The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister for Small Business) (09:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Asia’s transformation into the world’s most dynamic economic region is the defining development of our time. This transformation presents both opportunities and challenges for Australia. To be successful in the 21st century, the Asian century, Australians will need to have the capabilities and connections to engage effectively with the region.
The Prime Minister released the Australia in the Asian century white paper on 28 October 2012, to serve as a roadmap for navigating the Asian century.
The white paper identified a need for a larger number of Australian university students to be studying overseas and for a greater proportion of them to be undertaking part of their degree in Asia.
The bill addresses this need by amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide additional assistance through the OS-HELP scheme for university students who wish to undertake part of their study in Asia. The bill also expands eligibility for the OS-HELP scheme to assist more students to undertake a wider variety of study related activities.
OS-HELP provides low-cost, student-friendly loans to assist eligible students to pay expenses associated with undertaking overseas study as part of their higher education.
As Australian universities play a key role in administering the OS-HELP scheme, the government has consulted with the sector to ensure that the amendments will maximise the support provided to those students who wish to take advantage of the many benefits that come from an overseas study experience in Asia.
The government is committed to supporting Australian students to gain the Asia-literacy skills they, and Australian businesses, will need to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the Asian century. The best way for students to become Asia-literate is to experience Asia firsthand.
A growing number of Australian students are undertaking overseas study. According to a 2011 survey, approximately 20,000 Australian university students were studying overseas, with around 7,000 studying in Asia. However, data shows that only one in eight OS-HELP loans is for study in Asia. The changes contained in this bill will help Asia become the destination of choice for more students.
The bill increases the maximum OS-HELP loan amount for students undertaking study in Asia to $7,500 in 2014, which is $1,250 more than for other destinations. This funding will send to students a strong signal of the government’s support for engagement with the region.
The government understands that language can be a barrier to overseas travel for many students, particularly for those considering study in Asia. To help overcome this, the bill introduces a new loan worth up to $1,000 for intensive Asian language training taken in preparation for study in Asia. This extra assistance will help students better prepare for their study in Asia, and also help them get the most out of it when they are there.
Work placements and international experience are increasingly being sought by both students and prospective employers. Expanded eligibility and flexibility for the OS-HELP scheme will help more students undertake a wider variety of overseas study experiences, including in Asia.
Students accessing OS-HELP are currently required to be enrolled at an overseas campus of an Australian higher education provider or with an overseas higher education institution. This has largely restricted access to OS-HELP to students undertaking traditional, semester-long exchanges with overseas universities.
The bill removes this requirement, so that students will be able to access OS-HELP for a wider range of study-related activities, including clinical placements and internships.
Eligibility for OS-HELP is also being extended to postgraduate students. This will assist the growing number of students who undertake professional entry courses at postgraduate level, such as in education, allied health, architecture and engineering, to include an overseas study experience in their course.
The bill reduces the amount of study a student must have remaining upon completion of their overseas study from 0.5 equivalent full-time student load to 0.125 equivalent full-time student load, which is generally the equivalent of one unit of study. This will particularly improve access to OS-HELP for those students following a non-traditional study pattern, including many postgraduate students, part-time students, and students undertaking shorter work placements outside of standard semesters.
These initiatives will support more Australian university students, across all disciplines, to develop Asia- literacy skills by experiencing Asia firsthand. The skills and relationships developed during these experiences will be invaluable to the students and will help Australia take full advantage of the possibilities in the Asian century. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister for Small Business) (09:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill will introduce a number of measures to further strengthen and streamline the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the Act), resulting in more effective and efficient administration of the Australian government’s Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, specifically FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP.
The bill builds on amendments made in the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Act 2012, and further supports recommendations made in the Post Implementation Review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme Final Report 2011. The amendments follow extensive consultation and contribute to commitments made under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform.
The bill will enhance the quality and accountability framework underpinning HELP by providing for the automatic revocation of providers in specific circumstances where there is a high risk to students and public moneys. Those circumstances will apply where a provider’s registration with the relevant tertiary education regulator ceases, or if a winding-up order is made by a court against a provider. Importantly, provider protection measures have been included in the bill as it is a condition that automatic revocation action cannot occur before all review or appeal action by an Administrative Appeal Tribunal or court has been finalised.
The bill will strengthen the compliance framework underpinning HELP by enabling the minister to issue a provider with a compliance notice. This will enhance the range of provider compliance actions available to the government in circumstances that present risk to students and public moneys where suspension or revocation action is not warranted.
