labor Party's personal and vitriolic attacks on the Republican Party and its candidates all the more damaging and alarming. Let us not forget that Wayne Swan, Treasurer of Australia, called the Republicans 'cranks and crazies'. Foreign Minister Bob Carr in his blog just before entering parliament described Mitt Romney as 'bloodless', former House Speaker and Republican candidate Newt Gingrich as 'the mad professor' and former Republican Senator Rick Santorum as someone who 'lusts for war'. In Carr's words, these 'unworthy opportunists petrified' him. Can you believe it—Australia's foreign minister, our number one diplomat, saying that the man who could very well become the next President of the United States petrifies him.
Let us not forget that, when John Howard made comments about candidate Obama back in 2007, Senator Penny Wong, now finance minister, rushed out a press release saying that risked the strength of the US alliance. Let us hear her say that now—no more double standards from the Labor Party. Forget Bruce Springsteen; we want real politicians who care about the real national interest. Attacking Republicans to shore up your political base is dangerous and against the national interest. (Time expired)
International Day of the Girl Child
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:46): Today, 11 October, we celebrate for the first time the International Day of the Girl Child. This day represents an important step forward in promoting the rights of girls, highlighting gender inequality and addressing the various forms of discrimination and abuse suffered by girls around the world. The terrible news this week of the shooting by the Taliban of 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai in Pakistan for advocating education for girls shows why such a day is necessary.
The recognition by the United Nations General Assembly of the International Day of the Girl Child is a significant achievement by Plan International, among others, which has been a strong and passionate advocate for this cause. Yesterday the International Day of the Girl Child was celebrated at an event in Parliament House hosted by Plan, the Australian Council for International Development and the United Nations Information Centre and attended by the Prime Minister and many parliamentary colleagues and members of the diplomatic community.
Millions of girls are getting left behind. Statistics show that girls are less likely to complete school and gain meaningful employment, and are more likely to experience rape or other forms of sexual violence, as well as being subjected to forced and early marriage. We know that reducing gender inequality and empowering girls and women is the fastest way to lift countries out of poverty. The Australian government through our aid program will continue to work with girls, communities and governments around the world to improve the lives of the most vulnerable. Today, we celebrate the inaugural International Day of the Girl Child.
Townsville Hospital
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (13:48): On Saturday night I had the pleasure to act as auctioneer for the Townsville Hospital Foundation. Justice Stuart Durward is a judge of the District Court of Queensland and the chair of the Townsville Hospital Foundation, and he lifted all restraining orders against me for the evening. Dr Robert Tam is a heart specialist in Townsville, and he spoke beautifully about the need for resources for the Townsville Hospital. He also did a portrait of Alan Border. Terry and Annette Walters have been doing this work for a fair while. Johnny Mac has had his own bout with cancer, and his work has been relentless—he has no voice left. He spoke about his battle with cancer and he said he was okay because he had spent some time with a two-year-old who was dying of leukaemia, and she had a smile on her face, so he said what he had was absolutely nothing.
IGA franchisees from all over Australia were there. There was the cast from the local production of Hairspray, including my friend Vicky Saylor, who helped us with the music. We raised $141,000 on the night, with over 700 people packing a marquee at Jupiters in Townsville. Steve Price, a local radio dignitary, was the MC. The prizes were donated by local donors, including Universal Mitre 10 hardware, the mighty North Queensland Cowboys, who had every player donate their Women in League jersey, Jewellery by Design and many more. As an auctioneer, you are only ever as good as the people in front of you, and there is no better crowd than the people of Townsville. I thank them all for the work they did.
Boronia Multicultural Services
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:49): I rise today to mention the fantastic work of Boronia Multicultural Services, which is located in Toongabbie in my electorate. Boronia Multicultural Services is a non-profit advocacy and support service for refugees and migrants of non-English-speaking background living in the Holroyd and Parramatta local government areas, supported by grants from the federal government.
Last week I had the privilege of attending their 2011-12 annual general meeting in Toongabbie. This is their 23rd year of providing support to families of refugee and migrant backgrounds in my electorate and also the electorate of the member for Parramatta. Boronia's mission statement outlines that their objective is:
… to assist with the advancement and promotion of a culturally and linguistically diverse community through facilitating equal access, opportunity and participation for all, based on the principles of social justice, access and equity.
Its activities include mother support groups, sewing, computer classes and swimming classes, as well as specific projects such as empowering refugee Tamil women by providing them with human rights education, leadership and advocacy training and mental well-being programs for Farsi and Dari speakers. All the staff and volunteers of BMS work tirelessly to achieve their mission and I would like to especially mention the excellent efforts of Ms Rugmini Venkatraman, Ms Thamaraiselvi Senthooran, Mr Michael Odur, Ms Mahin Rashtakhiz, Ms Sonu Aggarwal, Ms Jaspreet Walia and Ms Bec Reidy.
Organisations such as Boronia Multicultural Services help make the community I represent a great place to live. I thank them sincerely for their efforts and I look forward to working with them in the future and advocating on their behalf into the future.
Eastwood Park Korean Festival
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:51): On Saturday, Eastwood Park hosted the Korean Festival—a vibrant festival of food, food, more food and music and dance. An estimated 10,000 people attended. Dignitaries included Consul General Jin Soo Kim, who celebrated our two nations' close relationship over the past 60 years, together with Premier O'Farrell and state ministers Victor Dominello and Greg Smith. A special thank you goes to Hyun-Suk Son, better known as Hughie, President of the Macquarie University Korean Students' Association, for his wonderful support and translation work on the day. The Korean community makes Bennelong a great example of multiculturalism at its absolute best.
Tuggeranong Community Council
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:52): I rise today to pay special tribute to my friend Mr Darryl Johnston, who has recently retired as the president of the Tuggeranong Community Council and to welcome the incoming president, Nick Tsoulias. The Tuggeranong Community Council is a voluntary, not-for-profit, non-political, community based association operating in the Tuggeranong Valley in my electorate of Canberra. The TCC, as it is known, does an outstanding job in representing the local residents and the communities of this beautiful valley. The TCC is a vital organisation and its role is critical in building a bigger, better, healthier and happier community. I have attended many TCC meetings and I am always impressed by the range of issues and the dedication the council brings to making the valley one of the best places to live in Australia.
Darryl Johnston has been an outstanding president and I value his efforts and his friendship. The health and harmony of communities and suburbs are underpinned by the work of people like Darryl. His passion to improve the lives of those in Tuggeranong deserves recognition. I also want to congratulate Nick Tsoulias, who is the incoming president. He is a local businessman and is very prominent in promoting all things Calwell, particularly the festival.
Finally, I would like to congratulate Lauren Jackson on reaching 6,000 career points in the US WNBA. She is a true Canberra legend.
Stormwater harvesting
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:53): Last Thursday, the 4th of October, I had the pleasure of attending the announcement of the stormwater harvesting and reuse project, a $10.6 million joint initiative between the federal government and the Brisbane City Council, at Downey Park, Windsor—the home of Queensland netball and basketball. The member for Griffith was in attendance and it was an absolutely wonderful display of bipartisan cooperation. I want to thank my LNP colleagues, Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk and Councillor Vicki Howard, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water, Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, for their cooperation.
This project will save the equivalent of 74 Olympic sized swimming pools of water each year and is an innovative way to keep Brisbane a clean and green city. In total, the project will save more than 185 megalitres of water per year and will deliver a net economic benefit to the city in the order of $13.1 million over the next 25 years. The Downey Park precinct component of the project in the electorate of Brisbane will deliver water savings of 66.5 megalitres per year. I want to thank the member for Griffith for not seeking to hijack the launch—as he did at the opening of the Brisbane Common Ground project on 29 August this year—with any further sideshow antics and media pitching for lost job opportunities. This project will be rolled out to seven sites across Brisbane following community consultation regarding the final designs, with all systems to be fully operational by 2016. (Time expired)
National Gallery of Victoria
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (13:55): Last week my wife Amanda and I had the privilege of attending the opening of the new gallery of Japanese art at the National Gallery of Victoria. The refurbished gallery is dedicated to exhibiting the unique aspects of Japanese art. NGV director Tony Ellwood said:
Much of this collection will be on display for the first time as part of the opening exhibit, along with highlights from the exquisite Pauline Gandel Collection of Japanese lacquer.
In fact, the new gallery was made possible by philanthropic donations—the great philanthropy of Pauline Gandel in particular.
Eighteen months in the making, the new gallery has been designed in historically chronological and themed sections to display the mastery of Japanese craftsmanship and creativity. The curator of Asian art at the NGV, Wayne Crothers, said the gallery will usher in a new age of appreciation for the past, present and future of Japanese culture in Melbourne. He said:
The gallery is designed to create a unique experience for the visitor by using natural materials, warm colours and a minimal aesthetic. Several traditional Japanese interior features, including a tatami matted area for viewing scrolls and a recessed ceiling with shoji lattice screens will evoke the atmosphere of a traditional Japanese space.
Some of the highlights in the opening display include an historical Buddhist sculpture, a large mandala, Noh theatre robes and masks, fine porcelain, a noble samurai helmet and golden folding screens.
Attending the exhibition was not only an opportunity to thank Mrs Gandel for her philanthropy but also an opportunity to bid farewell to Shigekazu Sato, the Japanese Ambassador to Australia, after completing two years— (Time expired)
Small Business
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (13:55): It is becoming increasingly clear that this government is not only not on side with small business, it actually sees small business as the soft touch it needs to create the fiction-and-fudge surplus the Treasurer is so fond of talking about. Many people in this chamber and many listening would not be aware that, in the last financial year, the number of small business insolvencies instigated by the Australian Taxation Office went up by 116 per cent. On top of that, the Taxation Commissioner has signalled that he will go even harder this financial year. This sits alongside a recent report from the Inspector-General of Taxation that highlighted the heavy powers available to the tax office to cajole, threaten and intimidate small businesses into accepting default assessments—even where they might be wrong. We have seen go-away money in the workplace relations system; there is now go-away money happening in the tax system.
As the inspector-general highlighted, most small businesses have neither the resources, the funding nor the time to take on the tax office over an amended assessment. It is a scandal that this government, after being of no assistance whatsoever to small business since their election, now sees small business people as a soft target in trying to come up with some papered over arrangement for its budget black hole and the $120 billion it is yet to find for the election commitments and promises it has made. It is well past time for the small business community to have a government in Canberra that is on their side and supporting their success, instead of one targeting them as a soft touch. (Time expired)
Seen, Dr Andrew
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:58): I rise to congratulate Launceston University of Tasmania lecturer Andrew Seen for being awarded a citation for outstanding contributions to student learning at the Australian Awards for University Teaching in Melbourne last week. Dr Seen has spent only two years away from the Newnham campus since being a student there in 1982. He has used his unique style to help students follow their scientific interests for the past 15 years.
More than 160 Australian lecturers received recognition and Dr Seen was one of only three from Tasmania. Dr Seen encourages people to take responsibility for their own learning and guides them through their work. His research interests are in the development and application of passive sampling devices for sampling contaminants in the environment, as well as in understanding the sources, history and mobility of contaminants in the environment. Dr Seen's recent work includes establishing a historical profile of heavy metal pollution in the Tamar Valley through analysis of sediment cores from the Tamar Estuary, as well as studies on contaminant mobility at impacted sites in Antarctica. His research activities involve collaboration with industry and government organisations, including the Australian Antarctic Division, Nyrstar, Ecka Granules Australia and NRM North. Dr Seen is a true asset to our community and I congratulate him on his award. (Time expired)
Indonesia: Terrorist Attacks
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:59): Tomorrow we commemorate with great sadness one of the darkest days in Australian history, a specific moment in time when the people of Australia were attacked, albeit in a foreign land, a time when the people of Australia realised we are not immune from terrorism and some of the more horrific aspects of human nature and extremism. On 12 October 2002, Australia lost its innocence in what was and still is to this day—
The SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to say to the member for Higgins that, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
10th Anniversary of the Bali Bombings
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): On indulgence, on the matter that the member for Higgins was just addressing—Tomorrow is a very special and a very solemn day in the life of our nation: the 10th anniversary of the Bali bombings. For Australians everywhere, it will be a time for sorrow and reflection, remembrance and resolve. From our official ceremonies in Bali and here in Canberra to beachside gatherings at Coogee and on the Gold Coast, religious services in Melbourne and Perth, a fundraiser for the Burns Unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital and more gatherings, large and small, we will honour those who were lost, embrace those who survived and comfort those who grieve. I hope every Australian finds time tomorrow to reflect on this tragedy, either at one of the public gatherings or alone in the silence of their hearts.
Together we remember a great loss inflicted on our own, 88 Australians taken from us forever; 114 from other countries lost as well; and many more injured and hurt, with so many of their scars, physical and mental, yet to fully heal, if they ever do. We would give everything to erase the events of that night from the pages of history but we cannot.
We will carry the images of Bali on 12 October 2002 all the rest of our days. Its horror and its meaning are imprinted on all of our hearts forever. We will not forget the courage. We will not forget the loss. Tomorrow and always, we will remember.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): I join the Prime Minister in marking tomorrow's anniversary, because, for Australians, 12 October 2002 is a date that will always live in infamy. Eighty-eight Australians died; 202 people were killed in total. The places targeted were picked precisely because they were places frequented by Australians, so this was an attack on Australia. But it was more than that; it was an attack on civilisation. To our credit as a people, we did not lash out in fury at another country or at a particular religion. We worked with Indonesia to bring the perpetrators to justice. We will always be grateful to Indonesia and its people for doing so.
Our country was at its best in the aftermath of the Bali bombings. Of those caught up in the bombings, many were traumatised and all were changed, but not all for the worse. Some have subsequently been involved in magnificent humanitarian work, such as Peter Hughes and David and Clair Marsh.
I look forward to more help in the future for all the victims of terrorism. I also look forward to standing with the Prime Minister in Bali tomorrow to demonstrate our solidarity as Australians and to say to our country's enemies: you can hurt us but you can't break us.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:03): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence in relation to the 10th anniversary of the Bali bombings be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their comments. I will be thinking tomorrow of the Borgia, Webster and Zervos families in my electorate. I lost four constituents, four good Australians, that day.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Employment
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to today's labour market data, which shows that, since her carbon and mining taxes were introduced, the unemployment rate has risen to its highest level in 2½ years, with over 22,000 more Australians now unemployed. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to accept that the carbon and mining taxes are increasing costs, discouraging investment and hurting the job security of Australian workers?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:05): The Leader of the Opposition clearly misunderstands today's employment figures. I believe it is very important that Australians have the facts about these employment figures, rather than hearing the Leader of the Opposition's misrepresentations. Over 32,000 full-time jobs were created in September.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: Let me repeat that for opposition members who were screaming instead of listening: over 32,000 full-time jobs were created in September. There are 32,000 Australians who are now in full-time work. For those Australians, that is a life-changing moment, and it ought to be received as such by the opposition. Rather than interjecting or talking loudly amongst themselves, they should be celebrating the fact that 32,000 Australians got full-time work.
The headline figure for the unemployment data released today has been affected by increasing participation. What that means is that more people have gone to look for work; more people want to get jobs. That is the meaning of the participation rate. When we look at today's figures very specifically—and I think we owe it to Australians to do this—we can see that nearly two-thirds of the increase in unemployed persons can be accounted for by the result in Queensland. I think anybody who knows what is happening in Queensland would know why that is occurring. The explanation is a two-word explanation: Campbell Newman. Campbell Newman and his approach to sacking Queenslanders and putting them into unemployment is showing, and showing in these figures. The kinds of things that Liberals do once they are in government—cutting jobs, cutting work, throwing Australians onto the unemployment queue—is showing in the state of Queensland. What we already know from the Leader of the Opposition is: he endorses this approach and, as Prime Minister, would be out there drafting redundancy notices for over 12,000 public servants.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: So, on the unemployment data, what this should cause people to reflect on is the damage Liberals do in government to the jobs of working Australians. Look at the Queensland figures. There is the proof.
10th Anniversary of the Bali Bombings
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is Australia commemorating the 10th anniversary of the first Bali bombings?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): I thank the member for her question. We as a House have just had the opportunity to reflect on what these bombings meant to our nation, what they meant to each of us and the way in which Australians will go about their memorials and reflections tomorrow. To provide further details of the kinds of events that will happen tomorrow: they will enable Australians to have the opportunity and the moment to reflect, if they choose to involve themselves in a public event or even watch it on TV. Many people, of course, will do their reflection in their most private moments, but the government will hold memorial services in Bali and in Canberra. These services will provide an opportunity for people to gather to remember those killed and injured in the Bali tragedy. I will represent the government at the service in Bali, along with the Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister John Howard, while the Governor-General will lead the Canberra service. Further details about these memorial services can be found at the DFAT website for anyone who wants to see the very specific details.
The government has announced a comprehensive assistance package for families of those killed and seriously injured in the attacks planning to attend either memorial service. For many of the families, this will be a time where they do want to return to Bali and be there at the place where they lost their loved one and where their family was cost so much. For others, that clearly will not be possible. Some will exercise the option of attending the service in Canberra. For some, of course, that will not be their way of grieving. They will not want to take themselves to a public event; they will want to do something far more intimate and private with their own family members. But, for those Australians who lost so much who do want to attend these services, a package has been made available. That is providing a similar level of support to victims and family members as that provided by the Howard government for the first anniversary in 2003. The package includes assistance with airfares, accommodation and ground transport. Even at this late stage, if people want to ring the Bali Memorial Hotline on 136125, more details can be provided.
Our thoughts will be with these family members tomorrow as our nation grieves and remembers this event that radically changed our country.
Carbon Pricing
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her words only yesterday: 'Since we announced the carbon pricing scheme, 73,500 jobs have been created.' Is the Prime Minister aware that this represents the slowest jobs growth in an 18-month period since the depths of the 1990s recession? With unemployment rising further today, why does the Prime Minister think that the slowest jobs growth since the Keating recession is something to boast about?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:11): To the shadow Treasurer, I refer him to today's employment figures and the creation of 32,000 jobs. I refer him to the Leader of the Opposition's reckless fear campaign, which the shadow Treasurer is now trying to reinterpret because the shadow Treasurer must know the kind of nonsense that was spouted by the Leader of the Opposition. What the opposition went round saying for months and months and months was that the economy would basically halt the day carbon pricing came into effect, and that it would be a wrecking ball through our economy. Terminology like 'a permanent depression' was used. Whyalla was going to be wiped off the map.
Let us be very, very clear here: what the Leader of the Opposition effectively predicted was the loss of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. That was the nature of his fear campaign. The coal industry—not to exist anymore. The town of Whyalla—gone. All manufacturing—gone. A wrecking ball through the economy; a permanent depression. These were the predictions.
What has in fact happened—and the shadow Treasurer really knows this, but feels the need to fall in line with this reckless campaign—is that we have continued to see jobs growth. We have continued to see jobs growth at a time of volatility continuing in the global economy.
I would refer the shadow Treasurer to the work of the IMF. He might hang his head about that—needing to look at the work of the IMF—but it records, of course, the circumstances of the global economy and some of the things that are impacting on global growth rates. It also records the circumstances of the Australian economy, where we continue to see growth at trend, where we continue to see jobs created, and where we continue to see low unemployment rates. When you look around the world, who would you change with? America? No—higher than us. The UK? No—higher than us. Parts of Europe with unemployment rates at 20 per cent or 25 per cent? Here, in the Australian economy: low unemployment; low inflation; a triple-A credit rating from all three major credit ratings agencies—something never achieved by the Howard government in office.
The opposition should stop talking the Australian economy down. Australians are proud of the economy we have created. We have done it together—employers, employees, unions and the government, working in partnership in the worst economic downturn since the great recession of the late 1920s, and we have come through, building jobs, and we will continue to build for the future through our clean energy package and build jobs at the same time.
Carbon Pricing
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:14): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. Will the minister update the House on the carbon price and its impact on household electricity prices? Why is it important that Australians hear the truth regarding the impact of the carbon price on their electricity bills?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:15): I thank the member for Reid for his question. The government has been entirely up-front about the impact of the carbon price on household electricity bills, because the Treasury modelling found the carbon price would increase household electricity prices by an average of 10 per cent, which equates to an average of $3.30 per week across Australian households. To meet that impact, the government is deploying the majority of the revenue from the carbon price to implement tax cuts and increase pensions, family tax benefits and other Commonwealth payments, to an average of $10.10 per week in households across the country—$10.10 versus $3.30 a week in electricity bills.
Electricity regulator price determinations and the market itself have confirmed the Treasury modelling. In fact, in some jurisdictions the impact is less than the Treasury modelling. In South Australia, for example, the average household impact is just $1.50 per household per week. It is important to establish those facts, because the Leader of the Opposition consistently engages in a cowardly campaign of frightening people in the community and, in particular, of trying to terrify pensioners about the impact of carbon pricing.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson is warned!
Mr COMBET: Just yesterday, the opposition leader, in question time, made a false statement, a false claim, about the electricity bill of an elderly Western Australian. The opposition leader told the House:
With an $800 increase in just one bill, of which 70 per cent is due to the carbon tax …
That is completely fallacious, totally wrong, totally deceitful. Even the most cursory examination of that bill that the opposition leader reluctantly tabled demonstrates that he did not read it. The most cursory examination of the bill demonstrates two things: a clear statement by the energy retailer that the carbon price impact is just 9.13 per cent—if you had bothered to read it, you might have noticed before you brought it into the House for your very first question. Your very first question, and you get it wrong. You do not read it.
The SPEAKER: Minister, the use of the word 'you' is inappropriate.