The amendments will also provide for the streamlining of administrative arrangements to allow the government to amend a provider’s approval when informed of a change in business entity name, in a more efficient manner.
The existing arrangements for seeking information from the relevant tertiary education regulators are further enhanced by consolidating these provisions into one general provision. This amendment will also have the added benefit of reducing the complexity of the act.
Further, the bill will enable individuals to continue to repay their HELP debt based on appropriately calculated repayment thresholds by updating the calculation of indexation to apply to HELP repayment thresholds. This amendment reflects the move by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from quarterly to biannual publication of average weekly earnings data.
Finally, the bill will improve consistency across the tertiary sector by updating qualification definitions in the act to align with changes to the Australian Qualifications Framework.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
TARIFF PROPOSALS
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (09:10): I move:
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013
The customs tariff proposal that I have just tabled contains alterations to five items in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act.
Schedule 4 lists a range of goods and circumstances for which concessional rates of import duty are granted.
Following a review of the schedule by the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Act 2012 was passed by the parliament in 2012. On commencement on 1 March 2013, this act will revise and restructure schedule 4, to clarify and simplify the schedule.
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013 will give effect to minor amendments to items 20, 21, 27, 30 and 35 in the revised schedule. These amendments will ensure that the scope of the items and the concessional duty rates are not affected when the revised schedule commences.
Details of the amendments are set out in the Summary of Alterations.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand) (09:11): On behalf of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests I present the following reports:
Report concerning an application from Mr Ian Munro for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives, and
Report concerning an application from Mr Brian McCarty for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives,
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers.
Ms ROXON: by leave—I move:
That the reports be agreed to.
I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the reports and in connection with a current committee inquiry.
Leave granted.
Ms ROXON: The reports I have presented concern applications from two persons for the publication of responses to references made about them in the House. The committee has recommended to the House that the responses in the terms included in the reports be incorporated in Hansard. In recommending that the responses be incorporated in Hansard, the committee emphasises that, as required by the right of reply resolution, it has not considered or judged the truth of any statements made by members in the House or by the persons seeking responses.
The document s read as follows—
Response by Mr Brian McCarty to remarks made by the Member for Leichhardt
On 17 September 2012 the Member for Leichhardt, Mr Warren Entsch MP, made a speech in the House of Representatives which identified me by name, and included false statements about me. This is my submission under the 'Right of Reply' process.
Mr Entsch referred to a satirical political blog website in Cairns called hillbillywatch.com that has criticised politicians and other public figures in Cairns, and he erroneously and inappropriately linked it to me.
Mr Entsch also stated that I had attempted two web ventures, 'coralseastudios.com and webjazz.com', both of which he said he had been told turned out badly.
In relation to Coral Sea Studios this is untrue. Coral Sea Studios Pty Ltd is a registered Australian company that was never a 'web' venture. It was an attempt to develop a world-class recording studio complex in Cairns in 2000-2001, and again at Mr Entsch's encouragement in 2005 as demonstrated by a letter of support signed by Mr Entsch in 2005. The 2001 effort foundered when the 9/11 tragedy occurred in the USA.
In 2005, Mr Entsch attempted to encourage us to proceed again with the Coral Sea Studios venture, promising support that never materialised. These professionals would never have invested money and reputation in this venture if they were concerned about the ethics of the managing director.
There is no such venture anywhere listed as 'webjazz.com'.
Contrary to Mr Entsch's remarks, I have no 'former associates' that have issued any advice to Mr Entsch about 'attempted investment fraud using fake website content and stolen identities'. This is false and I object to any suggestion that I have ever done anything illegal or immoral.
I do not work at the Baskin-Robbins ice cream franchise on the Cairns Esplanade as guest relations manager as claimed by Mr Entsch.
Suggestions made by Mr Entsch that I have a 'severe personality disorder' are also untrue. I am active in various technical and standards committees in the film and TV industry, to the delight of my colleagues. My 20+ years as a sound engineer at the highest levels of filmmaking in Hollywood, including as part of the sound team on three pictures nominated for 'Best Sound' at the Oscars, is legendary. And I continue to make contributions to the entertainment industry on behalf of Australia, as a proud Australian.
Response by Ian Munro to remarks of the Member for Hume
On the 30th October 2012, the Member for Hume, Mr Alby Schultz MP, falsely claimed that I entered the Parliament (on an unspecified date) with intent to intimidate people and that I had gone to the Member for Farrer's Office. At no time have I entered Federal Parliament with the intention to intimidate people nor have I ever visited the office of the Member for Farrer.