Mr COMBET: I apologise. The second thing evident from the most cursory examination of this bill is that the electricity consumption almost doubled compared to the previous billing period. The statements that are made by the Leader of the Opposition are totally false, totally deceitful, totally gutless. People are starting to see through the deceit that is being engaged in here and they are going to judge you very harshly. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the cost of electricity, which has risen 64 per cent since Labor came to power, the cost of water and sewerage, which has risen 59 per cent, and the cost of insurance, education and medical services, which have all gone up by more than 30 per cent. Why is the Prime Minister making the lives of all Australians harder by slugging consumers with a carbon tax that is designed to push up electricity prices?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:19): From the Leader of the National Party what we see is a continuation of the campaign of deceit that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency was just exposing to this parliament—a campaign of falsehoods and misrepresentations, a campaign designed to put fear into Australians, a campaign that every step of the way neglects the facts, including bringing into the parliament yesterday an electricity bill no-one in the opposition had bothered to read, which on its face clearly supported what the government has been saying about the increase in electricity pricing caused by carbon.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: I know the member for Sturt does not want people to have the facts, but these are the facts. What the Leader of the National Party has just done in pursuit of misleading Australians is he has tried to combine electricity price rises from different sources and pretend that they are all about carbon. That is wholly untrue. That is a misrepresentation. That is an attempt to mislead. What the Leader of the National Party actually knows is that the impact on electricity prices is 10 per cent—$3.30 a week on average, when, on average, households have received assistance of $10.10 a week. Yes, there have been shocking increases in electricity that come from other sources and are the responsibility, in part, of policy settings of state governments—something about which the Leader of the National Party, to my knowledge, has never said anything, because instead he prefers to engage in this campaign of misleading.
Australians do face cost-of-living pressures. There is no doubt about that. So the government has worked with Australians on those cost-of-living pressures, and we will continue to do so. That has included providing tax cuts, including making sure that people can earn $18,200 a year without paying a cent of tax. It has included family payment increases, including the package of sharing the benefits from the boom, opposed by those opposite. It has included the schoolkids bonus, which, to a person, everybody opposite marched in and voted against. It has included putting more money into child care, which of course is there to support families with their cost-of-living pressures.
There is one opposition member who is prepared to tell the truth about these things—that is, Mal Washer, who has said:
We beat the drum too hard on the carbon tax—everyone has stopped listening to the sound of it. The marrow has gone out of it—we need to move on to other issues.
I suggest to the Leader of the National Party that he talk to Mal Washer about telling the truth. (Time expired)
Electricity Pricing
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:22): Before the clock starts: today is CanTeen day. Like the member for Herbert and many others, I am sure we all support kids with cancer.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, regulators, electricity market participants, economists and market experts all have been indicating failures for some time in electricity price regulation. In the light of this, will your government support moves to unify national electricity laws through an act of this parliament and to address the failed appeals process that has led already to a pointless $1.9 billion in just three years transferred from households and businesses in New South Wales directly to the New South Wales government?
Mr Randall: Thank you, Dorothy!
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:23): I thank the member for his question and note that his question is trying to get to some of the real causes of price rises in electricity. I am not surprised that it was objected to by the opposition, because they do not want people to have the facts about this matter. The member is pointing to issues which are impacting on electricity prices and have been the drivers of the big increases families have seen—40 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent—and he has particularly pointed to the drivers of costs in New South Wales.
He is right to point to a set of market failures here—a market failure which means that there is a perverse incentive to continue to see more and more and more investment in the poles and wires of the system, the so-called gold plating. This is a market design problem. He is also right to point to the fact that there are issues associated with state governments, including the New South Wales State government—indeed, one could probably say particularly the New South Wales State government—seeking to get major dividend streams from electricity, given that they are the owners of the assets, and that those dividend streams end up being paid for by households and businesses across New South Wales. These are very concerning issues.
From the other side of politics we have seen these issues denied. The Leader of the Opposition used to deny that network prices had been rising, ignoring households in his own electorate and across New South Wales who are now paying over $1,300 a year in network costs, when in 2007-08 they only paid $500 a year.
It is the government's intention to work on these issues through COAG processes, including the processes engaged in by energy ministers, to deal with these market design issues and consequently to have an impact on price determinations in the future. The government is committed to that program of work. I understand that the member is going to bring before the parliament a private member's bill on this issue. We have not as yet seen the contents of that bill, and of course we are respecters of the role of private members' business, but the government's commitments relate to its work program. We will be keen to discuss this with members of goodwill across the parliament—that is, people who are prepared to deal with the public policy issues, to understand the facts, to put aside the reckless and silly fear campaigning and to act on behalf of their constituents in a responsible way.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:26): I have been advised that the former Premier of South Australia the Hon. John Bannon is in the gallery today. We welcome him to question time.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:26): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the current outlook for the Australian economy? What does this say about the importance of investing for the future?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:26): I thank the member for his question, because tomorrow I will attend the IMF and World Bank meetings in Tokyo. This is a difficult time in the global economy. We saw earlier this week the IMF revise down its global forecast. We see recession in Europe. We see a moderating of growth in the US. Of course, this is impacting on growth, in particular, in our region. The meetings this weekend will be important in assessing all of these trends and shaping the response of global bodies, including the IMF, to these challenging times.
It is the case that our economy is not immune from the fallout of what is happening elsewhere in the global economy. Locally, given these global headwinds, we also have a higher dollar and we have a cautious consumer, and that is weighing on some sectors of our economy. But, if you take all of these things into account and you look at the fundamentals of the Australian economy, you see an economy which is still the envy of the developed world. The IMF is still forecasting, for Australia, growth which is greater than that of every single major developed economy over this year and next. We had the revision from the IMF only a couple of days ago, which shows that our economy is the 12th largest in the world, up three places since we came to office.
I think all of this reflects the fact that we have strong fundamentals, and it reflects all of the hard work that has been done by Australian business and of course by workers in this country. It also reflects the response that this government put in place to the global financial crisis and the global recession—the fact that we, almost alone, avoided recession and the fact that we have been able to support employment in our community, with over 800,000 jobs created in this country since this government came to office, despite all of the circumstances of the global financial crisis and the global recession. That is something that I think everyone on this side of the House is immensely proud of because, when it comes to employment, that is the key to economic strength.
That is why it was pleasing today to see that the expected jobs growth for September was 14,500, driven by strong growth in full-time employment: 32,100 additional jobs when it comes to full-time employment. Of course, the participation rate did go up and that meant that more people came into the labour market. It also meant that the unemployment rate did go up. But what we have to keep in mind is that this is a very strong figure for Australia and we should not be talking it down, as the shadow Treasurer the Leader of the Opposition do every day of the week. As a Queenslander, I believe the Queensland economy also has a bright future, but it was very disappointing to see the results in Queensland, with the largest fall in monthly employment on record: 20,900 jobs. (Time expired)
Electricity Prices
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (14:30): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to this electricity bill—
Government members interjecting—
Mr BILLSON: It matters to the people in my electorate, Prime Minister. This electricity bill, from The Bays Hospital in Mornington—
Mr Gibbons interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo is warned! The one thing that I and the person being asked do need to hear is the question. The member for Dunkley has the call and his time will commence again.
Mr BILLSON: My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to this electricity bill from The Bays Hospital in Mornington. A statement from its CEO says that The Bays Hospital is a small not-for-profit community hospital and that the carbon adjustment costs will be $44,000, without compensation and with no ability to pass on the costs to patients. How does the Prime Minister expect the Bays Hospital to find the extra money? Or does the Prime Minister expect that it will cut services?
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I would ask the member for Dunkley to table the bill that he referred to as 'this bill'.
Mr BILLSON: Madam Speaker, I am happy to do that. I would actually like an answer and then—
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canning is warned! If he wants to get into the Speaker's chair, maybe he could speak to the Leader of the Opposition about having some spots filled by opposition members.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:31): To the member who asked the question: it is obviously impossible for me to address the specific circumstances of this hospital when the member will not table the account that he says he is relying on and when our experience, day after day, in this parliament is that electricity bills are misrepresented by the opposition, misrepresented in the most gross ways, misrepresented in order to further their fear campaign and misrepresented in order to deny the facts. Just to emphasise that point, we saw absurd claims made about the individual electricity bill of a pensioner in Western Australia, when anybody who had bothered to read it saw that the increase was 9.13 per cent. On health costs—
Mr Billson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I invite you to have the Prime Minister answer the question. The claims are from the CEO of the hospital. I am not sure that it is fair to suggest that the CEO's claim is absurd at all.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me make it very clear that I am not addressing my remarks to the CEO of the hospital; I am addressing them to the member who asked the question and his refusal to table the document in order to inform this answer. And one wonders why he is refusing. On the question of health costs, the Commonwealth Treasury and the Department of Health and Ageing estimate that the impact of the carbon price will be 0.3 per cent of hospital costs.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: Let me repeat that again and, as the opposition interject, I am talking about figures of the Treasury and the department of health, which are the same agencies which advised the Howard government. So members of the opposition ought to treat them with some respect rather than engage in interjecting.
The impact of the carbon price will be 0.3 per cent. That is the equivalent of only 3c in every $10 that a hospital spends. When you look at what this government has determined to do with respect to funding of hospitals, you will see that it has increased funding to hospitals in a way which means that we are covering the extra costs many times over. To take just one figure: indexation of the hospital agreement will see federal hospital funding increase by 6.5 per cent in 2012-13, going up each year to more than 10 per cent indexation in 2015-16.
So let us just make that clear again to the opposition, which does not want to absorb the facts: indexation of hospitals is going up to 10 per cent. This is a stark contrast to the days when the Leader of the Opposition was ripping $1 billion out of Australia's hospital system, $1 billion as uncovered—
Mr Dutton: That's a lie!
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Dickson will withdraw.
Mr Dutton: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member. The Prime Minister will return to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In returning to the question, there is no doubt, as a result of the way in which we have determined to fund hospitals, that hospitals are receiving extra resources under this government. The member should not be misrepresenting the circumstance with carbon pricing, which is the equivalent of only 3c in every $10 that hospitals spend. (Time expired)
Mr Billson: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the basic courtesies of this place, I seek leave to table this document and refute the claim that there was some other motive.
The SPEAKER: The member for Dunkley has other opportunities to do that. Leader of the House, is leave granted to table the document?
Leave granted.
The SPEAKER: The member for Dunkley may table the document.
Employment
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Will the minister outline how the government is supporting jobs and working Australians during this time of economic change? Is the minister aware of any threats to jobs, particularly in my glorious home state of Queensland?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:36): I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I can report to the member for Moreton, who I know is very interested in the creation of good jobs in Australia, that the monthly labour force figures have come out today. I can report to him that we have more Australians in full-time work than ever in the history of the Commonwealth—8.1 million people in full-time work, and I can tell—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I am sorry that good news disappoints those opposite, but Australia has more people in full-time work than ever before in our history. What is more, since the carbon-pricing mechanism was introduced, I can report to the member for Moreton, there have been 200 jobs created every day, which casts the lie that somehow the proposals of the government are causing unemployment. However, I do have to report to the member for Moreton some disturbing trends in the monthly labour force figures, and they do in fact refer in particular to his home state of Queensland. The member for Moreton may not be aware yet that since 31 March—about the same time as Campbell Newman became Premier of Queensland—there have been 26,000 jobs lost in Queensland.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I will put it another way: 130 jobs are leaving Queensland under LNP rule every day since they were elected.
This is a government that is committed to protecting people's entitlements. That is why today we are doing what the Queensland government and those opposite should be supporting. We are making sure that if the jobs of public sector workers throughout Australia—hardworking workers in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania—are privatised or outsourced, and if then the business is sold to another entity, their terms and conditions are relayed and moved with them, so they retain the same conditions. We are making sure that, when a private sector worker in Australia has their business sold to another entity, they get all the same terms and conditions. We are making sure that, in spite of the second-class status which unfortunately is being visited on them by those opposite and by Campbell Newman and Barry O'Farrell, all Australian workers are treated the same. That is what you get with Labor. We look after the workers; the other side do not.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dawson will leave the chamber under 94(a). Persistent interjection is not allowed under the standing orders.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:39): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has talked about supporting people in their workplace and into their retirement. Why is it important that we have a consistent and transparent approach to this?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:39): I thank the member for Moreton for his supplementary question. He is quite right: we do need consistency in workplace relations policy. We heard in my initial answer that 130 jobs a day are going when the conservatives take over Queensland. Also, I did not get the chance to tell the member for Moreton that, since Barry O'Farrell has been elected Premer of New South Wales, only 19 jobs a day get created in New South Wales. How lucky is New South Wales to have someone in charge who can only create 19 jobs a day! That is hopeless.
Of course, in Victoria we have Ted Baillieu, who thinks that TAFE is a four-letter word and should be cut, and we notice that the Leader of the Opposition has come out of the witness protection program to help Team Zed in the ACT. My goodness! That is just what public sector workers in the ACT want—to know that if they vote conservative in the ACT they get the coalition's industrial relations anti-worker policies!
I am asked about consistency. I will tell you what, member for Moreton—when you go with the government, we mean it when we say that we will increase super from nine per cent to 12 per cent. We abolished the tax on superannuation for those on less than $37,000. What do we get from those opposite? They vote against increasing super for the worker and they vote against improving workers' entitlements, and they will reintroduce a tax on superannuation for the low-paid. I will tell you what they will also do. When it comes to chasing what they allege to be a tainted vote we see my opposite number on the shadow bench, who is happy to chase a vote they demonise as tainted when it suits their political—(Time expired)
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And the member for Sturt is messing up his ability to get a question.
Workplace Relations
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her answer yesterday:
Anybody who has an allegation of dishonest conduct should take it to the appropriate authority to be dealt with.
I also remind her of the answer she gave at press conference on 23 August in relation to the dishonest conduct of Bruce Wilson of the AWU:
Once I became aware that I had been deceived … I ended my relationship with Mr Wilson.
Did she also inform the appropriate authority of Mr Wilson's misappropriation of union funds?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:42): The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would well recall that I gave a press conference about these matters and answered all questions until the federal parliamentary press gallery was exhausted from these questions. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, in relation to these matters, there were police investigations that did ensue. If she checked the record, she would know that. I also remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that people judge her on her conduct in this place.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Given the Prime Minister's answers in this place, as a practising lawyer at the time in the state of Victoria subject to professional conduct and practice rules, why didn't she inform the appropriate authority of Mr Wilson's fraud when she became aware of it?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:43): I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I just said: the appropriate authorities were engaged in this matter.
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Solomon is warned.
Carbon Pricing
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (14:43): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. Will the Assistant Treasurer please update the House on the latest report from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on false and misleading claims made about the carbon price and on what actions the ACCC and business have taken to address these claims?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (14:44): I thank the member for Page for her question. The ACCC has today released its report on the first 100 days since the carbon price came into effect, on 1 July. The report shows that during the first 100 days, around 2½ thousand complaints were received by the ACCC. To put this into some context, this amounts to just 6.5 per cent of the total number of consumer protection complaints received by the ACCC. The complaints in relation to carbon pricing have now slowed to around four complaints a day. This shows that the overwhelming majority of businesses out there are doing the right thing; they are acting responsibly and they are not making misleading claims in relation to the carbon price.
Of course, that is in spite of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been out there for two years encouraging them to jack up their prices and falsely blame those price increases on the carbon price. Those business that have not been doing the right thing—and I must stress it is a small proportion of businesses—have been the subject of very strong and robust enforcement action by the ACCC. I think that has been important in sending a very strong message to all businesses of the importance of not misleading their consumers.
Since day one of the carbon price having been announced, the Leader of the Opposition, in contrast to the majority of Australian businesses, has been making one misleading and reckless claim after another. We saw him come into this chamber yesterday brandishing an electricity bill of a pensioner—hiding behind the bill of a pensioner—claiming that a doubling of the electricity costs of that pensioner were as a result of the carbon price. He seemed to deliberately conceal the fact that, from one quarter to the next, that pensioner, that household, had doubled their electricity usage. It seems as though he is now making another misleading claim to the Australian people—that, under their policies and their plans if they ever get elected, you can double your electricity usage and somehow, from quarter to quarter, your bills are going to be cheaper. What nonsense. This is the sort of nonsense that we have heard.
We have heard so many misleading claims from the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at what he has said. First he said it was going to be a cash cow. He said it was a dog of a tax. He said it was going to be a cobra strike and it would be a python squeeze. He even said it was going to be an octopus. There is a bit of a theme developing here. He has taken his reckless scare campaign not just to every fish shop and every fish market in the country; he even went to the RSPCA. We all thought that he was beginning to be the Dr No of Australian politics. It turns out he is actually Dr Dolittle. And when it comes to repealing the carbon price— (Time expired)
Member for Fisher
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): My question is to the Attorney-General. When did the Attorney-General or her office first become aware of the content of the offensive SMS messages from the member for Fisher to Mr James Ashby?
The SPEAKER: I am just taking a moment to contemplate whether this is actually within the Attorney-General's portfolio. The Attorney-General has the call.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Attorney-General has the call and continued advice from the sidelines, from all sides, is wearing thin.
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:48): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You were right to hesitate at the question being asked. Of course, I am happy to answer any question that I can appropriately answer, within a couple of constraints. One of those is a matter that the Commonwealth is no longer party to, which is still before the court. Justice Rares has reserved his judgement and these text messages that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking questions about are actually part of his determination.
As has been publicly reported, material was provided to the Government Solicitor at the end of May. Undertakings were made, as required by the court, by all parties that the material could only be used for the purposes of court proceedings. That is the only circumstance upon which any material could be used. That is all that has been provided. Of course, I as the Attorney—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order!
Ms ROXON: I am answering the question as I am appropriately able to answer.
Mr Andrews: When did you become aware? You can answer this.
The SPEAKER: The member for Menzies is warned!
Ms ROXON: For a member who has actually dragged the Commonwealth before the courts on the way he conducted himself in ministerial office—
The SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will return to the answer.
Ms ROXON: I think it is a little bit rich for him to be intervening.
The SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will ignore interjections.
Ms ROXON: I am really not able to go into each stage of the legal advice that we have been provided with at different times. It is before the court. The legal advice is subject to legal professional privilege. That material was with the Government Solicitor. I had been briefed on that material, and I really cannot provide further information while that matter is still before the court.
Ms Julie Bishop: Madam Speaker, I rise on a Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a simple question: when did the Attorney-General or her office become aware of the content of the offensive SMS messages? That is not a sub judice matter. When did she become aware—or her office?
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.
Housing Affordability
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to tenancy advice and advocacy services to support affordable housing across Australia, particularly in my home state of Queensland? Is the minister aware of any decisions that have reduced or removed these services?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (14:50): I thank the member for Blair for his question and his ongoing advocacy for tenancy services in Queensland. I can say to him, and I think it is fitting given that yesterday was World Homeless Day, that there is a strong commitment by this government to make sure we do everything we can to prevent Australians finding themselves at risk of being homeless. Therefore, tenancy advice and advocacy services are vital. They are vital in every state and certainly in Queensland.
It is true to say that some decisions have been made by the Queensland government that would have potentially impacted adversely upon 80,000 Queenslanders who require advice of the Queensland Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service. Indeed, we know we need to ensure we prevent homelessness by having the services in place to prevent people being evicted from homes, to prevent mums and dads and kids finding themselves out on the street.
That is why the decision by the Queensland government to cut absolutely all funding to the Queensland Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service was cruel and heartless. It was a cruel and heartless decision because it will impact so badly upon so many vulnerable Queenslanders and it was an economically absurd decision because it will cost more to look after those people who will be hurt as a result of that decision. Of course, there will be more front-line staff cut in Queensland as a result. That really does fit with the Campbell Newman approach of 'all pain, no plan' when it comes to government services in that state.
What is more galling is that the money that has been taken from these services is the interest accumulated from the bonds paid by tenants into the Residential Tenancies Authority. So it is not even taxpayers' money; it is tenants' money that has been taken by Campbell Newman. This was a terrible decision. As a result, this government has stepped up with $3.3 million of emergency funding to ensure the 23 offices across Queensland will remain open to look after up to 80,000 Queensland families each year. We are doing that to ensure that those services are there for those who need them. I have also made clear that from 1 July next year any future Commonwealth-state arrangement with Queensland in relation to housing and homelessness will have to ensure that those services are maintained.
Why did Premier Newman make such a decision? He has been emboldened by the shadow Treasurer and by the Leader of the Opposition, who said these cuts are good cuts. 'They are courageous cuts,' the shadow Treasurer said. They are disgraceful cuts, and we totally oppose them. (Time expired)
Mr Hockey: Typical Labor.
The SPEAKER: Typical Member for North Sydney. He is warned.
Member for Fisher
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:54): My question is to the Attorney-General. Why did the Attorney-General allow the government's legal practice directions to be ignored in order for the government to offer Mr James Ashby a $50,000 settlement in his case against the Commonwealth?
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:54): I think it is absolutely clear that you have not read the legal services directions at all. All of our conduct in this case has been entirely consistent with the legal services directions. Not only that—it has been entirely consistent with the legal advice that we were given. It does not matter how many times people ask these questions, material that has been released to any party in litigation which is subject to undertakings given to the court is not going to be breached unless people want to be found in contempt of court, and the Commonwealth has no intention of being found so.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Attorney-General. How can the Attorney refute the obvious conclusion that the government settled the case with Mr Ashby in order to suppress the public release of the offensive SMS messages from the member for Fisher?
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (14:55): Clearly, if that was the intention, it did not work. The one reason you can be sure that it was not the intention is that it did not work. The Commonwealth, as people in this chamber seem to have forgotten, was a respondent in an action brought by Mr Ashby. Mr Slipper was also a respondent in an action brought by Mr Ashby. The Commonwealth settled that matter with Mr Ashby. Mr Slipper has not settled his matter with Mr Ashby; it is currently before the Federal Court, and I do not think it is appropriate for us to speculate about what might happen in that matter that is still ongoing.
Workplace Relations
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development and Minister for the Status of Women. The social and community services pay equity legislation was passed by the House today. What does this mean for some of our lowest paid workers who have been waiting for fairness and justice in the workplace? Can the minister set out the facts about the impact of the government's pay equity reform on working people and the economy?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (14:57): I thank the member for Petrie for her question. Today's passing by the House of this legislation does ensure that the Australian government's $2.8 billion share of the equal pay increases awarded by Fair Work Australia to social and community services sector workers is able to be passed on to organisations that employ workers under the scope of this decision. The social and community services pay equity special account locks in the government's contribution to these pay rises over the eight years of this decision for directly funded programs and programs through Commonwealth-state agreements.
This government is and has always been committed to delivering 100 per cent of our share of these historic increases. The Commonwealth is seeking to work collaboratively with all jurisdictions and has requested feedback from every state and territory to determine the appropriate amount of Commonwealth funding. This is an open and transparent process that we are undertaking, and it was disappointing to see in news reports today that the Victorian government is claiming that they need more Commonwealth funding for its supplementation, especially since the Victorian government has not yet given us feedback on its costing assumptions on this negotiation.