On a separate matter, the committee has authorised me to make this statement on its behalf. On 22 May 2012, the House referred to the committee an inquiry into whether, in the course of his statement on 21 May 2012, the honourable member for Dobell deliberately misled the House. Since the referral the committee has been progressing the inquiry, although its work is not yet complete.
The member for Dobell has now been charged with a number of criminal matters. The committee considers that the laying of criminal charges raises significant issues in terms of the operation of the sub judice convention. This convention endeavours to ensure that the House and its committees in their deliberations do not prejudice the outcome of judicial proceedings. The committee has therefore decided to suspend its inquiry. The inquiry remains live and at the conclusion of judicial proceedings the committee will consider how it should proceed with the inquiry.
Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (09:14): by leave—I rise to make a statement in relation to the report titled Report concerning an application from Mr Ian Munro for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives. On Tuesday 30 October 2012, during the debate on the Wheat Export Marketing Amendment Bill 2012, I made a statement in relation to Mr Ian Jock Munro. This statement was that he came into this parliament and tried to intimidate people, that he went to the office of the member for Farrer, and that she was, following that meeting, distraught.
I want to put the record straight that I inadvertently, following a phone call about a threat made to the member for Farrer, did not check my facts in terms of whether Mr Munro was in fact in the House. The reality was that he was not. But the issue now is centred around what occurred involving Mr Munro. Mr Munro telephoned the member for Farrer—I checked with her last night to get my facts right—and threatened her. I gave her some advice in relation to the contravention of telecommunications legislation and the Crimes Act and instructed her to contact the Australian Federal Police, which she did. She reported the matter to the Australian Federal Police.
I apologise to the House for my lack of due diligence in the way in which I reported the concerns raised with me by the member for Farrer. I think the issue of a threat being made against a female member of this parliament needs to be aired. I thank the parliament for the indulgence.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (09:16): by leave—I rise to make a statement in relation to a report titled: Report concerning an application from Mr Brian McCarty for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives. I would like to respond to a document that was tabled in relation to statements made in this place on 17 September regarding the activities of Mr Brian McCarty, who has a very toxic and very inappropriate blog called Hillbilly Watch. He hides behind this blog in an effort to remain anonymous. He came out in a right of reply in the first instance denying that he has any association with that, claiming that I erroneously or inappropriately linked Mr McCarty.
I have two documents, appendices 1 and 2, which I will table at the end of my speech. One is an article from www.cairnsblog.net titled Hillbilly Blog Identities Exposed. The second one is at rossparisi.blogspot.com.au, titled Hillbilly Watch Brian McCarty Exposed. I have received a number of emails and text messages from people around Australia and from around the world congratulating me on exposing Brian McCarty as the main blogger behind hillbillywatch.com. There is no question at all about his association with hillbillywatch.com despite McCarty's ongoing attempts to hide behind anonymity. His identity as a blogger is widely known in Cairns and, from what I have discovered, around the world. Cairns people, however, have been reluctant to stand up to him, fearing repercussions.
In relation to the statement that Coral Sea Studios was not a web venture, I accept this assertion. However, I do not accept that the promise to support him never materialised. In 2005 I did sign a letter for McCarty when I met him for the first time when he came into my office—as I do for many other individuals—suggesting that he was wanting to set up this enterprise in the electorate. At the time, I was totally unaware of his actions. Coral Sea Studios did not amount to anything in spite of that letter of support.
However, I did withdraw my support later on when I found out that there were many unanswered questions and very serious allegations in relation to his conduct and his integrity in many previous business dealings. As examples, I am tabling the following documents: a page from usenet.com/newsgroup, posted on 13 October 2008, called Australian Music Artists Beware. In relation to the assertion, there was no such venture anywhere listed called webjazz.com, I submit that it should have should have read worldjazz.com. Unfortunately, that was a typo. Documents show that Mr McCarty is behind the scheme for internet broadcasting despite denying his involvement. The main registrations for world jazz are under the registrant of Coral Sea Studios Incorporated. I will be tabling that document as well.
In relation to McCarty's rejection of an attempted investment fraud using fake website content and stolen identities, I refer to appendices 3 and 4 in addition to an email dated 17 January this year that highlights how he was involved in this. In relation to a statement that Mr McCarty does not work at Baskin Robbins ice cream franchise in the Cairns Esplanade as a guest manager, Mr McCarty's LinkedIn profile listed his position as a guest relations manager for Baskin Robbins until at least September 2012. The reference has now been removed. However, only recently, at the end of last year, I flew from Brisbane to Cairns. I sat next to a gentleman who in fact was the state representative of Baskin Robbins. Although he did not know who I was, in the course of conversation he spoke quite openly about visiting the owner of the Baskin Robbins franchise and having dinner with him that night. And he identified the owner of that franchise as none other than Mr McCarty.