Let us be clear: we are not going to pay Victoria's or any other state's share of this increase. We will fund our share 100 per cent, and we have said that. The Victorian state government made a promise before the last state election that they would pay their fair share. They committed $200 million over four years for this. They said that if it was any more than this they would fund it.
We want to work with every state and territory government in good faith for the benefit of the workers who are affected by this decision and, importantly, for the vulnerable people in our communities who rely on their services. We have undertaken a rigorous process to calculate our share of these increases and we have tested these calculations with a number of different processes with the sector. All of our commitment, the $2.8 billion, is fully funded and accounted for in the budget. These workers will benefit from pay rises from December this year of between 23 and 45 per cent in total.
Around 120,000 of these 150,000 workers are women in very challenging jobs, dealing with some of the most vulnerable in our community. We want to continue to work with the sector, and of course with the states and territories, to ensure the smooth implementation of this historic decision. The passing of this legislation by the House will assist the Commonwealth in making offers and payments to organisations so workers can have their payments by Christmas.
MOTIONS
Attorney-General
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Curtin moving immediately—
That this House calls on the Attorney General to speak immediately for up to 15 minutes to explain the following:
(1) when did the Attorney General or her office first become aware of the content of the offensive SMS messages of the Member for Fisher;
(2) why the Attorney General override official government guidelines to offer James Ashby a settlement of $50,000 in an attempt to prevent release of the offensive SMS messages of the Member for Fisher;
(3) why the Attorney General described the Ashby litigation as vexatious and an abuse of process while aware of the content of the offensive SMS messages of the Member for Fisher; and
(4) whether the Attorney General informed any other member of the Government of the content of the offensive SMS messages of the Member for Fisher prior to their release.
Standing orders—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Yes—
Ms O'Dwyer: Don't be a bully!
The SPEAKER: The member for Higgins is warned! If she continues that, she will not be here for the vote. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr Albanese: Speaker, on a point of order: Justice Rares has reserved his opinion in a case which is precisely about whether there has been an abuse of process in the claims made by Mr Ashby in the litigation he made against the Commonwealth, as the first respondent, and the member for Fisher. This is about the exact case where the first respondent was the Commonwealth and the second respondent was the member for Fisher. We have here an attempt to move a motion to discuss the abuse of process which in itself could be regarded as an abuse of process.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. It is a very serious question, and therefore for me to consider it I probably need to read the motion. As it is very hard to hear motions in this place when everybody else is yelling, I will stop the clock, if we could. I think that is reasonable. For everybody's information, sub judice is a very difficult issue for the parliament. It is a very difficult issue. It does not go to matters that are before the court or public; it is about the impression the parliament makes on the issues and the decision that a judge or jury may make—or in normal circumstances where there may be. So it is upon the parliament to be very cautious in any of these issues. However, I believe that the motion does not affect sub judice. But I will caution everybody in this debate not to overstep that mark in their contributions or I will sit them down. There is a matter before the court. We should all take the issue of sexual harassment very seriously.
Mr Albanese: On a point of order, Speaker. Page 298 of House of Representatives Practice states very clearly that a motion may not be brought forward which relates to a matter awaiting or under adjudication by a court of law. In 1995 the Speaker wrote to a member, drawing the member's attention to the fact that certain matters relevant to a notice lodged by the member were sub judice and expressing the view that discussion of the matter should not take place. It is very clear that this is precisely the matter that is before the court.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on the point of order. If I could make a submission now that the Leader of the House has made two submissions? I did sit down when I was asked to do so.
The SPEAKER: You did.
Mr Pyne: The motion is clearly about the actions of the Attorney-General. It is not about the court case that is currently before the Federal Court. It is about the actions that the Attorney-General undertook, in each of its four parts. Therefore it is entirely within the standing orders. When she discharges her duties, the House is quite entitled to debate those, to question her about them and to move a motion.
Mr Albanese: On the point of order, Madam Speaker. It may well be the case that at a point in time the opposition will be able to ask questions of the Attorney, but that time is not while the judge has reserved his opinion. This debate cannot but impact on that decision.
The SPEAKER: I believe that the motion can be debated but with great caution.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Standing orders must be suspended so that the Attorney-General can explain her conduct, which is now under a cloud. Serious and legitimate questions are being asked about the Attorney-General's actions in relation to the Ashby-Slipper case. I am conscious—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:05): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:10]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (15:18): Before I call the seconder of the motion, I do emphasise that extreme caution is needed in this debate to not in any way prejudice any deliberations before the court. Is the motion seconded?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:18): I second the motion. What the Attorney has to explain to the House is why she has corrupted the court process by trying to act as a prosecutor rather than as the first law officer of the land. If the Attorney is so opposed to misogyny, why did she lead this attempted cover-up of the SMSs between the former Speaker and Mr Ashby?
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again the Manager of Opposition Business is making allegations about a case that is before the court. He has used terms that are very specific and entirely inappropriate against the Attorney.
The SPEAKER: I again advise caution.
Mr PYNE: Standing orders must be suspended to allow this motion to be debated and passed so that the Attorney can spend 15 minutes—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:19): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:23]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (15:28): Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
CONDOLENCES
Penpraze, Sapper Jordan Ronald
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:28): Madam Speaker, on indulgence, while we have been here in question time, it has started to come to public attention that a very young man, a very young soldier, has died as a result of the training accident at Holsworthy, which I am sure people saw the reports of over the course of the week. This is a 22-year-old soldier. The minister has spoken to his opposition counterpart and, if it suits the convenience of the House, he will make a brief statement on indulgence about the death of this young man.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC) (15:29): It is with great sadness that we learnt of the young soldier who tragically lost his life today. He was one of 18 members of the Army who were involved in a vehicle accident on the Holsworthy range on Monday, 8 October. This young man, Sapper Jordan Ronald Penpraze, enlisted in the Regular Army in April of this year and, after completing his recruit training, commenced his initial employment training in July. He had been in a critical condition since Monday's accident, and earlier today his family made the heartbreaking decision to switch off his life support.
Jordan Ronald Penpraze was born in Mornington, Victoria on 15 August 1990. He enlisted in the Australian Regular Army on 3 April 2012 and, as I said, on completion of his Army recruit training at Kapooka, he marched in to Holdfast Troop, Initial Employment Training Squadron, at the School of Military Engineering on 26 June. On 11 July, he commenced his Royal Australian Engineer Initial Employment Training. During his time in Holdfast Troop, Sapper Penpraze demonstrated his quick thinking when he and another soldier successfully resuscitated an elderly citizen while on local leave in Liverpool. Sapper Penpraze remained with the elderly citizen, maintaining CPR until the ambulance arrived.
Sapper Penpraze was a respected and very well liked member of the troop. He was a quiet and stoic sapper who possessed a determination to perform to the best of his ability. He took on all lessons immediately with maturity and a strong desire for self-improvement. His commitment to his section and his mates saw him complete his work with no reservations or complaints. He would rather take the hard job or the heavy load to spare a mate who was doing it tough. It was this selfless commitment to his mates that made him such a respected member of 3 Troop.
While Sapper Penpraze completed everything he did to a high standard, he excelled at watermanship, showing his skills with watercraft and a passion for boats. His previous experience allowed him to take on a leadership role during this phase of the course. He maintained this enthusiasm during field training exercises, receiving excellent reports from all field activities.
Sapper Penpraze's very sad death is a reminder to us all that being in the ADF is dangerous, whether in Afghanistan or here at home in training. Our heartfelt condolences go to Sapper Penpraze's family, his friends and his comrades.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (15:32): I rise on behalf of the coalition to associate ourselves with the fine remarks from Minister Snowdon. It is a reminder that freedom is not free; training for war is tough. Eighteen young soldiers were badly injured when a truck rolled down a steep hill while they were training to defend freedom. Sapper Penpraze was a 22-year-old digger training to be a combat engineer. If you know nothing more about this young Australian soldier, know this: he was training to go into an engineering division that has paid a heavy price in Afghanistan. The toll taken on the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment, the 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment and the Incident Response Regiment of Special Operations Command has been exacting as they fight the battle against IEDs in Afghanistan. This was the job, this was the unit, this was the career that Sapper Penpraze was going into. He was a fine Australian soldier. We should all remember that this man gave his life while in training to prepare to fight wars in defence of our nation and in defence of freedom. We will remember him.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:34): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the death of Sapper Jordan Ronald Penpraze be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: I think the whole House feels great sadness over the death of such a young man.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:34): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedingsand I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Aged Care Commissioner—Report for 2011-12.
Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Seeing the forest through the trees: Inquiry into the future of the Australian Forestry Industry—Status of Government response.
Australian Crime Commission—Report for 2011-12.
Australian Institute of Criminology—Report for 2011-12.
Australian National Preventative Health Agency—Report for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2012.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 2011-12.
Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post)—Reports—2011-12.
Equal employment opportunity program for 2011-12.
Classification Board and Classification Review Board—Report for 2011-12.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—Report for 2011-12.
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—Report for 2011-12.
Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2011-12.
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport—Report for 2011-12.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 2011-12.
Independent Hospital Pricing Authority—Report for the period 15 December 2011 to 30 June 2012.
National Mental Health Commission—Report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2012.
National Water Commission—Report for 2011-12.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:35): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip and Mr Bandt nominating members to be supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:35): by leave—I move:
That Mr Billson and Mr Bandt be appointed supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2012
Customs Amendment (Smuggled Tobacco) Bill 2012
National Portrait Gallery of Australia Bill 2012
National Portrait Gallery of Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:36): I present the Selection Committee's report No. 68 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 10 October 2012
1. The committee met in private session on 10 October 2012.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Tax Laws Amendment (Clean Building Managed Investment Trust) Bill 2012.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Deal with the Greens for Clean Building carve out; operation of carve out; justification of differential rate; and cost to budget.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement:
Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
The regulatory and coercive investigative powers of the Commonwealth should be subjected to very close scrutiny by the Parliament. In particular, the committee should consider whether any increase in coercive powers is justified for the sake of consistency across diverse regulatory environments.
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious Drugs, Identity Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
The bill introduces a range of new offences which need to be thoroughly examined.
Freedom of Information Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Office) Bill 2012.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of justification of a Freedom of Information exemption of Parliamentary Budget Office material and the breadth of the exemption.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Carbon Pricing
The SPEAKER (15:36): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The adverse effect of the carbon tax particularly on senior Australians.
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—
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (15:36): In calling for this discussion of a matter of public importance today—it being the adverse effect of the carbon tax, particularly on senior Australians—I do so wearing my hat as the shadow minister for seniors. There has never been a minister for seniors in this parliament before. We have had ministers for youth, we have had them for children—we have had them for all sorts of groups. But never before have senior Australians been recognised in this way, which was an acknowledgement by the Leader of the Opposition of the importance of this group. For the purposes of the portfolio responsibility, seniors are those people who are over the age of 50 and, in fact, constitute 40 per cent of all voters. It is important to note in this debate that the impact on senior Australians can be particularly cruel, particularly on those who have retired or are on pensions and those who are self-funded retirees, because those people are on fixed incomes and do not have the elasticity of looking forward to an increase in salary to make up for the imposition of the carbon tax.
The carbon tax is essentially a tax on electricity. And it is designed specifically to see people use less electricity. It is designed to lower the standard of living, particularly for those people who cannot afford to meet the increases. The stories that we hear—for instance, of people delivering meals-on-wheels through the winter to people in receipt of the age pension and finding those people in bed, not because they are ill but because they are cold—are true stories. These are people who are forced not to turn on the switch to activate a heater or, in some cases, even lights, to the degree that there have been some suspicious fires that have been caused by people resorting to candles because they felt they could not afford electric light. That is not the Australia that my father and his generation fought in World War II to deliver to this country. The idea that we should not consider having electric light and electric heating as automatic rights in an Australian household is something quite foreign to people who recognise the sacrifice that was made to ensure we lived in a free country.
It is important to realise that the impact of electricity prices, particularly on people who are self-employed or who work in small business, is also very relevant to seniors, because people who are self-employed or work in small business will work much longer than those who work in big business. The fact of the matter is that you can find people who are shopkeepers, accountants or lawyers—people who are maintaining an active work-life well into their 70s and 80s in private practice and yet are being hit very hard by this electricity impost.
I will give you an example of a sole practitioner in a law firm who has a very substantial practice but has just seen a quarterly electricity bill rise from $1,000 to $1,500 for the quarter. And the likelihood of that continuing to rise, of course, under this carbon tax is well known.
Let us look at how it operates, because it is a tax that is both cascading and compounding. It gets into the nooks and crannies of every aspect of your life. Everything we do in a civilised country depends on electricity. It is the difference between a First World country and a Third World country.
When Bob Brown was here and in cahoots with Prime Minister Gillard, they wanted us all to live in a cave with a candle. But now that we have Senator Milne, she would really rather we did without the candle!
The fact of the matter is that your life is meant to become lesser. When the Prime Minister talks about a 'gold standard' for infrastructure to deliver electricity, what on earth is she talking about? Does she want a silver standard? A bronze standard? A lead standard? How many blackouts would be acceptable to her? The fact of the matter is that, on previous occasions, this same Prime Minister has complained about there not being sufficient infrastructure. And yet when the infrastructure is built, in order that communities have electricity and do not have blackouts, it is spurned as being 'gold plated'. Well, there are plenty of instances I can think of in the world of countries where there is simply not enough infrastructure. There are plenty of countries where the elites will take the power and the people will be poor. This is not the sort of country we want here.
But let us look at how this tax works. The tax is imposed on the so-called emitters, or generators, of electricity. It is imposed on the creation of the good, the service, of electricity. On every transaction that occurs between the tax being paid and it being paid by the final consumer, again the tax is paid. So it becomes a tax on a tax on a tax on a tax, and then the GST is paid on it as well. It is quite unlike the GST which, as a value-added tax, has all the taxes paid between the initial creation of the good or service and the final consumer refunded. Consequently, there will be rises that will occur in everything we do.
Prime Minister Gillard says there will be no carbon tax on fuel for the family car. Really? How does she think that the petrol is got from the tank at the service station into the tank of the car? Electricity pumps it. How do you think you pay for it? You go to the cash register, which is driven by electricity. In this building, the lights, the air conditioning—everything about it is driven by electricity. The sewage system, the water system—all driven by electricity. And that is the impost that the carbon tax has put on every aspect of our lives.
Our dependence on refrigeration is well known. You go to the supermarket. You pick up fruit that appears to be fresh and yet you know it has been kept somewhere else in a warehouse under refrigerated circumstances. You take your meat, and you take it for granted; somehow it got from the abattoirs to your supermarket and has been kept cool and fresh and safe—electricity again. And also there are the gases that are used to make that refrigeration work; the escalation in the tax for them has gone through the roof—some people say 290 per cent. So this is an insidious tax that is attacking the very structure of our lives. That includes an impost on the fans in schoolrooms for children and on the buses that take the children to school. Nothing escapes. And yet we have a Prime Minister who stands there as she did today and says, 'No, no; everybody is protected or compensated.' Let us understand. What does compensation do? Compensation is a payment for an injury that the person paying it has caused. This Prime Minister said, six days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Let us remind ourselves why she said it: because Tony Abbott had been saying throughout the entire election period that, as sure as night follows day, there would be a carbon tax should the Gillard government be re-elected. So she looked straight down the barrel of the camera to refute it. Had she not said that, she would not have been in the position to negotiate to become the Prime Minister, because win she did not. And the Treasurer said it was a hysterical allegation by the opposition. Well, it was not hysterical; it was accurate. The long and the short of it is that we have said we will repeal that tax.
Let us again look at this question of compensation. Treasury calculated that the damage done is $9.90 a week and therefore they will offer compensation of $10.10 a week, saying that people will be 20c a week better off—wow! Anybody who truly believes that Treasury can predict with that degree of accuracy must believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Mr Billson: There's no precision in the budget estimates.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I am about to pick up on that point made by my friend the shadow minister for small business, who understands very well the impact on small business.
Mr Billson: Devastating.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Absolutely. The fact of the matter is: Treasury gets it wrong every year. Every year, the budget is wrong. Six months later, we get supplementary estimates to fix it up. In the case of the budget of this government, it was going to have a $22 billion deficit and it turns out to be $43 billion. So anybody who thinks that they can get it down to a 20c margin, as I said, must believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
This is a punitive, harsh and unfair tax. Because it attacks the disposable income of those on fixed incomes—pensioners, part-pensioners and self-funded retirees—it also has an enormous impact on the retail sector. Research that I had Access Economics do predicted that the silver market would go platinum because of the purchasing power of Australian seniors. When their spending power is diminished or fear is put into their hearts—and the fear comes from the rhetoric of the government, not the warning from the opposition; the government has said that you have got to be fearful because the world is going to come to an end because of climate change unless we have this tax. And yet this tax will not bring the emissions down one bit. In fact, they will be continuing to rise to 2020. So the whole nature of it is fallacious.
We hear the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency shriek and carry on. He is the one who said the seas were going to rise up and houses would fall into the sea. Where did he buy his house? Right on the seaside! The fear campaign and the fearmongering that has gone on in the name of the government, saying, 'Be fearful of climate change; this tax is the answer to it,' is nothing short of a good old furphy. The fact of the matter is it is a punitive tax which is meant to damage people—hence they use the term 'compensation'—and it damages seniors more than ever.
I notice the member for Braddon over there having a yawn. Of course, he would be very bored by the plight of seniors. He would be very bored at their plight and would not give a damn what happened to them. That is way the Labor Party is. You would remember during the 2010 election campaign the Prime Minister said in cabinet—and it was effectively leaked—'Why would we give anything to pensioners? They don't vote for us anyway.' That is the attitude that the government has towards senior Australians—to disparage them and to pretend to have their interests at heart with this ridiculous compensation package. The fact of the matter is that the damage to them will be far, far greater than any compensation that will be paid.
Then we have the flip-flopping that has gone on in the policy. It is $23 a tonne to start with. Then it will go to $29 a tonne and then to $37 a tonne. The government then came in and said: 'We'll get rid of the floor price. We'll tie it all to Europe. But we're not going to change our Treasury modelling. It's still going to come out at $29 a tonne.' That is despite the fact that in Europe it is around $6 a tonne. It is a con. The Australian people are being conned and they are being punished by having their precious electricity, which determines the standard of living that they enjoy, being taken away from them. They are being punished by a government that told an untruth before the election in order to attempt to win government. But win they did not.
The Prime Minister is there only because she stitched up two deals—one a deal she stitched up with the execution of Kevin Rudd and one a deal she stitched up with the Independents. The Independents are equally complicit in this perpetration of punishment of the people. We in the opposition need to be strong—which we are—and every day bring evidence. The Prime Minister denies that evidence daily. We have noticed that nothing is the Prime Minister's fault. It does not matter what happens, it was not her; it was Tony Abbott, it was the state government or it was somebody else! Even with the unemployment figures today that showed there had been a growth in unemployment, she boldly stood there and said, 'We've created more jobs.' But a rise in unemployment means more jobs disappeared than were created. But of course that is not her fault. She is only standing there. It has got to be somebody else's fault. The day will come when you can no longer call the gender card or the victim card. By pretending to be a victim, the Prime Minister has demeaned every woman in this parliament. We did not come here for it to be said that we cannot do the job and have to be treated differently; we on this side of the parliament came here to say that we are the best people for the job of representing the people and that the ideas that we have are the best ideas to take us into government. We do not wish to be treated as if we are somehow less able and victims of somebody's spiteful words. It is a pathetic thing to say. Could you imagine Angela Merkel making a speech like that or Maggie Thatcher making a speech like that? Of course not. The fact of the matter is: if you take leadership, you must exercise leadership. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. At the end of the day, what we are seeing here is a government which has no purposefulness in order to look after the interests of the people. It wants to punish the people. (Time expired)
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC) (15:53): I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member opposite, the member for Mackellar, not for its comments or arguments about the carbon tax, because there were not any. As to a price on carbon and electricity, she referred to electricity prices, and she referred to the rebuttal by the Prime Minister, the minister responsible and the Treasurer of the statements being made on a continuing basis in this parliament by the opposition.
We saw a prime example of that yesterday, when we saw another illustration of the porkies which seem to float from the other side of the chamber on a regular basis, attempting to mislead the Australian population into believing that somehow or other the price on carbon is responsible for the extraordinary increases in electricity prices across the country, when the opposition know and the community knows, generally speaking, that that is not the case. The facts speak for themselves. When we saw yesterday the opposition table a bill and assert some horrendous increase in electricity price as a result of the price on carbon, we learnt, of course, that the increase on the electricity bill which was presented was almost solely attributable—except for nine per cent, which I think was the figure attributable to the price on carbon—to increased electricity consumption in that household. To come into the parliament and assert that the doubling of the electricity cost to a particular family was the direct result of the price on carbon was disingenuous. It was dishonest. It was untrue. It was a porky.
It is up to the opposition to make the case as to why they believe we should not have a price on carbon, but it is not up to the opposition to strike fear in the hearts of Australians that somehow or other their lives are going to change irreversibly, beyond their control, because of the fact that we have a price on carbon. We were told that it was going to be Armageddon when the price on carbon was introduced. We were told that Whyalla would disappear off the face of the earth. Let me just say that I sit next to Minister Gray, the member for Brand. His mother lives in Whyalla. He tells me, most assuredly, that Whyalla still exists.
I am surprised, therefore, that we have not had an apology from the Leader of the Opposition, because all of these grandiose claims about Armageddon, about how the earth would be flattened by the decisions taken by this government in relation to a price on carbon, have proven to be untrue. Yet we do not see the opposition walking back from the accusations they are making to the community about the impact of the price on carbon on their daily lives.
We ought to know about the electricity prices. We know what has happened to electricity prices in this country, and very little of it has got to do with the price on carbon. We know that, in the last three years, per household, power prices have gone up in New South Wales by 55 per cent; in Victoria by 33 per cent; in Queensland by 39 per cent and in South Australia by 43 per cent. In Western Australia, they have gone up by a whopping $552 per household. It is not the carbon price—it is decisions by state governments.
Yet we did not hear a whimper, not a yelp, from the opposition protesting against the increase in electricity prices in those states when they increased them so markedly, with a dramatic impact on the household budgets of families in those states. It is a shame on the opposition. They need to explain to the Australian community the detail of why prices increase, not come in with some story, which proves to be untrue each time they tell it, that somehow or other it is the carbon price which is responsible for a dramatic increase in electricity prices. It is manifestly untrue. It is an untruth.