In relation to Mr McCarty's claims that he does not have any severe personality disorder, again, I tender the following documents: a blog posted about Pennsylvania resident Robin Morton including fires that were posted about the subject's neighbourhood.
In relation to the AdelaideNow news article: February 15—that is tomorrow, Speaker—marks the deadline for Google to identify the blogger behind five defamatory sites. This landmark decision from the South Australian court was as a result of legal action brought on by a South Australian footballer and businessman, Shane Radbone. I certainly look forward to Google being forced to identify this individual, who I have absolutely no doubt at all will be identified as none other than Brian McCarty. Hopefully, this will happen early next week.
The SPEAKER (09:22): Is the member for Leichhardt seeking leave to table a series of documents?
Mr ENTSCH: I certainly am, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
The SPEAKER (09:23): Just before the member for Leichhardt concludes can I reinforce what the member for Gellibrand stated, that a right of reply in no way indicates that an investigation into the issue has been carried out by the committee. I really do want to ensure that people are fully aware that that was made quite clear by the member for Gellibrand. I thank the members.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (09:23): by leave—I present the report of the Publications Joint Committee. I move:
That the report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (09:24): I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the twenty-first annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Vladivostok from 27 to 30 January 2013, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (09:24): For the information of members, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, the APPF, held in Vladivostok from 27 to 30 January this year.
As leader of that delegation I am pleased to present this report. The delegation members comprised the Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Bruce Scott as deputy leader, the member for Leichhardt, the Hon. Warren Entsch and the member for La Trobe, Ms Laura Smyth. The delegation secretary was the Serjeant-at-Arms, Miss Robin McClelland.
A delegation from the Australian parliament has participated in every annual meeting of the APPF, as well as the meetings that prepared for the establishment of the forum. The APPF is an organisation that is relevant to Australia. The countries that participate are significant to our strategic and economic interests, and the APPF meeting agenda addresses important issues. I should mention that representatives from 27 parliaments participated from North-East Asia, South-East Asia, Oceania and the Americas. All delegates have an opportunity to develop their understanding of these issues and the perspectives of neighbouring parliaments, and to reach agreement on the resolutions of the meeting.
The meeting in Vladivostok was the second annual meeting hosted by the Russian Federation. Russia had previously hosted the 15th annual meeting in Moscow in January 2007. The hosts this year indicated that the meeting in Vladivostok was undertaken in the framework of Russia's recent presidency of APEC. Vladivostok is Russia's gateway to the Asia-Pacific and is located in the Far East region, a strategic sector of development. The venue for the meeting—the new campus of the Far Eastern Federal University on Russkiy Island—was the venue for the APEC Leaders' Summit last year. That region of the Russian Federation is about 25 per cent larger than the geographical area of Australia, and yet the population is only six million.
The 21st annual meeting of the APPF was most successful. Three hundred and twenty-eight delegates from 23 member states and one observer state attended. The management of the forum and the organisational arrangements were of a high standard, and the outcomes were positive and substantive. At the conclusion of each APPF meeting the leaders of all participating states sign a joint communique which includes a list of all resolutions adopted by the meeting.
I turn now more specifically to the subject matter of the meeting. There were three broad subject areas on the agenda: politics and security and economic matters and regional security, as well as future work of the APPF. Before the meeting in December 2012 the Australian delegation proposed five resolutions on the following subjects: peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific; combatting terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime; food security; energy security; and cooperation in disaster risk reduction, disaster management and environmental protection.
Each delegation member spoke in the plenary on one of these topics, and delegation members negotiated resolutions through working groups on these and other topics. The delegation participated in all sessions of the drafting committee, where the draft resolutions from the working groups were finalised before they were returned to the plenary and adopted at the final session. My colleague delegation members, Mr Scott and Ms Smyth, represented the delegation on the drafting committee.
In the event, the final joint communique of the forum included 14 resolutions, five of which were on the subjects sponsored by Australia. In addition, delegation members held a bilateral meeting with representatives of the Russian delegation, observed the roundtable discussion on new horizons for cooperation between the Asia-Pacific and Europe and visited information displays and presentation by the Russian regions of Siberia and the Far East. Ms Smyth represented the delegation at a meeting of young parliamentarians, and contributed to the message from participants to the plenary.