We do not see the opposition going out and trying to tell the truth; it is quite the opposite. They are attempting to convince the Australian community that every increase in price that they see on their electricity bill is a result of carbon pricing. They know it is false. We know it is false. But they will not admit it to the Australian community. We have just seen, unfortunately, another example from the member opposite, a person whom I respect—but nevertheless it is up to her to make sure that she tells the truth. Just simply tell the truth. If we all tell the truth in this place about the impact of carbon pricing, there will be no fear in the community about the impact of carbon pricing. There will be no fear because the facts are abundantly clear to all those who take just a moment to have a look at what is happening.
In the context of the carbon price, the government acknowledged that there would be an impact on family budgets. We acknowledged what that impact would be. So we put in place a set of measures to address the additional costs to all Australians across the community, particularly those in need such as aged Australians and veterans. I will give you some of the detail.
As a result of assistance to seniors, 3.4 million pensioners in Australia will receive assistance that more than covers their average expected cost of putting a price on carbon: a real and permanent increase to the pension of around $338 per year for singles and around $510 a year for couples combined. Self-funded retirees with a Commonwealth seniors health card will receive the same support as aged pensioners through extra payments paid with the seniors supplement. Seniors and others with medical conditions who rely on medical treatment that uses more power can get extra help with their bills through the 'essential medical equipment payment' of $140 per year, with over 10,000 payments already made.
Our support is targeted at low- and middle-income families and pensioners who have the least room to move in their family budgets. On average, the expected increase in costs due to a carbon price for a single pensioner will be just $204 per year. With the increase in their pension payments of $338 they will be $134 better off.
Why don't the opposition just simply tell the truth and tell the community that in fact their family budgets will be able to sustain any increases that might come about as a result of the carbon pricing because of these supplements which are being made? On average, the expected increase in costs due to a carbon price for a pensioner couple will be $284 per year. With the increase in their pension payments of $510 per year, they will be $226 better off.
So why are we hearing consistently, day after day after day, representations from the opposition which tell us that that is not the case? It is manifestly untrue. We know that, under the Liberals' plan, they will claw back $300 a year from single pensioners and more than $500 a year from pensioner couples. And the New South Wales and Queensland Liberal governments have finally come clean on their plans to claw back money from public housing tenants to fill their own coffers.
We have already delivered the most historic pension reforms in the 100-year history of the pension system. These reforms have delivered increases of $172 a fortnight for singles and $182 for couples combined, on the maximum rate since 2009. New indexation arrangements mean that pensions are keeping better pace with pensioners' cost of living. That is in addition to those matters which I have referred to earlier.
Let me now go to veterans, because that is an area which I know that the member opposite, the member for Boothby, is interested in. There are 156,000 service pensioners and senior supplement recipients who receive a lump sum of $250 for singles or $190 for each eligible member of a couple. On 14 June this year, 110,000 disability pensioners received a lump sum of up to $380 a week and 92,000 war widows and widowers received a lump sum of $250. The children of veterans who receive fortnightly education allowances are also eligible for clean energy payments.
An ongoing payment, the clean energy supplement, will commence between March 2013 and January 2014, depending on the type of payment received. An essential medical equipment payment of $140 per annum is also available for eligible pensioners, pensioner concession cardholders, health card holders, Commonwealth seniors health card and DVA gold or white card holders to cover the additional costs of running essential medical equipment and medically required heating and/or cooling that arise from the introduction of a carbon price. Additional assistance is available through the family tax benefit, the new low-income supplement and the tax system. The government are more than compensating people for the impacts on their cost of living as a result of carbon pricing. That is clear. Yet, as I said earlier, day after day after day we get the same old drivel coming from the Leader of the Opposition, his frontbenchers and his backbenchers about the impact of the price on carbon. They are going into their communities and telling people untruths, trying to persuade people that somehow or another the world will end as a result of carbon pricing, when they know that it is simply untrue.
I say to members of the opposition: why is it that you cannot fundamentally agree with the facts? Why is it that you cannot agree with the facts—for example, we know that in the case of electricity prices in New South Wales the Treasury estimate for the change in price is 10 per cent. The average increase in regulated prices due to the carbon price is 8.9 per cent. In Queensland, it is 11 per cent—that is, $3.34 a week. In the case of South Australia, it is 4.6 per cent, or $1.47 per week. In Western Australia, it is 9.13 per cent, or $2.50 a week. In Tasmania, it is 5.6 per cent, which is less than $3 a week. Those are the facts, and people are being compensated with a $10 payment.
How is it that we are left in this position where the opposition masquerade and come in here with these trumped-up claims about the impact of carbon pricing on electricity bills when, as we saw yesterday with this very bill, that they were totally false and totally discredited? I note the observations made by the minister during question time. We did not see the Leader of the Opposition, or the person who raised the question yesterday, come in here and say: 'My apologies. I've misled the parliament and I've misled all those people who may be listening to this broadcast. The fact is that the carbon price did not have the impact that I claimed it would have.' Why didn't they do that? Why can't they just admit the truth? Why can't they deal with the facts instead of making up stories which are so absurdly untrue that their untruth is obvious to the world?
The claims which were made about the end of the world—the Armageddon which would come upon us—after 1 July have been shown to be plainly false. It is obvious to the whole of the Australian community that Whyalla still exists, that the coal industry still exists and that the economy is growing. But this is not what was said. I invite all those people in the community who are worried about the carbon price to go to the words of the Leader of the Opposition and check them against the facts. The facts will tell you that the Leader of the Opposition and all of those behind him are telling giant porkies. (Time expired)
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (16:08): We need to think back to 2007 and remember why Labor was elected then. They were elected in part because they understood how important the issue of the cost of living was to families and to seniors. Everyone would have seen on the TV news the photo opportunities of Kevin Rudd sitting around a table with families to discuss the household bills. There was lots of nodding and lots of empathy. He did it in so many seats. Labor were going to do things: Fuelwatch, which was a failure, and GroceryWatch, which was a failure. Now we have come to a situation where the Labor Party are in complete denial over one of the main concerns—that is, the cost of living—of families and people on fixed incomes, especially seniors. I am talking not just about electricity. We have seen dramatic rises in all utility rates—of water, of electricity and of gas. They keep on going up.
A lot of the government's arguments say, 'It's not all due to the carbon tax,' but there is no doubt that the carbon tax makes the pressure on the cost of living much, much worse. The latest argument from the government is, 'The price rise for electricity is in the order of 10 per cent; the policy is working as planned.' But what that ignores is the enormous pressure that Australian families and Australian seniors are feeling. They are struggling with all the cost-of-living increases under this government. What the government do not get is that, by adding a carbon tax, they have just made the situation much, much worse.
We often hear this phrase, but it is worth hearing it again. Not more than six days before the last election, the Prime Minister of this country clearly misled the Australian people when she stated, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Not one Labor candidate distributed any material about or said that they would be voting for a carbon tax, yet every single one of them did so. We know from Australian political history that any party which goes to an election promising one thing and then doing another will pay a very high price when they next have to face the Australian people. I think about 1993, when Paul Keating said that he was campaigning against a GST and then, in his first budget after the election, he dramatically increased the sales tax on a whole raft of goods. It was, in effect, a GST by stealth. Following that, the Labor members who voted for the increase in sales taxes in 1993 faced the black-and-red ads on TV about how they voted to increase the sales tax on wine, on cars—on everything.
The attitude of the Labor Party seems to be denial: 'What are you complaining about? It's working as we expected.' I think about 1993; I also think about how, in 2001, when the Liberal party were in government, there was a big campaign by the motoring organisations over concerns about the high cost of petrol with the introduction of the GST. We listened to what the community was saying and made some changes because we recognised the pain in the community about the high price of petrol. But we had not taken a policy of making such changes—that is, removing excise and adding the GST—to the electorate, so the situation then was not equivalent to the situation we find now, where a government which was elected promising to do something about the cost of living for families and seniors has done the very opposite.
In my own electorate of Boothby, 18.7 per cent of people are over 65. As I go around the electorate I have a lot to do with people on the age pension, with people who are part pensioners and part self-funded retirees and with people who are self-funded retirees. One of the unfortunate things about the carbon tax is that people on fixed incomes will be hit the hardest. As the cost of living rises under the carbon tax, those people who are on fixed incomes—pensioners and self-funded retirees—will have less money to spend on leisure, less to spend on recreation, less to spend on their grandchildren and less to spend on the essentials of life. There are something like half a million self-funded retirees in Australia. There are 1.2 million age pensioners and there are 880,000 part age pensioners in Australia. They are really the forgotten people in this debate. The Labor Party gave no thought to the impact on seniors of introducing their carbon tax. I regularly see self-funded retirees and pensioners at shopping centres and at my listening posts and, through my surveys, I hear from those who tell me what this tax means to them as they struggle to make ends meet because they see their grocery bills and electricity bills going up and up. Senior Australians have worked hard all their lives. They should not be expected to absorb the cost of the carbon tax on their own when they have already given so much back to our community.
Another one of the lies is that a carbon tax will not work unless it hurts, that that is the way to change behaviour, which the government are so keen to do. So, again, their argument about compensation ignores the fact that you do not need to compensate people if you do not have a carbon tax. That is the simple thing: the compensation is only necessary because of the carbon tax in the first place.
I also want to go to issues in my electorate of Boothby in South Australia. The Belair Hotel, when they received their first power bill under the carbon tax, saw that their off-peak power rate had increased by 45 per cent due to a carbon adjustment charged by AGL. When the Lakes Resort Hotel in the electorate of Hindmarsh got their first post carbon tax electricity bill it cost them an extra $3½ thousand a month—
Mr Tehan: How much?
Dr SOUTHCOTT: $3½ thousand a month, due to the carbon adjustment alone. If you are running a hotel there is not much you can do to reduce your electricity. The City of Onkaparinga is a local government area in the electorates of Kingston, Boothby and Mayo. The Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga, Lorraine Rosenberg, has been quoted as stating that the carbon tax will cost ratepayers an extra $800,000 a year. Street lighting makes up 70 per cent of the council's electricity bill. They cannot reduce their usage—they have to keep the lights on at night. They have no choice but to pay more.
Paul Kerin, CEO of South Australia's Independent Essential Services Commission, when asked if repealing the tax would cut electricity prices, responded, 'Yes, and we'd look to make adjustment at that time.' So there you have it, from the CEO of South Australia's Independent Essential Services Commission. If you want to see electricity prices come down, support the coalition and their plan to reduce the carbon tax.
The one thing you have to say about the Labor Party is that they do have extraordinary discipline. We saw it at the start of this week, where they blindly voted to support a situation that was obvious to everyone was unsustainable, and they are now blindly following this same approach, ignoring their voters, ignoring their constituents. (Time expired)
Mr LYONS (Bass) (16:18): I guess I should lay out on the table why we are in this position. One of the major reasons is that the Liberal Party gave their preferences to a member of the Greens, so that is the parliament we are stuck with. It was Liberal preferences that elected the Greens member of parliament, and that is why we are in this situation.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rishworth ): Order! Can members on my left please keep it down.
Mr LYONS: The Australian people decide who is in the Australian parliament and the Australian government then have to negotiate. So the Leader of the Opposition lies back in his chair with his feet on the table and his hands behind his head and says, 'You are going to vote for me, aren't you, you Independents, you Greens, because I am the opposition leader now?' That was the difference. The Prime Minister went in and negotiated.
One of the Independents told us that the Leader of the Opposition said, 'I'll give you whatever you like except I won't sell a certain part of my anatomy.' That is the difference. The Prime Minister of Australia went in and genuinely negotiated. Part of this situation was caused by the Liberal preferences going to the Greens—and that is the parliament we have got. The government has been upfront about the carbon price and electricity prices, as they affect all Australians.
Treasury modelling has found that the carbon price would increase household electricity prices by 10 per cent, $3.30 a week on average. The Electricity Regulator determinations have confirmed this. In some cases, the carbon impact has been less than the Treasury's estimates. To meet the impact, the government has provided $10.10 a week on average to households. The opposition should focus on the state Liberal governments, who are lining their pockets with this compensation from those in public housing. It is important to establish these facts because those opposite are engaged in a cowardly campaign of frightening pensioners.
Recently the opposition leader made several misleading claims about an electricity bill from West Australia. The opposition leader told the House there was an $800 increase in just one bill, 70 per cent of which was due to the carbon tax. But, surprise, surprise, when this bill was examined it was clear that the proportion of the increase which was due to the carbon price was a fraction of the claimed 70 per cent. This is lazy, this is deceitful and this treats pensioners disrespectfully, as nothing but fodder for a political scare campaign. If the opposition really cared about pensioners, they would have established the facts about this bill, rather than rushing in here to distort it for political ends.
Those opposite have misled people generally and senior Australians in particular about job losses. Those opposite have misled people about assistance for small business. They have misled people about the strength of our economy. It has been a farce of wrecking balls, cobra strikes, python squeezes, dogs of taxes and octopus embraces. It is time the opposition displayed some integrity and put this discredited scare campaign out of its misery.
The member for Moore is a man of great integrity and a person who in my short time here I have grown to admire for both his words and actions. I think the opposition should take his advice and come up with properly funded policies which look to the future. The opposition leader should get off his downward spiral of negativity by taking advice from the member for Moore.
The carbon price has been in operation for over 100 days. Before it started, the opposition leader made countless dire predictions about its impact. Plague and pestilence were to be brought upon us. Not a single one of those predictions has come to pass. The opposition leader had predicted: Whyalla, Gladstone and the Hunter Valley would all be wiped off the map, but investment is growing—the Mayor of Whyalla says his town is 'kicking goals'; the death of the coal industry, but Australia's exports of thermal coal are forecast to increase by 12 per cent to 165 million tonnes in 2012—in fact, another coal loader has been ordered for Newcastle; the death of the steel industry, yet OneSteel, or Arrium, is now the subject of a takeover bid; and the death of manufacturing, but manufacturing employment has grown by 9,000 jobs since the carbon price began. We know that some areas are doing it tough, and Bass in Tasmania is one of those areas, but that is nothing to do with the carbon price. I believe it is partly because the community, including businesses, have been relying on the pulp mill being built.
The opposition leader predicted the price on carbon would create unimaginable price increases, yet the RBA can find no significant price rises. He also predicted tens of thousands of job losses, but the unemployment rate has dropped from 5.3 per cent to 5.1 per cent. The opposition leader has repeatedly claimed no other country is taking action. But Australia's carbon price will soon be linked to a scheme covering more than 30 other countries, and recently the government of the US state of California—the eighth largest economy in the world—announced that it will be exploring the potential linking of our carbon markets.
Contrary to the opposition leader's fallacious claims, the government's Household Assistance Package, funded by the carbon price, has made millions of people better off. The government has delivered tax cuts, higher family payments, increases in pensions and benefits to millions of households to help with the modest cost-of-living impacts. One million people no longer have to file a tax return because we trebled the tax-free threshold. That is a reform those opposite would never have made. It is only tax cuts for the wealthy that they understand. We know the opposition, when in government, were the highest taxing government as a proportion of GDP in Australia's history.
The opposition leader has trafficked in fiction and, if I can borrow a word from the minister, in a mendacious scare campaign. He continues to do it despite the facts and despite reality. The opposition have misled the people about the strength of our economy. It has been a farce of wrecking balls, cobra strikes, python squeezes, dogs of taxes and octopus embraces.
The carbon price is an essential economic reform. It is vital for our long-term competitiveness. It will allow Australia to play its part in tackling global climate change and at the same time improve our productivity through better use of energy inputs. Numerous economic reports have found that, while taking action has an economic cost, the cost of inaction will be far greater. The cheapest and most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution is to harness the power of the market, to put a price tag on greenhouse gas pollution that creates an incentive to cut that pollution. Every major economy is tackling climate change. Countries are using a mixture of regulation, carbon pricing, renewable energy targets and investment. Ensuring Australia does its fair share in tackling the global problem of climate change, we are doing this at least cost and are in a position to compete and prosper in a low-carbon economy, enhancing the productivity of Australian industry so that we are well placed to take up the growth opportunities that will be available in Asia and beyond over the next decades, which will support all Australians, including senior Australians, into the future.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (16:28): The carbon tax will have an impact on all Australians. For some individuals, the impact will be very significant, and that will be the case for many of our senior Australians. That is something that is of great concern to me as the member for McPherson, and I know that it is of great concern to many of the seniors that live in my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast and also more broadly on the southern Gold Coast. I know that because they come and speak to me about it. They take every opportunity to raise with me their concerns about how they are going to pay their bills into the future and whether they will have enough money to get themselves through their retirement. One of the questions that are at the forefront of their minds is: what will the impact of the carbon tax be on my future?
I think it is important to look at some of the numbers for the seniors that we have here. I should start by saying that the definition of a senior Australian is anyone over the age of 50 years.
Mr Ramsey: That's a bit harsh!
Mrs ANDREWS: It is very harsh! In my electorate of McPherson, 34.5 per cent of the population are 50 years and over, so they are classified and categorised as seniors.
I recently hosted a seniors forum on the Gold Coast with my friend and colleague the member for Moncrieff. We were fortunate enough to have as our guest speaker of the day the shadow minister for seniors, the member for Mackellar. Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rishworth ) (16:30): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Community Services
Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (16:30): I am about to read a very compelling email from a constituent that indicates just what political correctness has done to the family unit in this great country of ours. I quote:
Mr Schultz. I'm a 52 yr old father of four at my wits end. Last week my youngest girl (15) gave birth to a baby boy. We had no Idea she was pregnant and according to the doc she had blocked it from her memory. She told them, not me at the hospital who the father was a 20yr old male. I was told not to intervene as she was in a fragile state and loving my daughter unconditionally I did so. Later I was told after speaking with doctors a doc worker and councilor that my daughter would not have him charged, further they advised her he should be involved in her life. My wife who has spent a week with my daughter in hospital was told she has no say. As parents we have no rights for our baby daughter, the anguish she had to endure alone breaks my heart, three hours I spent trying to help her while she was in so much pain and the shock she went through giving birth. My wife and I raised four great children, we love them dearly and they love us in return. I'm at a loss as to why we were shut out when a snake of a man who was a friend of my eldest daughter and fiance did a thing like this and walks away without penalty. Where are our rights, my daughters rights she is a baby for gods sake. I love my girl and my grandson but their has to be something some avenue we can turn, this bloke is dangerous.
He then went on to send me another email yesterday:
Re my daughter Amy. Said social worker con my daughter without our prior knowledge Whilst talking to Amy totally ignored my wife telling our daughter that it was her sole decision in the matter. Prompted her on more than one occasion that the MAN should be involved in the upbringing of the child. Attempted to invite herself into our home when the district nurses were due Rang to speak to Amy who was busy at the time with the baby wanting to make app to visit I denied her on the basis that my daughter had said (dad can you keep that women away from me). My wife and I are incredulous that this person without forethought presumed that Kath and I were the same as all parents when all people are different and that she could have access to our child after going through a very physical and emotional time without any ok from us after all this is our baby. One final point this lady made my daughter feel insecure not secure in the family and massive friend support she has.
As a result of that, I wrote to three ministers of the Crown at the state level. In particular I wrote to the Hon. Pru Goward, who is the Minister for Family and Community Services, and I said this:
I refer to you the attached correspondence dated 21st September 2012 from—
my constituent in Cowra, New South Wales—
in the Hume Electorate who brings to my attention his grave concerns regarding his underage daughter of 15 years of age giving birth recently to a child fathered by a 20 year old male.
Enquiries made with the NSW Police reveal that, if a complaint is made and is proven, this is a jailable offence under NSW law carrying a substantial penalty by way of a 10-year sentence, could you please confirm this information so that I may advise my constituent.
I would further point-out that the intervention of a Doc's Worker, Councillor & Doctor have not assisted this family in anyway, and may have influenced the 15 year old's decision not to have the adult male charged. This inappropriate interference without full knowledge of the parents may have made the situation worse as this whole affair obviously began when this girl was a 14 year old minor as she is now only 15 and gave birth in mid-September.
I am in contact with the parents and have written permission to pursue the matter vigorously on their behalf.
I have also written to the Attorney General and the police minister and I intend to write to the minister for health in New South Wales to ask why these people employed by the state of New South Wales interfered in and shut down the rights of parents to look after their child, who in fact under the laws of this country is still a minor. I really do despair when these sorts of issues are raised in this politically correct environment that we live in today. They take away the God given right and the appropriate right under our system of democracy for parents to look after, educate and maintain the health of their children. (Time expired)
No. 292 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (16:35): On Thursday, 27 September 2012 it was a great privilege for me to join the 292 Squadron in the consecration parade of their Governor-General's banner. In particular, it was a great pleasure to join the Governor of South Australia, His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, who was the reviewing officer, and the Premier of the state, Jay Weatherill, in what was a wonderful parade on a very beautiful Adelaide day. This parade was flawless, I have to say. It was a great example of a parade out there at Edinburgh.
I want to congratulate the parade appointments: the parade commander, Wing Commander Roger McCutcheon; the parade adjutant, Flight Lieutenant Nicola Rhodes; the parade warrant officer, Warrant Officer Steven Peters; and the holding squadron commander, Squadron Leader Colin Gray. The escort squadron included the commander, Squadron Leader Nicholas Pausina, whom I know because he was my escort on an ADF exchange, and he is a constituent of mine. There was also the adjutant, Flight Lieutenant Michael Sleeman; the warrant officer, Andrew Ribbans; the No. 1 flight commander, Flight Lieutenant Christopher Pendleton; and the No. 2 flight commander, Flight Lieutenant Troy Murphy. In the representative squadron were the commander, Squadron Leader James Hawking; the adjutant, Flight Lieutenant Matthew Coombes; the warrant officer, Warrant Officer Nicholas Harding; the No. 1 Flight commander, Flight Lieutenant Adam Steff; the No. 2 Flight commander, Flight Lieutenant Darryl Guerin; the No. 3 Flight commander, Flight Lieutenant Philip Southwood; and the No. 4 Flight commander, Flight Lieutenant Alexander Cave. In the colour party were the colour bearer, Flight Lieutenant Matthew Basedow; the colour warrant officer, Warrant Officer Kevin Schibrowski; and the colour escort, Flight Sergeant Deb Robertson and Sergeant Adam Driscoll. The master of ceremonies was Flight Lieutenant Philip Blakers. As I said before, it was a flawless parade undertaken by those parade appointments and by all of those from 292 Squadron who were parading that day.
The motto of 292 Squadron is 'Prepare the hunter'. It plays a vital role in assisting 92 Wing, which is based at Edinburgh, in doing its job. Its job over the last decade has been very busy indeed. I have been fortunate enough, when I did my Australian Defence Force exchange at Edinburgh, to see what all of the squadrons at Edinburgh do. In particular, I was fortunate enough to go out over the Timor Sea with 292 Squadron and see the important work that it does in border protection. Seeing that work up-front and close and personal changed my mind about many of our border protection issues, and it certainly gave me a great appreciation of the important role that 92 Wing plays up there and the important role that 292 Squadron plays in training and preparing them to do that job.
Getting a Governor-General's banner is no small thing. Non-operational units can only get it after 25 years of service in the Air Force, so it is regarded with great reverence. Colours have of course been associated with military units from the earliest of times.
This was a great day with flawless parading by 292 Squadron. I congratulate it on receiving its colours and on its flawless parade. I wish it every success into the future.
National Diabetes Services Scheme: 25th Anniversary
Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (16:39): Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you on your elevation to high office. Last night, Diabetes Australia celebrated 25 years of administering the National Diabetes Services Scheme. The NDSS is a world-leading program, delivering diabetes related products at subsidised prices across the country. Prior to the scheme operating, consumables, such as syringes, were not subsidised, meaning the management of diabetes was incredibly expensive. To illustrate the difference this program made, Judith McLeod, who was one of the first people to be a registered participant of the scheme in 1987, told guests at the celebratory function last night how she was given only one glass needle that was intended to last her forever, due to the cost. She told us how she once accidentally dropped the needle from the syringe down the sink and could not recover it. She went without medication for 24 hours. Medication, too, was difficult to get, so rigorous planning was needed to ensure that she had sufficient supplies to last, particularly over holiday periods. Through the establishment of the scheme, vital medications and equipment can now be easily accessed across the country by walking into any pharmacy with an NDSS logo, or calling up the national telephone service.
The scheme has expanded over its life—I am pleased to say it has had bipartisan support in this parliament over a very lengthy period of time—and has allowed new technologies to be added, improving the management of diabetes for hundreds of thousands of people. One of the most important and recent additions was the listing of pump consumables, particularly for children, ensuring diabetics could afford the peripheral items used to operate an insulin pump.
Not only does the NDSS improve the lives of individuals, it represents a significant cost saving to the health budget. Proper management of diabetes ensures that patients do not develop more severe complications that require hospitalisation, or even the amputation of limbs. That message was brought home very clearly to members of this place this week. The Australasian Podiatry Council was in Parliament House yesterday demonstrating the ease with which proper patient management can save limbs. It is a regrettable, but also preventable, fact that 19.6 per cent of diabetes sufferers in Australia, over 200,000 people, have some form of peripheral arterial disease, which potentially places them at risk of requiring amputation. But if it is picked up early and managed properly, such drastic measures as amputation can be avoided, saving people's limbs and their quality of life, and many millions to the health system. In fact, the Australasian Podiatry Council's 2012 budget submission notes that up to $397 million per year could be saved by implementing more modest foot checks.
Translating research into workable products is another area where Australia can lead, and in many cases has led, the world in the fight against diabetes. With the support of the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group the islet transplant centre of excellence was established. While speaking with members of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation recently, it was highlighted that where Australia once provided funds to US researchers, the depth of Australia's research talent has now seen money flow from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in the United States to our shores. But we still lag on the all-important step of translating that research into clinical trials, which leads to medication and products which could improve, and indeed save, the lives of people across the globe.
The success of programs such as the NDSS demonstrates that proper patient management is a critical factor in reducing the lives, limbs and money lost to diabetes in the community. The program is a beacon to government to investigate further initiatives that have the potential to save not only Australian lives but those of people across the world. I congratulate Diabetes Australia on its success over the 25 years and look forward to new initiatives in this critical area being endorsed by the government. It is not so much the cost of medicine that we should be concerned about but the cost of undiagnosed diabetes that is the problem. (Time expired)
Sino-Australian Relations
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (16:44): Madam Speaker, I add my congratulations on your elevation to high office. In the last week of September it was my privilege to attend and participate in the 2012 Australia-China Futures Second Track Dialogue, whose governing theme was 'The Australia-China relationship at forty: building a pathway for the future.' Held in Beijing, the second track dialogue was co-sponsored by Griffith University and Peking University and supported by both the Australia-China Council and the Queensland Government. I would like to thank Griffith University, particularly Vice Chancellor Professor Ian O'Connor and Professor Andrew O'Neil, director of the Griffith Asia Institute, for the opportunity to participate in this dialogue.
The dialogue provided an opportunity to examine the evolution of Sino-Australian relations over the four decades that have passed since the establishment of formal diplomatic relations by the Whitlam government in 1972 and, most importantly, to consider the opportunities and challenges that we share in the Asian century ahead. I was pleased to meet Yi Wang of Griffith University, the author of a recently published book entitled Australia-China Relations post 1949—Sixty years of Trade and Politics.
China's growing strategic importance not only in our region but globally raises the issue of how Australia as a creative middle power positions itself in the Asia-Pacific and the world vis-a-vis China and the United States, and I note that this is the subject of considerable expert commentary at present. But the more popular sense of the relationship between Australia and China tends to be a relatively narrow and simplified version of a much broader and more complex reality.
Australia's resources sector is connected to and relies upon the appetite of the growing Chinese economy. There are the questions of how sustainable Australia's reliance on China as an export market for commodities is in the long term and what should be done to diversify Australia's economic relationship with China, and, further, how China and Australia relate to one another outside the lens of economics and the trade relationship. How do we diversify and broaden our engagement through our own distinctive yet evolving cultural and political frames, recognising that differences do exist, being prepared to discuss even difficult issues with the respectful honesty that is built upon a foundation of friendship?
The second track dialogue was especially thought-provoking and refreshing because of the chance it provided to consider aspects of the Sino-Australian relationship that are less commonly part of how we think about the connections between our countries but that will be increasingly important in framing our future. Most of all I appreciated the emphasis on the importance of people-to-people links as essential to building trust and understanding. During the first session of the dialogue, regarding cooperation and higher education, it was noted that, while there are some 97,000 Chinese students studying in Australia, there are only 3,000 Australian students studying in China. The critical need to develop interest in Asian culture and language among Australia's young people and the wider community was discussed. There is the sense that despite Australia's growing intellectual understanding of our place in Asia, our personal and official attachments are still skewed to the West. If we look at Australia's diplomatic representation, Australia is significantly under-represented in Asia compared to Europe. In my own electorate I have observed that most schools teaching languages other than English are teaching European languages such as Italian, French or German despite their more limited relevance to Australia's present and future.
The dialogue also addressed emerging areas of closer cooperation in science partnerships and engagement, and disaster management. Both China and Australia have embraced R&D as necessary to their futures. China has become one of the largest investors in R&D and sources of scientific publications while Australia is one of the most prolific producers of scientific publications per capita. China has established collaborative partnerships on science and technology with 152 countries. I was encouraged to learn of the strong partnership that has developed between Australia's CSIRO and the Chinese Academy of Sciences since 1975. China is now Australia's third most significant partner in research and development. Our joint projects include medical research, biodiversity, food security, water conservation, wireless communications and renewable energy.
On the issue of disaster management, it was noted that the Asia-Pacific is the world's most natural disaster prone region and that the frequency, cost and impact of natural disasters is only going to increase with population growth, increased urbanisation and climate change. Experts expressed the view that Australia's disaster management planning assumptions have historically been too narrow, focused on past events, and that Australia needs a permanent fund to prepare for and respond to emergencies so that the government is not dependent on emergency appeals and ad hoc levies imposed after the event.
On the eve, as it were, of the release of the government's timely white paper on Australia's place in the Asian Century, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity presented by the 2012 second track dialogue to participate in discussions of some of the most interesting developing aspects of the Australia-China relationship. There is no doubt that our common future, as nations and as regional participants, will be made healthier and safer, and that the lives of our respective citizens will be made more prosperous, free and sustainable, by our cooperation in such future planning.
Bougainville
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:50): Earlier this year I travelled to Bougainville with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop. During that visit we had the opportunity to meet with Bougainville President John Momis and members of his government, and to build an understanding of how Bougainville is faring as it emerges from the years of civil war that wrought such destruction in what otherwise can only be described as a paradise. Bougainville has come a long way from those difficult times and gradually things are improving. It is telling that elections in Bougainville at national and regional level are largely conducted in a safe and peaceful manner and the results are accepted as representing the will of the people.
There remains, sadly, a significant issue with weapons that remain in the Bougainville community. The source of those weapons varies, with some brought into Bougainville for the purposes of the conflict, others obtained from the PNG Defence Force and others being refurbished weapons already on Bougainville having been abandoned after the Second World War. It is about that last group of weapons that I would like to address my remarks.
The Bougainville campaign during World War Two involved some 125,000 Australian and American troops and up to 65,000 Japanese troops. The Japanese forces occupied Bougainville as part of their expansion into the Pacific and subsequently, after success in Guadalcanal American and Australian forces landed and established a beachhead at Torokina, on the west coast of Bougainville, which over time became a major base including airfields and tens of thousands of troops.
Along with the troops came those other essentials of war—weapons, ammunition, both for light arms and for artillery, and bombs. Those munitions have been a steady contributor to the death and destruction in Bougainville during the recent conflict and their influence still creates a notable challenge for the Autonomous Bougainville Government. An informal survey in 2008 disclosed an enormous number of unexploded bombs, artillery shells and mortars, largely remaining from when the Allies left. There were literally hundreds of mortar bombs lying in the very racks where they were placed in the 1940s—large bombs embedded in the ground where local villagers would step over them on their daily business.
The ABG and the PNG Government sought US assistance and, as a result, in 2009 the US provided a specialist group to assist with this problem. As Safe Passage, a newsletter for the humanitarian mine action and conventional weapons destruction communities, reports:
… after three months of work over three tons of ordnance that had been scattered throughout the area was destroyed including several large aerial bombs that were destroyed where they were found.
As valuable as that work was, there is an important aspect that remains untouched and which poses a serious threat to peace in Bougainville—the weapons that remain at Torokina and elsewhere in Bougainville. As good as the work of the US quick reaction force destruction team was, it was restricted to bombs. I am advised that there was no significant destruction of the many weapons that remain.
During the Bougainville conflict, these weapons were utilised. They were retrieved from their World War II resting places and restored to working use. There is an ongoing trade in weapons in Bougainville, albeit now reduced by local pressure. But it remains an issue. The Bougainville peace process has come a long way since the Bougainville Peace Agreement was signed in 2001, but there remain issues outstanding, with groups remaining outside the peace process. These groups remain armed and, while they do so, remain a threat to peace. It is in that context that these leftover weapons assume an importance we cannot ignore.
Australia still has a role to play in supporting the peace process in Bougainville. As Bougainvilleans will tell you readily, peace does not come through a peace agreement alone. It is a long process over many years. It remains fragile—and a significant contributor to that fragility is the ready access to these weapons. So how can Australia help? Initially, the best contribution would be to undertake a proper assessment of the numbers and location of these World War II weapons and to provide advice as to how they may best be collected and destroyed and then to provide the support and expertise to ensure that that advice is implemented. Australia has been a major contributor to the Bougainville peace process. We have worked closely with the PNG and Bougainville governments to help bring peace to Bougainville. Removing weapons from the community is an essential component of ongoing peace.
Madam Speaker, I add my congratulations on your election.
Community Cabinet: Launceston
Mr LYONS (Bass) (16:54): The 36th community cabinet was held in Launceston last week. The community cabinet is a great opportunity for people to bring their concerns directly to their federal representatives and for the government to get firsthand access to community perceptions and expectations. Prime Minister Gillard and many of her ministers spent time in the state in the lead-up to the community forum engaging with communities about local and federal issues.
I visited Launceston's Tas-Fab steel fabrication plant with the Minister for Innovation and Industry, the Hon. Greg Combet. We talked to Tim Peypers, their managing director, about how they are using their $300,000-plus grant from the Tasmania Innovation and Investment Fund to expand their Launceston operations and employ new staff. The Prime Minister and I were also able to visit the Benevolent Society and hear about how they were going to spend their $50,000 in federal funding, funding which will assist them in fitting out their new premises in Kings Meadows so they can continue to create positive social change in our local community.
At the Launceston General Hospital, the Prime Minister officially opened the Northern Integrated Care Centre and the University of Tasmania's Launceston Clinical School. The centre will help patients better manage chronic and complex conditions by providing accessible, customer focused and integrated services. The Northern Integrated Care Centre also includes the University of Tasmania's Launceston Clinical School, which conducts undergraduate medical training for years 4 and 5, as well as for postgraduate and PhD students. The clinical school was developed with the support of a $3 million grant from the federal government's Capital Development Program. These facilities are proof that national health reform—and, in particular, improving primary health care for all Australians—is making a real difference in helping Australians get the high quality services that meet their needs and the needs of their families.
I also visited Ravenswood Heights Primary School with the Prime Minister and Senator Jacinta Collins, the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations. The school held a forum with parents, students and teachers. They discussed with the Prime Minister how they are benefiting from funding received under the national numeracy and literacy partnerships, the national curriculum and how the school will benefit from the National Plan for School Improvement. I thank Principal Brittany Roestenberg for warmly welcoming us to her school.
The community forum, which was open to the public of Northern Tasmania and which was held at Launceston College, was a great success. Local community members took the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister and cabinet members about various local and national issues, including Bass Strait freight charges, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, carbon pricing and international aid. I thank Principal Keith Wenn, along with all the students involved, for making the event a success. Keith pointed out some of Launceston College's many achievements and I would also like to note his personal dedication to education in Tasmania. Keith has worked for students for some 35 years in various schools throughout Tasmania. We are very lucky to have him at Launceston College. The forum was marked by a touching moment when Mr Syd Edwards read a letter he had written to the Prime Minister, expressing his admiration for her leadership.
So far, more than 13,500 people have attended community cabinet meetings across the country. I am proud to be part of a government that is inclusive and allows the community to have direct access to ministers and the Prime Minister. This was open to all of the community. There were even some Liberals there—to learn. It was quite an interesting event. Some of the people who attended were not necessarily pro Labor, I can tell you, but I am sure that, after the meeting, they had been won over by our magnificent Prime Minister, who did a fantastic job. I thank the Prime Minister and her cabinet colleagues for coming to the electorate of Bass and I thank the members of the public who came along to ensure its great success.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Crean to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government be appointed to inquire into and report on the majority finding (financial recognition) of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government including by amending section 96 of the Constitution, and in conducting its inquiry, the Committee will assess the likelihood of success of a referendum on financial recognition, and will take into account the following matters:
(a) the report of the Expert Panel on constitutional recognition of Local Government, including preconditions set by the Expert Panel for the holding of a referendum;
(b) the level of support within the Commonwealth Parliament and the level of State and Territory support;
(c) the potential consequences for Local Government, States and Territories of such an amendment; and
(d) any other matters that the Committee considers may be relevant to a decision on whether to conduct a referendum, and the timing of any referendum;
(2) the Committee consist of eleven members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one non-aligned Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(3) every nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Select Committee until presentation of the Committee’s report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(5) the Committee elect a:
(a) Government Member as Chair; and
(b) member as its Deputy Chair who shall act as Chair of the Committee at any time when the Chair is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the Chair and Deputy Chair are not present at a meeting of the Committee the members present shall elect another member to act as Chair at that meeting;
(6) in the event of an equally divided vote, the Chair, or the Deputy Chair when acting as Chair, has a casting vote;
(7) three members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government Member of either House, and one non-Government Member of either House;
(8) the Committee has power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the Committee is empowered to examine;
(9) the Committee appoint the Chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the Chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as Chair at that meeting;
(10) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government Member of either House and one non-Government Member of either House;
(11) members of the Committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(12) the Committee or any subcommittee:
(a) has power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; and
(c) has power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(13) the Committee may report from time to time but that it present a preliminary report no later than December 2012 if possible, and a final report no later than February 2013;
(14) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(15) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr McC ormack to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 2012 marks the centenary of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA) with the official ‘Turning on the Water’ taking place at the Yanco regulator on 13 July 1912;
(b) the MIA:
(i) was created to control and divert the flow of local river and creek systems for the purpose of food production; and
(ii) is, today, one of the most diverse and productive regions in Australia, contributing more than $5 billion annually to the Australian economy; and
(c) the Riverina towns of Coleambally, Leeton and Yanco, and the city of Griffith were purpose built and designed as part of the project, and are now some of the most thriving, multicultural regional communities in Australia; and
(2) calls on Members of the House to:
(a) acknowledge the importance of:
(i) irrigation in underpinning national and international food security; and
(ii) our irrigation industry in Australia fulfilling its role as the food bowl of Asia;
(c) recognise that it is important to build our food-processing industry so that it can supply Asia’s growing consumer markets, and develop the research, technologies and logistics that strengthen irrigation, grow higher-yield crops and improve safety; and
(d) accept that irrigation communities such as those in the MIA are reliant on a Murray-Darling Basin Plan which fulfils a triple-bottom line of social, economic and environmental outcomes; and
(3) calls on the Prime Minister to implement her commitment to ‘strengthen irrigation’ as stated in her speech to the Global Foundation Summit in Melbourne on 3 May 2012.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (M r S Georganas ) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Bali Peace Park
Mr IRONS (Swan) (09:30): I must officially congratulate the member for Hindmarsh on his elevation to Second Deputy Speaker. I will miss him as Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, but I am sure he will be replaced by someone equally capable.
Today I rise to speak about the 10th anniversary of the tragic Bali bombings, which will be commemorated tomorrow. Both here in Australia and in Bali friends, families, survivors and supporters of those who suffered during this cowardly act of terrorism will stand side by side in memory of the tragic event. Two hundred and two people, including 88 Australians and 39 Indonesians, were killed at the Sari Club on the night of 12 October 2002. Even more were injured and airlifted to Australia for treatment. Our Defence Force were instrumental in treating victims on the ground and setting up makeshift hospitals to treat not just Australians but all those injured.
Tomorrow we will be not only remembering the events of 12 October but also celebrating the ever-strengthening relationship between Indonesia and Australia. I have spoken before in this place about a wonderful bilateral organisation that was founded in Perth, Western Australia, in 2008 called the Bali Peace Park organisation. This not-for-profit organisation is supported by Australian federal and state governments to bring together survivors, families, friends and supporters of those affected by the Bali bombings, as well as Balinese and Indonesian government officials. The organisation has a mission statement of 'striving to help build a future without fear by promoting tolerance, understanding and freedom for generations to come'. The Bali Peace Park organisation has helped many Australians and Indonesians come to terms with the horrific terror attacks and move on in cooperation.
Since the organisation's beginning in 2008, I have sought to keep the House up to date with the Bali Peace Park's goal to create a spiritual garden on the Sari Club site for persons to reflect upon and acknowledge the terrorist attack on 12 October 2002. At the moment the site is being used as a makeshift car park and the organisation is in ongoing negotiations with the owners of the land. I wish the organisation every success with these endeavours. I have also had the opportunity to meet with the Governor of Bali, Governor Pastika, and promote the ideals of the Bali Peace Park organisation to him and seek his assistance in reaching the goal of turning the Sari Club site into a memorial, a spiritual garden.
Tomorrow morning I will be attending the peace park's annual dawn service at King's Park in Perth with WA Premier Colin Barnett and many members of the public. The support for this service continues to grow year after year and is a testament to the spirit of the survivors and the supporters.
In closing I would like to acknowledge one of the patrons of the Bali Peace Park, Dr Fiona Wood. Dr Wood pioneered groundbreaking medical technology to treat the burns and save the lives of many injured in the blast. It is people like Dr Wood, our Defence Force and heroic survivors who have pioneered through heartbreak to create a strong and supportive network. They deserve to be celebrated on 12 October each year.
Gorton Young Leaders Awards
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (09:33): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I congratulate you on your elevation to high office. I am extremely pleased to inform the House that the electorate of Gorton has produced another round of exceptional young leaders who have received recognition under the annual Gorton Young Leaders Awards initiative. I established the awards, now in their third year, to recognise young people who have shown exceptional commitment to public service in their final years of secondary college, specifically through involvement in voluntary work, student leadership or community.
These young leaders follow in the traditions of previous recipients of Gorton Young Leaders Awards. Each individual was involved in a number of worthy endeavours during this challenging final year, demonstrating commendable levels of commitment to their communities and to greater public life. One prizewinner was involved in the Acts of Random Kindness group at her college, an outreach project that connects students with sick patients in partnership with Western Health. Another student spent a week sleeping on a tennis club floor so he could assist with the flood recovery efforts in Charlton. Other students excelled academically while juggling college leadership roles and student advocacy commitments.
Twelve former year 12 students from across six schools were awarded the Gorton Young Leaders Award based on their achievements during 2011. The winners were: from Keilor Downs Secondary College, Natalie Jayne Little and Julian Amici; from Taylors Lakes Secondary College, Ryan Lim and Elizabeth Hope Kalas; from Copperfield College, Jan Tuilagi and Aoun Rizvi; from Overnewton Anglican College, Joseph Pensa and Sharlene Amisha Prasad; from Victoria University Secondary College Deer Park Campus, Alex Mendez and Krista Anne Multanen; and, from CRC Catholic Regional College, Luke Barallon and Bonnie Seymour.
Earlier this year I also convened a morning tea in my electorate office in Keilor to formally recognise the achievements of the young leaders, who are now enrolled in courses at university, TAFE and other educational institutions. It was a great pleasure and privilege to meet and speak with the winners and indeed to speak to some of their parents and some of their teachers. The morning tea was a wonderful success and it also provided a great opportunity for the schools and indeed the families to witness them receive these prizes.
I am sure the House will join me in congratulating these young leaders on their efforts and wishing them every success going into the future. No doubt these exceptional young leaders will continue to excel in numerous areas of endeavour and achievement as they pursue each of their respective pathways.
Mitchell Electorate: Taekwondo World
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (09:36): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I also congratulate you on your elevation to this grand high office. I believe you must be the first government Second Deputy Speaker. That is a big achievement in itself, so well done on that. In paying tribute to your great success story of a successful migrant family, I want to talk about another success story in my electorate in the great fabric of migration to Australia. Taekwondo World in my electorate celebrated its 25th anniversary on the weekend. Grandmaster In Cheol Yoo emigrated in 1987 from Korea and started Taekwondo World in my electorate. Sometimes when you grow up in a community and are integrated in it you think you know everything about it, but when I turned up to Taekwondo World for the first time and saw about 1,000 people participating in taekwondo I learnt that my electorate is home to the biggest taekwondo club in Australia today.
Grandmaster Yoo was responsible for the coordination of the taekwondo events at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. He serves as the Chairman of Sports Taekwondo Australia and as Vice-President of the Korea Taekwondo Association of Australia and is a member of Kukkiwon World Taekwondo Headquarter International Advisory Committee.
This is a remarkable Australian success story too. Seeing all those families participating—the young children with their parents learning self-discipline, concentration, a martial art and fitness on the weekend—was quite inspiring. Grandmaster Yoo is ably assisted by 18 highly skilled taekwondo masters. I congratulate him, his wife and his team for being a valued part of our Mitchell community. They often participate in displays at our annual Hills Orange Blossom Festival and in open air taekwondo lessons around our community. It is certainly a great business that trains and develops bonds between parents and children and develops great people in a martial art.
I also did a martial art when I was a young person. It certainly benefited me. I can understand the benefit gained by many young people in their discipline, training and fitness. After 25 years of great success—this club has been awarded club of the year in Australia for around a decade in the 2000s; almost every year this club achieves that pinnacle within Australia—we recognise Grandmaster In Cheol Yoo, his masters and all the parents and families that participate in this great sport and also this great success story of yet another migrant adding to the great fabric of Australian success. They come from all over the world. There is a great relationship between Australia and Korea in terms of trade and diplomacy, but there are also many hidden success stories with individual migrants coming to this country, establishing a great life, building a great business and passing on a value-added cultural asset to our country.
Corio Electorate: Flamefest 2012
Mr MARLES (Corio—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) (09:39): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I too add my congratulations on your elevation to high office. Later this month the proud community in Geelong will quite literally reclaim ownership of their neighbourhood. Flamefest 2012 will be held in a park, a common, called Whittington Link. Just in the last decade it has been a place of broken glass, illegal motorbikes, crime, drugs and violence, but today it is beautiful. It is a beautiful area with great public art and with increased usage. It will be celebrated through Flamefest.
The emblem for Flamefest is a phoenix, and it is emblematic of what has happened with Whittington Link and also of what has happened with Whittington itself. Whittington is one of Geelong's most disadvantaged suburbs, but it is also a suburb which is setting a new standard in how residents and the agencies that serve those residents can work together to achieve real and sustainable results. The Community Renewal program was launched by the Victorian government in Whittington in 2007—the then Bracks government—and from that we have seen the creation of a community garden, a permanent home for the Men's Shed and the development of the community-planned Whittington Link which, I am proud to say, was federally funded by this Labor government. In addition, the Apollo Drive Kindergarten reopened and its enrolments are growing, as are student numbers of Whittington Primary School. A notable milestone was reached last year when, for the first time ever, every student at Whittington Primary School had been to kindergarten before starting school.
Community Renewal as a formal program completed its work in September, but it is fantastic to see the programs that have sprung up to take its place. One of these is Whittington Works, which aims to get people back into the workforce and create a culture of lifelong learning within the community. Entrenched and generational unemployment is a very real issue in Whittington, but the work being done by community agencies, registered training organisations and Job Services Australia providers is yielding promising results. All up, 17 organisations are involved in Whittington Works. What sets this initiative apart is the extent to which these 17 organisations are working together. They may vie for business in the marketplace but in their work in Whittington they are collaborators first and competitors second.
At the Whittington Flamefest later this month job service providers, training organisations and employers will gather collectively under the banner of Whittington Works at a special jobs expo being planned as a part of that day. I can think of no better way to celebrate a renewed sense of community. The people of Whittington have shown us all what can be achieved when we harness the strength within us and our hopes and dreams for a brighter future, and those hopes are certainly invested in the community of Whittington.
Live Animal Exports
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (09:42): Mr Second Deputy Speaker Georganas, I congratulate you on your new position. I seek leave to table a letter I received from a Northern Territory constituent last night.
Leave granted.
Mrs GRIGGS: Thank you. The letter I received was from Mrs Vicki Mayne from the Annaburroo station asking if I could read her letter in parliament. As we only have three minutes I will only read certain parts. She says:
If you truly care about the welfare of animals destined for export than please, please read my message and then take the time to think long and hard about the bigger picture to this debate. If you think my words are a waste of breath, than think of this—I had coffee with a mustering pilot yesterday who said he has clients who are unable to pay their bills knowing that they have to continue with mustering for the welfare of their cows and calves, and that one gentleman feels that despondent that he has contemplated suicide.
The Live Export Industry not only involves the welfare of animals but human life too—why are people not understanding the impact this is having on OUR livestock here in Australia, Australian Families, and the thousands and thousands of Indonesian Families already affected by a temporary ban in trade by a rash decision made by our current Government influenced by the Greens.
Yes we, Australian Graziers, do care and are quite concerned about the welfare of animals that have been exported to other countries.
But ask yourself this—if Australia turns their back on Live Export what other country will continue Australia's effort to ensure the welfare of animals exported from other countries?
… … …
The Greens are pushing ahead in Federal Parliament to ban live export. I ask this question, if the Government and people of Australia push forward with a Live Export ban what will happen to the welfare of over a millions cattle and sheep here in Australia and what will happen to families involved? Are Australians happy to watch cattle and sheep die of a slow painful death as they starve due to overstocking of their paddocks because the Government decides to close the door on Live Export? And are Australians happy to watch on as our Australian Graziers take their own life because they are so ashamed that they cannot provide fodder and water for their livestock or financial support for their families. Have people forgotten about the Beef Depression in the 1970s which affected 100s of grazing families and their communities in NT, Qld and NSW all because the cattle industry in Northern Australia collapsed because there was no market for Live Export?
Cultured Animal Products
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (09:45): I too take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to high office. You will be a magnificent Second Deputy Speaker and I hope one day you are the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Recent developments in Europe and the United States could revolutionise the production of meat and animal products even as the Australian livestock industry struggles to contain public outrage at the cruelty of the live export trade. Scientists have made good progress in producing meat and leather by tissue culture, where sections of animal hide and muscles are grown in a nutrient solution and then processed to produce substances that are indistinguishable in appearance and other properties from meat and leather taken from slaughtered animals. Researchers at the universities of Oxford and Amsterdam found that, for the same weight of product, cultured product expends seven to 45 per cent less energy than conventional farming methods, produces 78 to 96 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, uses 99 per cent less land and needs 82 to 96 per cent less water depending on the meat types they compared.
In the United States the technology start-up company Modern Meadow announced in August that by 2017 they will start to produce leather by tissue culture while they continue to work on growing meat in the laboratory. The prospect that cultured animal products may displace a significant part of the produce of the meat and livestock industry is not just a dream but a real possibility given the obvious advantages in a world facing an ever-growing demand for animal products from an industry increasingly constrained by environmental limitations. According to the US Department of Agriculture in 2011, the world consumed 55 million tonnes of beef and veal and 100 million tonnes of pork and this will double by 2050. Supplying even a proportion of that demand will place a great burden on the environment and use vast amounts of energy and non-renewable resources while the slaughter of animals continues to raise very understandable concerns about animal welfare.
According to the business information provider MarketLine, the international meat, fish and poultry market generated revenues of $527.6 billion in 2010 and had a compound annual growth rate of 3.8 per cent for 2006-10—good news in the short-term for the Australian livestock industry but even more encouraging for the producers of cultured animal products.
These technological changes will have an adverse impact on people working in some rural industries yet the meat factories, if I may call them that, will still need agricultural products to feed the bio reactors, will still need workers and will, one hopes, provide well-paid jobs that do not entail the unpleasantness and frequent cruelty that goes with the slaughter of animals for food and hides.
Cowan Electorate
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (09:48): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the managing director, Mark Keogh, and the whole team at UON, a company based in the electorate of Cowan for their 2012 win as the Telstra Western Australia Business—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings sus pended from 09:48 to 10:06
Cowan Electorate: UON Pty Ltd
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (10:06): I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the managing director, Mark Keogh, and the whole team at UON, a company based in the electorate of Cowan, for their win of the 2012 Telstra Western Australian Business of the Year Award and the Commonwealth Bank National Medium Business Award at the Telstra Australian Business Awards. This is a huge achievement for Mark and the team. Since UON began operating in 1998, they have been providing power generation, air compressors and water-pumping solutions to industry. Particularly in the resources industry, Mark Keogh and his team are providing what the industry needs and have therefore been successful. They develop and integrate modular products using one simplified process, from conception to hire or purchase to ongoing support.
As I have said before, there are many people in this country who think that to be in the resources sector is a simple pathway to high returns. These people do not see or recognise that success sometimes, but not always, comes after putting the family home up as security for a loan, very long hours of work, the worry about bills not being matched by the returns and knowing that one is stretched to the limits of one's finances and personal capacities over years. That is the UON story. In UON's application for this award, Mark stated:
UON was established due to the market demand for a better product in a robust niche market within the mining industry.
To me, this quote highlights Mark's vision of pursuing what he believed he could achieve and being brave enough to take a huge gamble and carry a lot of risk because he saw the impact his business could make in the power industry.
Mark's knowledge, experience and dedication have seen UON establish itself as a professional, trusted and reliable company in its industry. The company has expanded from 10 staff and a small office to 148 staff, one office complex and numerous workshops, yards and other infrastructure. The company has also grown from the humble beginnings of 1998 to turn over $50 million in the last financial year, and is now looking forward to turning over in excess of $100 million within the next three years.
Despite UON's great success, they, like all other companies, also face challenges and issues. During a recent visit to the business, Mark said that some of the biggest issues facing their business were competition with the mining industry for staff, and government burdens, in particular excessive red and green tape and visa related issues. At this visit, Mark informed me that UON employs two full-time employees purely to deal with government regulations. This demonstrates the need for governments to get out of the way and stop holding back businesses. In particular, what a future coalition government will do for businesses like UON is, firstly, to get rid of the world's biggest carbon tax and, secondly, to get rid of the mining tax. Beyond the clear positions that everyone knows the coalition stands for, a further initiative of the coalition in government will be to cut $1 billion worth of red tape. When I look at UON and what Mark Keogh and his team have done for Western Australia and the nation, I see a business that deserves the hope, reward and opportunity that an Abbott government will deliver.
In conclusion, I congratulate Mark Keogh and his team at UON for receiving the Telstra Western Australia Business of the Year Award and the Commonwealth Bank National Medium Business of the Year Award. (Time expired)
Brand Electorate: Kwinana
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) (10:09): I rise today to speak about the locality of Kwinana and its recent qualification as a city in the 2011 census. Kwinana is a township in the northern part of my electorate, in the southern metropolitan area of Perth, a city now of 30,000 people. It is a city that for all of its life has been an integral part of the economic structure of Western Australia, from the days before European settlement, when it was part of an important trade and communication link pursued by local Noongar people from Perth through to what we now call Bunbury, up to now—the home town of the industrial hub of Western Australia.
Western Australia has four great pillars of economic activity—the mining industry, of course; the agricultural sector; our massively efficient ports; and the Kwinana industrial area, which generates in the order of $20 billion worth of economic product to the benefit of Western Australians. The graduation of the town of Kwinana to city status is extremely important. It brings to fruition the vision of successive mayors of Kwinana, from Frank Konecny through to the current mayor, Carol Adams, to grow the town in a way that supports the local community and supports the aspirations of the people who live in that community. Kwinana industries provide energy; they provide agricultural products. The port at Kwinana is Australia's largest export agricultural port. The port at Kwinana provides the export capacity through the CBH hub, which is a massive investment in the future of Western Australians—made by our farmers, made by CBH and made over 40 years ago—to the benefit of all Western Australians. It is an icon of my part of the coastal fringe of the Perth metropolitan area.
The Kwinana industries together—generating, as I said, $20 billion worth of product—grew from an insightful decision by a government almost 50 years ago to create the first registered state agreement on which the BP refinery is founded. That refinery then created the need for labour and built the housing stock that became the town of Kwinana, which has now graduated into city status, so that it stands equal to its neighbouring Coburn, Rockingham and Mandurah as a place of the future, a place of growth, a place of prosperity, a place of pride and a place that has built its future on a grumpy sense of self-reliance. It has had its own future taken in hand by great leaders of our town like Frank Konecny and successive mayors, building a town that will hold a place in the future as a city, and I congratulate Kwinana for it. (Time expired)
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:12): The federal water minister says the nation has never been closer to a River Murray agreement after new modelling shows that increasing flows would dramatically improve environmental outcomes—so he says. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority on 9 October released scientific, and I will come back to that word, analysis of the environmental gain of returning 3,200 billion litres per year to the system and removing obstacles, and I will come back to that word as well, to flow. It shows that 17 of 18 key basin sites, including the Lower Lakes, Coorong and South Australian wetlands, many of which are man-made, would be protected if 3,200 billion litres were returned and capacity constraints removed.
First of all, if the MDBA plans on actually listening to the science and looking at the science, that would be a first, let me tell you. I also mentioned the word 'obstacles'. What are obstacles? According to the MDBA, these are system constraints, which most of us know as roads, bridges, houses and towns—including Darlington Point in my electorate—which will all be flooded if the amount of water that the MDBA says is now needed actually flows down the system. The New South Wales Irrigators Council says the Basin Plan modelling released by the MDBA has placed the process 'entirely in the realm of absurd', and, of course, the chief executive of the Irrigators Council, Andrew Gregson, is correct. It is just absurd. It is totally out of the realm of reality to think that that amount of water would be put down the system.
The irrigators in my electorate, who actually grow the food to feed this nation, are understandably outraged. Griffith farmer John Bonetti was one of many who said the community would continue to take action to protect its food production capabilities. Yesterday morning I was at a breakfast—of the Crawford Fund, 'For a food secure world'—and there we heard that it is possible to feed the world and to feed the planet, which now has 7.2 billion people, as we heard at that breakfast, a billion of whom are already going to bed of a night hungry.
How can we expect to feed those people if we are going to take productive water away from the farmers who grow the food to feed this nation and other nations as well? Murrumbidgee Food and Fibre Association President Debbie Buller said that it is not in farmers' natures to play dirty, but she is understandably upset. She said that even if it is a good plan, which looks unlikely at this point, we are still in massive trouble if it is poorly implemented. Of course she is correct. If that happens, we all need to fight back, stand up and speak up. And we will in the Riverina. We will not cop a bad water plan. We will not cop this amount of water being taken out of our system and put down the river for no environment gain. It is totally absurd. (Time expired)
Fremantle Electorate: Clean Energy Future
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (10:15): I want to take this opportunity to highlight some of the innovation occurring in my electorate as a direct result of the government's Clean Energy Future policies. Through the support of these initiatives and programs, individuals and businesses across the Fremantle electorate have seized on the chance to explore and develop the kinds of technologies that will put Australia on the path towards a low-carbon energy-efficient economy. In Jandakot, the family owned garden products company Richgro is investing in a $3 million anaerobic waste-to-energy plant that will provide 100 per cent of the site's electricity needs with the support of a $1 million grant through the Clean Technology Investment Program. Any surfeit electricity will be directed to the grid and the digestate from the anaerobic process will be incorporated in Richgro's garden products, making this a zero waste system.
Meanwhile, in his backyard workshop, South Fremantle inventor Graeme Attey is turning his energy and water efficient HIVAP evaporative air conditioner from a prototype to a commercial reality with a grant of $138,000 from Commercialisation Australia. The HIVAP unit, which is small enough to fit in any standard loft space, will be the only system capable of operating using seawater or greywater, thereby potentially saving 30,000 litres of potable water per household per year. It is incredibly encouraging to think of all the savings, environmental and economic, that will be made when this supersedes the energy thirsty units that now burden the electricity grid and our household budgets.
With more than $1.54 million through the National Solar Schools Program, there are 35 schools across my electorate that have reduced energy consumption and increased energy efficiency by installing PV solar systems, solar hot water units, rainwater tanks, other renewable energy systems and energy efficiency measures. Most recently, Southwell Primary School in Hamilton Hill received a $50,000 grant to install a 40-panel PV solar system atop its undercover area. At almost 10 kilowatts, this system is expected to supply more than half of the school's entire energy needs. A web based metering system will allow Southwell students to see the amount of renewable energy generated on their rooftop and to monitor energy consumption. Today's students' understanding of energy needs, use, efficiency and innovation will be the platform for tomorrow's innovations and improved systems of demand management.
I have spoken before on a number of occasions about North Fremantle based Carnegie Wave Energy and their efforts to expand the application of their technology with the support of a $10 million grant through the Emerging Renewables Program. The Fremantle electorate has always been a place that seeks out, trials, refines and adopts innovation. It has an established reputation as a leader in urban sustainability. The examples that I have given today show that the Fremantle community is continuing to break new ground in pursuit of positive change and that the participants are as varied as a back-shed inventor, a new publicly listed company, a family owned business that has been run over three generations and dozens of local schools. Australia's clean energy future must belong to all of us and it will require contributions from right across our society. The good news is that these contributions are being made and are being supported by government policy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:18): I speak in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This is a miscellaneous bill that deals with a number of issues. Firstly, it extends the Cape York welfare reform trial, and I will talk about that in detail. It extends the Indigenous education payments. Both of these measures are budget measures flowing out of the 2012-13 budget. There are a number of other non-budget changes as a result of this, including changes in relation to disclosure of information and privacy issues under the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. There is a change in relation to child support that fixes up a problem caused by the decision of the Family Court in relation to the payment of child support particularly in circumstances where paternity is disputed and found to be otherwise than that which was expected by both the mother and the father.
There are other minor amendments in relation to the School Kids Bonus and other changes as well in terms of the rounding of payment rates for family assistance and clean energy legislation. In relation to the other minor amendments, the amendments make sure that the School Kids Bonus is consistent with our intended policy. The School Kids Bonus, as you know, is the successor to the education tax refund which we brought in. The School Kids Bonus provides $410 for each child at primary school and $820 a year for each child in high school. It will benefit and has benefited about 11,000 families in the Blair electorate, which is based in Ipswich and the Somerset region. There are 19,400 children who have benefited from that particular piece of legislation. It is a great Labor initiative. It costs a lot of money to raise a child. The Institute of Family Studies indicates that it costs a parent about $1 million to raise a child to 18 years of age, so this will assist parents to meet the needs, to make sure school items are purchased. Not having to wait months to get something back is good policy.
It is a good initiative of this federal Labor government. I was at one of the biggest primary schools—Raceview State Primary School, where both my daughters attended—in my electorate when we actually brought that in, and was talking to mums and dads as they dropped kids off in relation to changes we were making. There was not a person there I spoke to who was not happy with what we are doing. Sadly, of course, those opposite opposed the legislation when it came into the House. It is one of those things where the other side have the visceral commitment in their DNA to saying no, and sadly they did.
The other aspects of this legislation deal with extending the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial. As chair of House of Representatives Standing Committee on ATSIA, the committee looked at and commented extensively on the work being done by that particular organisation in Queensland. It is a particularly successful organisation and we commented upon that in our recommendations in the Doing time—time for doing report. In fact we recommended to the Commonwealth government in recommendation 38:
… that the Australian Government in partnership with the Queensland Government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership extend the funding of the Family Responsibility Commission—
in relation to this particular reform—
until December 2013, pending further evaluation.
I am pleased to say that the committee noted that in this budget and in the previous budget the Australian government provides $16.1 million to extend the FRC until 31 December 2012. We are of the opinion that it is critical to extend the funding until December 2013 in order to allow the operation to continue and an adequate evaluation in relation to that. I am pleased that this legislation will continue the income management element of the Cape York Welfare Trial for a further 12 months until 31 December 2013.
The background to this reform is really important. It is important to note, and as a Queenslander I am pleased to speak on this bill. The Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission began operating in four communities—Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge—in July 2008. The purpose is to support the restoration of socially responsible standards of behaviour and to assist community members to assume and maintain primary responsibility for the wellbeing of their community, individuals and families. It is about strengthening communities and improving personal resilience. There are a number of objectives in relation to that: to restore social norms and to make sure that the wellbeing of children is promoted. The objectives are about making sure that children go to school—truancy is a problem—and making sure that the norm is not to drink alcohol in the home or to have pornography in the home. There are a range of other things that Commissioner David Glasgow from the Family Responsibilities Commission explained to our inquiry. This has proved to be a successful operation and it has made an impact for good in Queensland in relation to all of those issues.
We have seen improvements as a result with stronger communities in North Queensland. One of the things I was most struck by as we looked at that work done by the FRC was in notification. If a person's child is absent from school three times in a term without reasonable excuse or a person has a child of school age who is not enrolled in school without lawful excuse there are significant consequences that flow. Commissioners are involved, elders are involved and the whole community takes ownership of what is going on. This particular measure in this bill takes up the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I am pleased to see that the budget measure correlates with the recommendation of the House of Representatives committee.
We are seeking a commitment from the Queensland government to continue funding for the Family Responsibilities Commission including some amendment of Queensland legislation. The Queensland government has not always been generous with its funding of organisations, particularly Indigenous organisations, for those who are suffering homelessness or are at risk of homelessness, for front line services such as family planning, or for tenancy, family support, health and other services in Queensland. In Queensland the attitude is to purge and financially cut off funding. We are hopeful the government will put its money where its mouth is. It talks positively about what is happening and it is about time it put up or shut up. There will be an evaluation of the trial, which, I understand, is currently under way. It will assist us in our efforts in Cape York
The other budget measure in this legislation is for Indigenous education payments. I am pleased to see there is about $16 million in funding for the combined 2012 and 2013 calendar years. A number of the programs relate to improving school attendance and to improving the quality of education and teacher training. They also improve nutrition and make sure that children are more likely to not absent themselves from school but are more likely to be focused on their school achievement and to be focused not just on education in the classroom but on high-quality development on the sporting field as well. Programs such as building a quality workforce talk about the need for teachers in remote Northern Territory schools, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers, to have the skills they need for specialist teaching in intensive numeracy and literacy.
The committee, for its inquiry into language learning in Indigenous communities, went across all of northern Australia and all around the place for 23 public hearings. We went to a place called Utopia Homelands in the Northern Territory. It is a very remote place and you get there by plane. One of the things that struck me as we travelled around Western Australia and the Northern Territory was the need for it to be compulsory for teachers to be trained in English-as-a-second-language education. There needs to be good accreditation and good-quality understanding of first language and the need for bilingual education. We must make sure that those teachers who come from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane who go into these communities are trained well and understand the Indigenous languages. There are a plethora of recommendations in the report, Our Land Our Languages, to promote that.
Building a quality workforce is one of the initiatives funded in this budget and I applaud the government for it. School nutrition continuation programs are also important. We can see that in the Northern Territory. I have seen that sort of program adopted by Indigenous elders in my community at my old high school, Bundamba State Secondary College, where the Davidson women, elders in the local Ipswich community, have taken the initiative with a number of other Indigenous elders. They call them uncles and aunties in the local community and they do great work making sure that Indigenous kids at Bundamba State Secondary College get to school.
That is a program that has been picked up by places like Ipswich State High and other areas—so Indigenous and non-Indigenous kids are going to school with food in their bellies and are able to improve their educational output and their capacity to learn by the fact that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people are helping to make sure they have good nutrition. This particular program, School Nutrition, provides meals to about 5,000 students, and I am pleased it is being funded in this particular legislation.
The Sporting Chance program is also particularly important. We are very happy to cheer on our Indigenous stars in the AFL and the NRL. We are very happy to cheer them on and assist them at the State of Origin and in other areas of sporting endeavour, whether it is Cathy Freeman, Jonathan Thurston or any other sporting hero, but we need our next champions to come through. I am pleased that the House of Representatives ATSIA committee, which I chair, is looking at the role of sport in Closing the Gap. The Sporting Chance program, under this particular legislation, is using sport and recreation to increase the engagement of Indigenous students in their schooling. Sport has a particular role to play.
I can recall a boy of about 14 years of age in Utopia. He was an AFL champion of the future. He found himself in a position where he was struggling as school. But it was explained to him that his starring on the field was just as important as his starring in the classroom. So what the teacher did was, through this type of program, make sure that he had stars—stars that were listed beside his name when he achieved good things in the classroom. This boy, this great star of the future, was proud of the fact that he starred. His physique was incredible; he is going to be a champion in the AFL for sure, no doubt about it; he was one of the best players in the Northern Territory. He had a sporting chance. Sport was so important to his good education on the team. So that Sporting Chance program is the kind of thing that is important: sport-focused learning and development. There are a number of things like that program that teach initiative in remote areas as well.
In conclusion, there are great improvements in the bill. It fixes a problem in terms of child support where the Family Court has made an order which confused the issue of paternity. I was involved, when I was a lawyer, in those types of cases in the past. They are very complex and very difficult, so we are effectively bringing back what we thought was the longstanding policy that we have in terms of accrediting money in one way or the other, making sure that we do not go through the process of further litigation, which was the consequence of that decision.
There is another amendment in relation to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, enabling SSAT members to release some protected information to relevant authorities where there is risk to life, health or welfare; and improving privacy protection. So this legislation has some really good things in it which will make a difference to people's lives, particularly our Indigenous brothers and sisters. It is not just fixing things up with some technical amendments, overcoming an adverse decision; it will make an appreciable difference to the lives of Indigenous people across the country. I support the bill.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) (10:33): In the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012, several measures from the 2012 budget are introduced. There are also some non-budget amendments that clarify current policies and improve the operation of existing legislation. Before I speak to those measures, I thank the member for Blair for his excellent contribution to the debate.
The Gillard government provided $11.8 million in the 1012 budget to extend the Cape York welfare reform trial for 12 months to 31 December 2013. Aiming to restore local Indigenous authority, encourage positive behaviours and improve economic and living conditions, the trial is a partnership between the communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge; the Australian government; the Queensland government; and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership.
The trial began in July 2008 and has made some positive differences in the lives of Indigenous people in Cape York. The welfare reform communities in the Cape have seen improvements in school attendance, care and protection of children and community safety. A key plank of the Cape York welfare reform is the Family Responsibilities Commission, which is established under Queensland government legislation. Local family responsibility commissioners hold conferences with community members and refer people to support services. When necessary, they arrange income management.
Under the current rules, a person can be subject to income management under the trial only after a decision by the Family Responsibilities Commission made before 1 January 2013. Under this bill, that date is extended to 1 January 2014. The extension provides an opportunity to build upon the success of the initiatives already underway. The Queensland government has also committed to continuing its support for the trial and to introducing legislation to extend the operation of the Family Responsibilities Commission.
This bill provides a significant boost to Indigenous education by amending the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to increase the act's legislative appropriation. The increase will amount to around $16 million combined for the 2012 and 2013 calendar years. This change will allow the continuation of existing initiatives under the act and the commencement of new initiatives announced in the 2012-13 budget.
Among the new initiatives that will be funded by the increased appropriations for 2012 and 2013 are the expansion of the Sporting Chance Program, Teach Remote stage 2, student education trusts delivered as part of the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial and initiatives that support teachers, professional development and frontline services to improve Aboriginal children's access to quality education. Under the existing Sporting Chance Program, sport and recreation are used to increase the engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in their schooling. Participation in sporting teams or access to certain intensive high-quality sports-focused learning and development are used to reward students for good school attendance or engagement. New school based sports academies will now be established and operated to deliver the program for secondary school boys. There will be additional programs for secondary school girls.
Additional Commonwealth funded assistance under the Teach Remote stage 2 initiative will help with building a high-status, high-quality, committed and competent teacher workforce in remote Indigenous communities that are under the National Alliance of Remote Indigenous Schools. With additional funding, the student education trusts measure that forms part of the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial will also be extended for 12 months. These trusts are a financial management service that gives parents and caregivers from the remote Indigenous communities in the Cape York area support and encouragement to save for their children's education costs from their early years through to tertiary education.
The bill also introduces some non-budget amendments to clarify current government policies and improve the operation of existing legislation. Some of these make up a package of minor amendments to improve the operation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in the social security, child support, family assistance and paid parental leave jurisdictions. As an example, some amendments will enable Social Security Appeals Tribunal members to release protected information to relevant authorities in certain circumstances where there is a threat to the life, health or welfare of the person.
Privacy protections for information and documents will also be improved, including allowing the principal member of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to issue a non-disclosure order that applies to any information or documents obtained by a person at any time during the review process. Amendments also extend confidentiality obligations to all people providing services at the hearing of the review. The objective of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Amendments clarify that this objective is to be pursued by the principal member in performing his or her functions and using his or her powers under the legislation.
The bill amends the child support legislation to confirm the longstanding policy and administration where the amount payable under a parent's child support assessment is reduced because the court decides that the payer is not a parent of one of the children in their assessment but the payer remains liable for another child in the assessment. Lastly, minor drafting clarifications are made to portfolio legislation, including the schoolkids bonus legislation and the family assistance clean energy legislation consistent with existing policy.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:40): I move:
That order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour in the day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:41): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, let me use this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the position of Second Deputy Speaker—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 41 to 11 : 08
Mr DANBY: I am supporting the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security review on the relisting of five terrorist organisations. As a member of that committee I commend the process that this parliament established under the previous, conservative government—under great pressure from the then numbers in the Senate—for the evaluation of these organisations, one by one, by the parliament rather than under the direct auspices of the Attorney-General. I believe this gives the Australian public a feeling of transparency and ownership of this process, which it deserves, and it makes members of this House cognisant of the activities of these particular organisations—17 organisations in total—which are a threat to the Australian people, as has been shown and as we are about to remember, by the deaths of 88 of our countrymen in Bali as a result of the activities of Jemaah Islamiah. I will come to some of the other organisations in a minute.
I note that the Director-General of Security, Mr Irvine, recently said that some 200 cases are being followed by the Australian security services of people who are coming backwards and forwards to Australia from places like Somalia, Yemen and the AfPak theatre, as they call it, who are a potential threat to Australia.
With 200 people like that, the job of making sure nothing untoward happens must be extremely difficult, and I pay tribute to those people who were in the field defending Australian interests, making sure that we remain without attacks on mainland Australia. We have been very fortunate— unlike France, Germany, Britain or the United States—to have avoided such attacks in our country. We have to work very hard to maintain it, including this parliament's supporting the practice of classifying these groups according to objective and rational analysis that we receive—in a bipartisan way and in a way that is transparent to the Australian people through its parliament.
So we are particularly concerned about organisations like al-Shabaab in Somalia, where three Australian citizens affiliated with it have been charged and convicted of terrorist related activities. We have the Hamas Izz ad-Din Qassam brigades, who have killed more than 500 people in 350 attacks since 1993. The activities of the brigades are particularly relevant to Australia, since an Australian citizen was arrested and convicted and is in jail for three years following his attempt to surveil establishments in Israel.
I particularly want to draw the opposition's attention to the fact that the ABC, in what I can only describe as a gutless decision, in reporting this arrest and jailing after an open trial, said that this Australian citizen would be of concern only to Israelis because he was convicted of a terrorist surveillance effort there. Of course, as an Australian citizen, after the three years a person returning to Australia who has been involved in such a focused and important terrorist activity would be of great concern to Australians as well. The fact that the ABC completely refuses to acknowledge that this group is classified by the Australian parliament as a terrorist group is a decision that reflects very poorly on the Managing Director, Mr Scott, and the various program executives who have refused repeated requests from the elected representatives of Australia to include that reference in their news reports. There is also classification of Palestinian Islamic jihad.
But what I want to focus on today is Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, a Sunni Islamic extremist organisation based in Pakistan that uses violence as its stated objective in uniting the Indian administered Kashmir with Pakistan under a radical interpretation of Islamic law, which would then become part of the wider Caliphate of the Salafist Islamists—that is, people who use the great religion of Islam as a political cause, who abuse that peaceful religion for a political cause. This is an organisation that is most active in Kashmir. It is a terrorist group that is actively engaged there in preparing and planning attacks, including bombings, and kidnappings against people all over India.
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba has played a role in terrorist attacks that have involved Australians. The murder of two of our countrymen in Mumbai in the attacks on that fine Indian city three years ago is something I particularly want to reflect on. I have been to Mumbai twice since then and stayed at the Taj Hotel, probably as an act of counter-suggestibility. I am known for that trait! But I think the jihadist world view would regard India and its success, particularly a great commercial capital like Mumbai, as an affront to their world view.
In fact, as we speak, in the streets of Pakistan, members of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba are openly parading themselves. The founder of the group, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, has held public functions addressing people, supporting the attack on Mumbai and threatening further attacks on India. It is intolerable that the government of Pakistan, which has pledged to crack down on Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, continues to allow this group to openly parade—this despite the fact that it was officially banned in Pakistan in 2002. The group's re-emergence suggests that powerbrokers within the Pakistani security forces are reactivating it so it can continue the turbulence it causes, which they think, in some crazed fashion, benefits Pakistan.
Some in the military in Pakistan view the efforts of President Zardari to forge a rapprochement with India with suspicion. Ending the cold war with their neighbour is something that these people associated with the ISI, the infamous Pakistani intelligence service, would hope to make difficult, because it is not their view.
A number of members of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba have been arrested in Australia. People from this organisation who have been jailed in other countries have come to Australia, including Willie Brigitte. There are a number of other people who have subsequently been jailed who have been involved in training in Lashkar-e-Tayyiba camps. There was the case in 2006 in the New South Wales Supreme Court where Faheem Khalid Lodhi was convicted of plotting to attack the national electricity supply, trying to get into Holsworthy barracks and onto HMAS Penguin naval base.
In 2009, the Indian newspaper the Calcutta Telegraph reported that the Pakistani American who mapped out the target sites in Mumbai, whose name was Daood Gilani, had gone to India to scope these sites—very much like the Hamas man, an Australian citizen, who was convicted in Israel. He was arrested on federal charges in the United States for committing terrorist acts on overseas targets, including facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper.
So Lashkar-e-Tayyiba remains an active concern to this country. We have a number of people have been arrested who were charged with working with Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. In my view, this is nothing less than a terrorist group run by Pakistan, and I say that completely seriously. Pakistan is allegedly an ally of the United States and Australia, and it gets $2 billion of American taxpayers' money and $119 million of our foreign aid. The leaders of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, as I said, live openly in Pakistan. It is outrageous that Pakistani explosives factories in Lahore are the major source of the improvised explosive devices that kill Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Let me repeat that: Pakistan is a country that receives $119 million in foreign aid from Australia, but its factories, under the control of the Pakistani state, provide the explosives that are used to kill Australian and American soldiers in Afghanistan. We all have our views on Afghanistan. But we must not let the duplicity of the Pakistani state deter us from our duty. However, it is intolerable that, on top of that, we have this group, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, which has repeatedly been involved in terrorist missions and training of people in Australia. I would suggest that, if you look at the five sets of people who have been arrested, charged and convicted in Australia of terrorist crimes, you will find that all of them have a Lashkar-e-Tayyiba training connection. Even worse than that, there were two Australians among the 200 people directly killed by that disgusting terrorist attack on the beautiful Indian city of Mumbai, the symbol of India's progress and commerce.
This is a most important classification today. Following the death of Private Greg Sher at the hands of the Afghan Taliban it has been a part of my duties to work with his dear parents, Felix and Yvonne Sher. I feel this most personally. I know the Australian people do not want terrorism coming to our country. I praise the security services, the armed forces, who keep these people far from our door—and long may it continue. In all of this it is important that the Australian parliament brace up to its duty and see that these groups are classified in a proper, impartial, rational and transparent way so that all Australians can understand why these people are to be arrested and charged if they are involved in such deeds in Australia.
I am particularly concerned about Pakistan's ongoing activities as a country that supports and allows attacks on Australian soldiers and, worse, allows this group to continually train individuals who not only harm Australians overseas in cities like Mumbai but actually try and penetrate Australia. We in the Australian parliament must continually address the Pakistani government and tell its ambassador here how gravely we hold these activities. The provision of aid to Pakistan will one day become an issue if Lashkar-e-Tayyiba is further involved in attacks on Australian citizens. I remember when, under Mr Howard's government, Pakistani President Musharraf came here and in the Great Hall made all his false promises to take all of these issues seriously. We are not fools. Australians may be pleasant people but we hold these issues very gravely and we will hold the Pakistani government and all its agencies to account.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (11:22): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:22 to 12:14
Sunland Group
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (12:14): I rise today in support of a great Queensland company that has been badly let down by the legal system in this country. The company acted within the law, honourably, and despite this is faced with trial by media over the illegal activities and likely corruption of two well-connected Australians, Angus Reed and Matthew Joyce, in Dubai in 2007.
Sunland Group is headquartered on the Gold Coast, an ASX listed property company that has been in business for 29 years, 17 of those as a publicly listed company. Sunland's portfolio includes iconic buildings like the Q1 as well as housing, urban development and residential multistorey throughout Australia and overseas. In 2007, the Dubai waterfront was being developed. Sunland had already acquired property in the area and was seeking more. In what it believed to be a legitimate land deal, Sunland sought board approval for the purchase of the land and proceeded to transact through its lawyers here and overseas for the land purchase. It would be later revealed that, despite their representations otherwise, neither Matthew Joyce or Angus Reed had rights over the land which they sold and that the payments made to them by Sunland were never recorded or correctly reported.
Despite recent media reports, it needs to be made clear that Sunland is not a party to the Dubai criminal proceedings and the Dubai criminal investigation was not commenced as a result of a complaint made by Sunland against Joyce, Lee, Reed or Brearley. The proceedings were initiated by the Dubai government after an inquiry by the Dubai audit department into an alleged bribe paid by Reed to Joyce. Sunland's only involvement is that the money from which the alleged bribe was paid came from money Sunland paid to Reed's company for development rights Reed said his company held. The Dubai government has said that no such development rights existed. Until Sunland was advised by the Dubai government of this, it had not known that it had been deceived. The Dubai authorities say that Joyce, who was a government official, received approximately $7 million from Reed in connection with a land transaction involving his employer, the Dubai government, where he failed to disclose the payment to his employer. Joyce has been charged with receiving a bribe and Reed is charged with paying it, and with disclosing government secrets and harming Dubai state interests.
Sunland has taken civil action against Reed and Joyce in Australia to reclaim the moneys paid to Joyce for the land. The complaint is supported by documents prepared by Reed's lawyers which say that Prudentia, Reed's company, has reached agreement with the seller, Joyce's employer, to acquire and develop the property, which Sunland says is a representation that Reed already had an agreement with Nakeel to acquire the plot and upon which it based its reliance on the validity of its rights over the property.
In Dubai, property is transacted differently than it is in other countries. That is, rather than the full amount, any premium or increased value is paid to the rights holder, who in this case was from all investigations deemed to be Angus Reed through his company Prudentia. It was under this arrangement that Sunland paid nearly $14 million to Reed from which Joyce himself was paid nearly $7 million by Reed. The defendants in Dubai are also charged with defrauding Sunland, but even if the Croft judgment was correct in its finding that Sunland was not deceived, and even if the Dubai court accepted that Sunland was not deceived, the other charges would remain. In particular the charge of bribery would remain, which is a serious crime in Dubai, as it is in Australia.
In Australia, Justice Croft recently dismissed Sunland's case. He contended that the Dubai proceedings were not considered because he considered the evidence of Reed bribing Joyce to be irrelevant. Sunland, however, maintains that the $7 million bribe is very relevant as it provided a strong motive for Joyce to make the representations alleged by Sunland. There is evidence before the Supreme Court of Victoria that documents relied upon by Joyce and Reed are likely to have been falsified, and also unchallenged expert evidence that one key document relied upon by Joyce and Reed was proven to be a forgery, with a faked signature of a Dubai Waterfront employee. Despite protesting their innocence, at the Victorian trial Joyce and Reed chose not to give any evidence, so their witness statements were never able to be tested in court, and they were never able to be cross-examined about documents relating to Reed paying the bribe to Joyce. In relation to certain documents put in evidence, Joyce and Reed also claimed privilege against self-incrimination. The Australian civil case is going to appeal. In Dubai, the judge recently requested that the prosecutor consider if the charges against Reed and Joyce are sufficient. Last week the charges were upgraded.
Sunland considers that the reputation of the company and its executives has been attacked in the Australian courts with the ulterior motive of assisting Joyce and Reed in connection with the criminal proceedings in Dubai. I know the Sunland directors well and their integrity is beyond reproach. It then begs this question: why have Sunland and its directors been attacked so viciously through trial by media? It is a great question and is a question that deserves to be answered, because Sunland directors have in my experience been fine, upstanding men, pillars of the community, and deserve every support from the community.
Diabetes
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (12:19): I recently received a letter from the Australian Diabetes Council seeking my support to stop the epidemic of diabetes that, according to the Diabetes Council, every year sees 3,000 young Australians develop type 1 diabetes, 19,000 women develop gestational diabetes and 80,000 people develop type 2 diabetes. The Diabetes Council warns that 2.45 million Australians—more than 10 per cent of the population—are at immediate risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Australia is not alone in this growing catastrophe. Around the world, governments and scientists are alarmed by the number of people young and old who are being afflicted by this cruel malady, which brings with it an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness, nerve damage, amputation and now dementia.
Using a spread sheet and figures for the growing incidence of diabetes it is easy to show that, if the numbers continue to increase at the present rate, 100 per cent of the population will be diabetic by around 2040. This outcome is unlikely, yet such is the rate of increase that there is no doubt that many more Australians will succumb to this largely preventable disease in coming years. Although the effects of type 1 and type 2 diabetes on bodily health are well known, recent research has identified a third type which principally affects the brain. There is now strong evidence that the effects of what is called type 3 diabetes should be identified by its better known name, Alzheimer's disease.
Insulin was once thought to be a hormone that principally regulated carbohydrate and fat metabolism and controlled blood sugar levels. That is, when a person eats a meal and blood sugar levels rise, insulin is released by the pancreas and stimulates cells in the liver, muscles and fat tissue to take up sugar from the blood and store it as glycogen or convert it to fat. In a normal person, insulin keeps blood sugar levels between four and eight millimoles per litre, which is why a person with insulin dependent diabetes must measure their blood sugar level and then inject enough insulin to keep their blood sugar within that range. This much has been understood for years.
However, recent research shows that insulin also has an important function in the brain and affects central processes such as the formation of memories. It is clear that normal levels of insulin are important for a healthy brain. A simple example will explain how insulin levels worked for our prehistoric ancestors. In the wild, so to speak, high energy foods rich in sugars are rare and valuable and the effects of a spike in blood sugar and resulting increased insulin levels arising from a sweet meal of fruit alerts the brain to reinforce a memory trace along the lines of 'remember this place: it is important'. These days, sellers of junk foods containing high levels of sugar exploit that biological mechanism and junk foods are cheap, widely available and heavily promoted through advertising that in many cases targets children and the less well-educated. The well-understood effects of the frequent ingestion of foods with high sugar levels is to cause insulin levels to rise to a high level, with the consequence that muscle, liver and fat cells stop responding to the hormone; blood sugar levels increase to toxic concentrations; and the pancreas, pumping out even higher quantities of insulin, eventually fails.
This process, clearly reinforced by frequently eating junk food, is now well understood to be the cause of type 2 diabetes and increasing evidence shows that it is also driving the growing incidence of type 1 diabetes. There is also growing evidence that persistently high insulin levels driven by eating junk food are responsible for the changes that may lead to Alzheimer's disease. In a manner similar to the response of other tissues to persistently high levels of insulin, the brain may turn down its response to insulin, impairing the ability to think and form memories. The eventual result is permanent brain damage.
In conclusion, the consumption of junk food, with its high levels of sugar, is the primary cause of the great increase in the incidence of types 1 and 2 diabetes and an increasing increase of Alzheimer's disease in the view of many experts beyond any reasonable doubt. Yet the unethical promotion of these harmful products continues by individuals and corporations concerned only with profits as they knowingly condemn their unfortunate customers to ill health and dementia. This is a national disgrace.
Live Animal Exports
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (12:24): I seek leave to table a story sent to me regarding generation Y on the live export trail.
Leave granted.
Mrs GRIGGS: I would like to take the time I have left to talk about some of the contents of this story. Donal Sullivan and other young Territorians have just been to Indonesia and seen for themselves what is happening to our live cattle. Luke Bowen from the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association said that this story is one real account, a human story, which instils confidence in our next generation of farmers who are making a go of producing food; managing vast tracts of our country; and forging cultural, social and economic relationships in our region.
Donal Sullivan left Jakarta with a sense of confidence and hope. She says this hope was not only for her own future but that of her family and the northern Australian cattle industry, an industry still in crisis. Just 18 months ago Donal's world was about to be shattered. Donal was working with her sisters in the cattle yards at her family's cattle station 450 kilometres south of Darwin as the ABC's Four Corners program interviewed her dad, Rohan Sullivan, who was president of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association. The girls were working cattle in the yards, joking and exchanging jibes. What was about to follow with the airing of the ABC Four Corners program was to change her life, that of her family and that of the northern cattle industry.
She says her father, as head of an organisation whose members had the most invested and the most to lose, dropped everything at home to fight for the survival of an industry. From the night the program aired it seemed like the whole world stopped, paused and took a turn where all that had been normal no longer existed. In the months to follow, the family's operations struggled. Donal's mum, Sally, who has a long history in donating her time to the community including to the Isolated Children and Parents Association had to keep the business and family on track. Donal says, 'Dad was in Darwin, Canberra, Indonesia and when he was home he was working until all hours of the night and morning answering calls from concerned Australian cattle producers and animal activists who he thought needed to know the real facts of the real story.' Donal says she knows she and her siblings were shielded from much of what happened: the abusive threatening emails, letters, faxes and phone calls; and the excuse that it gave some Australians to be bigoted and racist, to vilify cattle families, Indonesians and Muslims.
Deputy Speaker, you would know, as a member of parliament, that we were inundated with a lot of emails and some of them have not been nice. Some of these families have been receiving these as well. Donal says the ignorance yet almighty righteousness that pervaded animal activists groups, politicians, one minor political party and many others highlighted a number of geographical, cultural and information divides.
Donal's family hosted two Indonesian students from eastern Java as part of an eight-week agricultural exchange program. The program was such a success and the relationships formed so strong that three weeks ago Donal set out from Darwin to go to Jakarta. Travelling with a small group of the industry's youngsters, Donal recounted the shock of being out of your depth and out of your comfort zone, the rigours of life and the resourcefulness of the Indonesians, the warmth and hospitality of her Indonesian hosts and the opportunity to experience a new culture. They visited farms and talked to farmers to understand how a country of 240 million people goes about feeding itself and the fact that many of the workers they met on the farms and feedlots earn about two dollars a day.
Donal says that she was hesitant and anxious about what they would find when they visited an Australian accredited Bandung abattoir with the other Gen-Ys. The atmosphere was tense. By the time the first animal walked up into the restraining box some of the tension had dissipated. The facility was not of the industrial scale of the Australian equivalent but it was quiet, calm and efficient. She said the process was fast, humane and efficient. Flying back to Darwin after a week in Indonesia was the biggest thing for her. Now she knows that there is a future, and she wants to go back again and see for herself— (Time expired)
World Sight Day
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (12:29): I rise to speak in relation to World Sight Day. At a time when we seem to have a national or international day for every cause known to man—and I do not want to be disparaging of those other causes—World Sight Day is a very important event. It is the main advocacy event to raise awareness in the global effort to prevent avoidable blindness. The campaign also encompasses the World Health Organization's VISION 2020: The Right to Sight initiative, which is a global effort to prevent avoidable blindness.
The theme of World Sight Day this year is prevention. The House would be interested to learn that over half a million Australians aged over 40 are living with some form of vision loss. Of those, over 66,000 are blind. But it is estimated that in Australia 75 per cent of blindness and vision loss is preventable or treatable. A number of members and senators on both sides of the chamber and on the crossbenches have joined the campaign as World Sight Day Champions, including me. Many of us attended a breakfast here in the parliament this morning that actually doubled as the 80th birthday celebration of a former member for Lalor, Barry Jones. Barry is the Chair of Vision 2020 Australia and I do not think it would be stretching things too far to describe the former member as somewhat of a national treasure. As World Sight Day Champions, the members of parliament have been actively engaging with our local communities to raise awareness about preventable blindness and encourage local residents to have their eyesight tested on a regular basis.
There are many causes of vision loss. The major eye diseases that can cause blindness and vision impairment in Australia are macular degeneration, glaucoma, cataract and diabetic retinopathy. Together with under- or uncorrected refractive error, they account for more than 90 per cent of vision impairment among older Australians. It is also more common for people to develop a vision impairment as they age; however, some of these conditions, if caught early, can be treated. That is the key prevention message of World Sight Day that is being promoted here today in the parliament.
There are a lot of things that Australians in particular can do to protect their eyes. In a hostile environment like many of us experience in our rural and regional communities, wearing sunglasses and sunhats wherever possible in the sun is a good preventative measure, not only for your eyes but also for protection against skin cancer. Also, wearing eye protection at home and at work and quitting smoking are valuable measures. It is a known fact that smoking is one of the major contributing factors to poor eye health outcomes.
The prevention message of World Sight Day is emphasised in the need for people to have eye tests on a regular basis. On Monday, before I came to the parliament I met with an optometrist and good friend of mine in Lakes Entrance, Evan Bryant. Evan passed on the following recommendations to me. The average eyesight test only takes about 30 minutes and is painless for the majority of clients. People who have a family history of eye problems, are dealing with other medical conditions such as diabetes or are in the older generation should have annual check-ups. People over 40 should have their eyesight tested every two years, while younger people with good vision should have their eyes tested every five years. That is all good advice from Evan and I thank him. Evan and his wife, Elaine, are heavily involved in World Sight Day, as they donate all their fees on World Sight Day to Vision 2020: The Right to Sight.
The impact of vision loss on an individual's contribution to our community is very significant and also affects a person's emotional wellbeing. People who are blind or vision impaired are much less likely to work and are less independent than those with normal vision. That is not to say that they cannot make a major contribution to our community in many ways, and the overwhelming majority do, but there is no question that our sight is important to us and there are poor health outcomes related to people who have a loss of vision or are vision impaired.
Eyesight is something that we should never take for granted. I can only encourage the people of Gippsland to be proactive and to take a simple eye test that could save their sight. People with vision loss are twice as likely as others to use health services. They are twice as likely to have a fall. They have a rate of depression three times that of someone without vision impairment. The message again from World Sight Day 2012 is that the overwhelming majority of eye problems are preventable or treatable. I congratulate Vision 2020 Australia on its work in promoting good eye health and I encourage other members to support its work in the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! Before I call the member for Hindmarsh it is my opportunity to congratulate him on his election as the Second Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. Congratulations!
South Australian National Football League
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (12:34): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I, too, would like to congratulate you. Even though I did so the other day in the chamber, I congratulate you officially and formally in the Federation Chamber on your elevation to Deputy Speaker.
Last weekend in South Australia was a very special weekend. That was because it was the SANFL, or South Australian National Football League, grand final. The grand final was played on Sunday at Westlakes AAMI Stadium in front of 30,000 people. It was a great event. There are not that many state leagues that can pull a crowd of 30,000 people to a grand final. For me it was even more special, and that is because my beloved West Adelaide Football Club—I am very proud and honoured to be their No. 1 joint ticket holder with former Premier of South Australia Rob Kerin—were in the grand final. Unfortunately they did not win, but it was a special occasion for me; we had been waiting for a number of years to see our team make the grand final, and when they did they made us proud. Just the fact that they got to the final was a great achievement.
As I said, it was a very tough game. It started off fairly evenly in the first quarter, but by the second quarter the writing was on the wall and we could see that the other great South Australian football club, Norwood Football Club, was pulling away. Norwood ended up being the champions of football in South Australia, taking out the premiership and celebrating, as they should have.
I am very honoured to have the West Adelaide Football Club in my electorate, in the western suburbs. They represent the western Adelaide area. The club's formation is shrouded in a little bit of mystery because there are no documents, so stories of its formation vary according to whom you are listening to. The club's website says that it was established in 1887, but then a historian's paper on the club's site suggestions that it was between 1891 and 1892. I am sure there will be many debates over the years about which one is correct and which one is not.
West Adelaide club won the 1895 premiership in the City and Suburban Football Association, and in the following year, on the introduction of the electoral system, joined the senior association in South Australia. In 1897 West Adelaide formally joined SAFA—the South Australia Football Association league—and they developed their uniform. The original uniform was a red and white strip, but so as not to be confused with some other SANFL teams in South Australia—such as Port Adelaide and North Adelaide—West Adelaide adopted its colours of red and black. They played in the early years in the West Park Lands and in 1952 the club decided to work towards moving to Richmond, which is just west of the city in my electorate. They developed a council site into an oval and still play there as their home ground. With the assistance of the council and many, many hours of volunteer labour contributed by players, supporters, club officials and a lot of local businesses, the West Adelaide Football Club commenced playing at Richmond oval within the SANFL, or South Australian National Football League, in 1958. Some of their achievements have been premierships, and they were champions of Australia in 1908 and 1909. They were premiers and champions of Australia in 1911 and premiers in 1912, 1927, 1947, 1961 and 1983. In 1983 I was very privileged to have been at the game and I recall that joyous moment. We have been waiting since 1983 to see us win another premiership, even though we have played in a couple of premiership games since then. West Adelaide have been runners-up many times: in 1922, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1962, 1991, 2003 and, of course, 2012—this year.
It is a great club with great history. As I said, I am very proud to be their No. 1 ticket holder. I have supported West Adelaide ever since I was knee-high, and I remember going to my first games at around the age of six or seven. It is only a stone's throw away from my house and I still enjoy going to all the games. I would like to congratulate the club president, Paul Sperling; the vice president, Wayne Henson; the CEO, Kym Russell; the marketing manager, Angela Jacka; and, of course, our wonderful coach, Andrew Collins, who did so well to get them to the final this year. I congratulate them on making the final and, on behalf of all the West Adelaide supporters, I hope that next year we will actually take out the flag.
Parramatta Electorate: Historical Precinct
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:39): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and can I also take this opportunity to congratulate you. I know you will do a great job. Congratulations.
I rise today to alert the House to some rather alarming news for the residents of Parramatta, which is that the O'Farrell state government has plans to sell the old Parramatta Gaol. In Parramatta we have the most remarkable heritage precinct, largely in a state of neglect, partially inhabited by sections of the health and education departments—mainly Health. But it is an incredible precinct that includes the current World Heritage listed old Government House, where most of the things you studied in primary school about Governor Macquarie took place. We have the site of the first farm. We have the confluence of the Darling Mills and Toongabbie Creek, where Governor Phillip landed and walked up the banks and made the decision about where to locate our first Government House. We have the meeting place of the Darug Nation on the banks of the river in that precinct and the site of the first reconciliation attempts.
We also have a Greenway-designed female convict factory, one of the earliest and certainly the most intact in the country—which was built, by the way, on the sacred women's site of the Burramattagal. Adjacent to that is the Parramatta Girls Home, which was established and once occupied by the Girls Industrial School in 1887 and before that the Roman Catholic Orphan School, which was established in 1844. There is also the old Kings School. It was the second school in Australia, but it is certainly the oldest—it is the only one that has survived—and it was established in 1844. The original school building and the headmaster's residence, both dating from 1836, are reminders of the status of that school for the male children of convicts during the 19th century. It is an extraordinary precinct, and when you walk through it you get a sense of the history of modern Australia from the first arrival of white settlers to now. In fact, part of it has been a prison for women for over 200 years, so the entire history of the incarceration of women and girls is on that site. It is a remarkable place.
A couple of months ago there were a couple of things that spurred local heritage groups into seeking to identify the precinct as a whole and preserve its heritage. There was the decision of the state government not to proceed with the funding of the arts precinct in the old Kings School, which was a commitment of the previous state government which the new Liberal state government withdrew from; and the permanent closing of the Parramatta Gaol, which completes the precinct—it sits on the north end of the precinct, and it is a phenomenal collection of buildings. There has been a jail in the precinct since 1798, but the Parramatta Gaol was built between 1837 and 1843, which makes it the oldest jail in Australia; and it is very much intact and still has some of the cells from those earliest days. In 1929 it was the state's principal manufacturing jail, and at one point it was the second-largest jail in the country—so, again, it adds to that collection of buildings that tell the tale of incarceration in modern Australia. These are incredibly important sites.
But on Friday I came upon something that was extremely worrying. It was the September 2012 edition of Tenant Talk, which is put out by the State Property Authority. It goes out to all of its tenants—I understand there are about 500 of them. It is up on their website and you can push 'forward' and send it to anyone you want to send it to. It advises that the old Parramatta Gaol is now being managed by the State Property Authority. It says: 'SPA has taken on the management of the property, while preparing it for sale'—a very clear statement, made publicly, sent to 500 tenants and forwarded further than that. In spite of commitments from the local member that the jail will not be sold, this is a very clear statement that 'SPA has taken on the management of the property, while preparing it for sale.'
The state government have announced that they will be developing a master plan for the precinct. But it is hard to believe that any master plan for the precinct could proceed in any real way, particularly with the level of engagement that the community expects on this incredibly important precinct, without including in it the plans for the Parramatta Gaol.
I would say to the state government and to the community that whatever plans they might have for the future, the planning process and community consultation requires that that jail remains in public hands while that planning process takes place. This is one of the most important heritage precincts in the country and it should be treated as such.
Education
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:45): I rise to speak about the official opening of the National Life Sciences Hub on 21 September at the Charles Sturt University Wagga Wagga campus. On that particular occasion I was joined by the member for Cunningham, the Hon. Sharon Bird, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills. I welcomed her to that very important event. There were some fine people present: Chancellor of CSU, Lawrie Willett AO; Vice Chancellor Professor Andrew Vann; Associate Professor Heather Cavanagh, who is the acting Executive Dean of the Faculty of Science; Deputy Vice Chancellor Administration Professor Ken Dillon; President of the Eastern Riverina Science Teachers Association Anthony Hogan; CSU PhD student Dr Ray Cowley; and the former member for Riverina Mrs Kay Hull.
We were there to officially open the National Life Sciences Hub, which is an amazing facility. NaLSH is undoubtedly an extremely important project for CSU. It is dedicated to research which serves our communities, and clearly agriculture, animal science and the environment are critical areas for our communities. I have here Professor Vann's speech notes in which he indicates that:
Some of the challenges facing us are global: meeting the demands of a growing world population whilst protecting the ecosystems which support us. In turn, this creates national priorities in agriculture and animal research and I think it's worth remembering that agriculture is one of the industries along with resources which means that 2/3 of Australia's exports are derived from rural and regional areas. To meet these global challenges we need a new generation of highly qualified fundamental and applied scientists. CSU is meeting that challenge. It has particular strengths in life sciences: plant and animal sciences, food production and security, animal health, and water and environmental sciences.
As a National Party member I am pleased to say that our shadow agriculture minister, John Cobb, the member for Calare, has food security in his portfolio title. Professor Vann continues:
Over the last two years we have been making a very significant investment in research capability with $10 million per year off the top investment. NaLSH will go with this investment in human capital to provide a completely new level of capability and grow national educational and research excellence in these critical areas.
We need to integrate fundamental research with existing applied research and teaching. We need to build linkages between researchers, students, industry and producers—
and this building will do it. It is half a hectare of the most magnificent research laboratories. It gives students the very best environment in which to learn:
NaLSH will strengthen those linkages, building the critical mass to extend undergraduate and graduate training and improve interactions across our partners in Australia and overseas.
That is according to Professor Vann and he is correct. He continues:
Importantly, integration of plant and animal science facilities will promote increased collaboration across disciplines leading, we hope, to novel research and innovative solutions—
the answers for the future. As he points out:
Research is a social and community activity. Excellence and innovation in learning and research, and 'out of the box' ideas happen where both spontaneous and structured interactions between researchers can occur.
And they will occur at Wagga Wagga because of this marvellous facility.
Professor Vann noted—and the member for Canberra should listen to this:
… this project would not have been possible without the support of the Federal Government through the Education Investment Fund.
I know that quite often on this side of the House we are critical of the lack of investment in key portfolio areas but
I have to say, and I am sure the member for Fraser would agree with me, that higher education is very important. I am pleased to say that the government has come on board with this particular project to help CSU make it a very important reality. As Professor Vann noted:
Technology is critical. NaLSH has integrated collaborative ICT, such as microscopes that can be shared over the networks. This will further expand CSU's distance and digital learning technologies to agricultural disciplines, broadening engagement with students, and between students and researchers. It reinforces and advances CSU's strategic commitment to technology that enables learning and collaborative research over distances.
This is very important to CSU, which has campuses and sites right around the globe. I acknowledge and praise the government for coming on board with CSU and I praise the member for Cunningham, who was very good on the day. She pointed out that this is an important regional facility and it will do great things in the future.
Bell, Dr Coral, AO
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:50): I rise to speak about a great constituent of mine, Coral Bell, AO, who passed away on 26 September 2012. Coral Bell was a former academic at the Australian National University and one of the great international relations scholars in Australia. Her former ANU colleague Andrew Carr said, 'She was a landmark figure in Australia's international relations who was often the only woman in the room yet was always well heard and respected for her intelligence and character'. My friend Michael Fullilove, who has recently taken over as executive director of the Lowy Institute—and I congratulate him on that—called Dr Bell 'a giant of the Australian foreign policy scene'.
Dr Bell came to adulthood during the Second World War and, as Robert O'Neill noted in his obituary for her, knew from her own experience just how much was at stake when great powers went to war with each other with modern weapons. She understood the challenge of nuclear war and was part of a key group of Australian scholars working on key issues around understanding the Cold War. Her doctoral thesis, which formed the basis of her first book, was based on understanding how the United States was managing the Cold War. She returned to teach at the University of Sydney from 1961 to 1965, then to a readership at the London School of Economics and was a professor at the University of Sussex until 1972.
Dr Bell returned to work at the Australian National University from 1977 until 1988 and then continued to contribute to the field. She characterised the NATO alliance as 'always in disarray', an observation which I think contains more than a kernel of truth. Her paper The End of the Vasco da Gama Era, one of the Lowy Institute's first, is considered one of its best. Dr Bell was regarded as a conservative realist—not an international relations tradition with which a small 'l' liberal like me would associate—but she was nonetheless very much a conservative and not a neocon. In that capacity she was a strong critic of George W Bush's foreign and military policies and held the view that the United States had lost its sole superpower status and we were moving towards a world order where power would be shared among several major states.
Lowy Institute board director Robert O'Neill noted in his obituary:
Her analytical legacy is this view of a world where US power and influence have slipped, and those of China, Europe, Russia, and India are rising to form a condominium.
Dr Bell's recent publication A World Out of Balance: American Ascendancyand International Politics in the 21st Century highlighted the unique economic and security challenge this context presents for international affairs. Our understanding of international affairs has been enriched by this giant, Coral Bell, and those of us who seek to contribute to the ideas and policy debate in international relations stand on her shoulders.
Fowler Electorate: Multicultural Events
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:54): The electorate of Fowler is the most multicultural in the country, so I have the privilege of attending many vibrant cultural and religious events and celebrations. I find that these events not only showcase and preserve the traditions of people's original homelands but demonstrate their commitment and gratitude to their new home, Australia.
Recently I again had the honour to speak at the opening of the annual Moon Festival event in Cabramatta. This is one of the biggest events in my local area, with more than 90,000 people from all around Sydney attending for the main celebrations on the Sunday. The food, music and many entertainment activities of various cultures of the Asian community truly showcased the diverse and multicultural nature of my electorate. In fact, I have one of the largest Asian communities outside Asia itself.
I would like to praise the efforts of the Fairfield City Council; its mayor, Frank Carbone; and, in particular, the event coordinator, Cheryl Bosler, and her team for organising such a wonderful event. Cabramatta police, the State Emergency Service and the fire brigade were all on hand to ensure the safety of all those who turned out to celebrate this important community event.
A couple of weeks ago, together with my wife, Bernadette, I also had the pleasure of attending the annual Friends of India Ganeshotsava celebrations at Liverpool's Whitlam Leisure Centre. We enjoyed a traditional south Indian dinner, maha prasadam, as well as a program rich in culture and tradition with classical singing and colourful dances by the children. I would like to thank my good friend Charishma Kaliyanda, who keeps me informed and updated and involved with the local Indian community. I would also like to thank all those who are involved with the Friends of India group for their wonderful contribution to our community.
Most recently I attended the Cabramatta Lions Club's Cambodian singing competition to raise funds for the Sovanapoom Care Orphanages in Cambodia. These orphanages provide boarding and day school, vocational training, a refugee centre and emergency food relief and medical care to close to 3,000 people a week. I thank my very good friend Jenny Tew and Sotha Bourn from the Cabramatta Lions Club as well as Virak Um from the Khmer Community Radio. I also recognise the work of the dedicated students from Canley Vale High School Leo Club, particularly their President, Harry Wong, who deserves to be praised.
I recently attended the annual general meeting of the Great Lakes Agency for Peace and Development, an organisation bringing together refugees and migrants from across Africa. This organisation plays a key role in facilitating a strong cultural exchange between Australia and Africa and assisting migrants from various African countries to settle successfully here in Australia. I acknowledge the good work of Theophile Elongo, director-general of GLAPD and president of the Congolese Council of Australia, as well as Nadine Shema, director of public relations, for fostering a greater involvement of migrants from African countries in Australian society.
Last weekend I had the honour of representing the Prime Minister at the official opening of the 24th Philippine Australian sports and culture festival, Fiesta Culture, at the Fairfield showground. I would like to thank Manny Castillo, president of Philippine Australian Sports and Culture Incorporated, for his commitment to a strong presence and involvement by the Philippine community in Australian society. I also thank my good friend Francesco Marchesano, better known to many of us locally as Paul; Father Anthony; and also the president of Our Lady of Mt Carmel Association, Tony Romano, for inviting me to the annual Our Lady of Mt Carmel Festival last weekend. Following mass I took part in the procession to the Mounties sports club complex. We enjoyed traditional foods, drinks and entertainment, all associated with the festivities of the parish community and paying a tribute to the nature and contribution of the Italian community in south-west Sydney. It certainly was a traditional Italian celebration.
These are just some of the events that truly showcase Australia's rich cultural diversity while celebrating and keeping alive the traditions and customs brought from people's homelands. I take pride and feel most privileged to attend these functions and see firsthand the full benefits of living in a diverse, vibrant, multicultural society.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:59
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Department of Emergency Management: Credit Cards
(Question No. 920)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Emergency Management, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Please refer to the reply to House Question in Writing 914 on page 4485 in Hansard of 9 May 2012.