In preparation for the APPF21 meeting, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra assisted us, as usual, with comprehensive briefing materials. The Parliamentary Library also provided helpful briefing material. The International and Community Relations Office provided logistical support, and the delegation appreciates their assistance very much.
In Vladivostok, the delegation was accompanied by Mr Peter Nagy from our embassy in Moscow, and received a briefing from Australia's Honorary Consul in Vladivostok, Mr Vladimir Gorokhov, on the Russian Far East region.
The delegation has greater knowledge of the Russian Federation and the Far East region in particular, and potential opportunities for Australia, as a result of its visit.
The delegation's preparations for the meeting were assisted by the early nomination of delegation members and by the helpful briefing we received in November from members of last year's APPF delegation. We suggest in the report that similar arrangements apply for next year's APPF meeting.
In conclusion, I thank my fellow delegation members for their cooperation, good humour and highly professional representation of the parliament. I particularly, personally and on behalf of the delegation, wish to sincerely thank our delegation secretary, the indefatigable Serjeant-at-Arms, Ms Robyn McClelland, who has put together our report within 15 days of our return. I have been in this place coming up 15 years and I cannot ever recall a delegation report being tabled so early in parliament. I note the Clerk is here this morning: I think Ms McClelland is entitled to some performance pay for her efforts! Finally, I believe the delegation represented the parliament most effectively and with distinction. I commend the report to the House and I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy Valentine's Day.
BUSINESS
Orders of the Day
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:31):
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) (09:32): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the items of private members' business being called on and considered immediately in the order listed on the document circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
Question agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
National Critical Care and Trauma Centre
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House notes:
(1) that the 12 October 2012 marks the tenth anniversary of the horrific Bali bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians, and injured a further 240 people, the majority suffering burn injuries;
(2) the significant contribution made by the Darwin and Perth hospitals in assisting Bali's Sanglah Hospital deal with the scale of the disaster, as many of the injured required specialist burn treatment which was not available in Bali;
(3) the establishment of the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre funded by the Australian Government which ensures Australia's capability to respond to disasters and major medical incidents in our region;
(4) the benefits to the Northern Territory community through the great work that the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre performs, including the ability to provide specialist trauma and disaster training to all Australian clinicians, particularly those who provide services to the Northern Territory;
(5) the ability of the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre to rapidly deploy highly skilled personnel to respond to incidents in the region, notably the involvement and provision of specialist expertise in the following international incidents, the:
(a) second Bali bombing;
(b) East Timor unrest;
(c) East Timor presidential assassination attempt;
(d) Ashmore Reef SIEV 36 incident; and
(e) Pakistan floods; and
(6) the bipartisan acknowledgment of the outstanding clinical and academic leadership the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre has in disaster and trauma care, and the importance for ongoing support and funding of this essential facility.
Question agreed to.
Government Investment in Research
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) affirms that science is central to our economy and prosperity and that government investment in research is central to maintaining and growing Australia's scientific capacity;
(2) notes the:
(a) growing concern amongst the science and research community about the security of funding; and
(b) risks to jobs and the economy if funding is not secured, especially in Victoria where much of Australia's health and medical research is conducted; and
(3) calls on the Treasurer to:
(a) guarantee that science and research funding will be protected this financial year; and
(b) rule out any attempt to defer, freeze or pause Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, or other science and research grants in an attempt to achieve a Budget surplus.
Question agreed to.
Viability of Rural Producers
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges:
(a) the financial pressures faced by rural producers;
(b) that farmer viability is the key to food production; and
(c) that producer viability is primarily essential for long term food security;
(2) notes that return on capital rates in agriculture is far below that of other industries; and
(3) recognises that the Government's National Food Plan green paper completely fails to address producer viability.
Question agreed to.
World Hepatitis Day
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 28 July is World Hepatitis Day;
(b) the event is one of only four official world disease awareness days endorsed by the World Health Organization;
(c) chronic hepatitis C is a large and growing health problem in Australia with more than 200,000 people living with the disease;
(d) left untreated, hepatitis C can possibly lead to liver damage, cancer and death;
(e) hepatitis C has now eclipsed HIV/AIDS as the number one viral killer in Australia;
(f) hepatitis C can be cured with the appropriate treatment;
(g) needle and syringe programs have proven effective in relation to preventing transmission of hepatitis B and hepatitis C as well as HIV; and
(h) hepatitis C disproportionately impacts the Indigenous community with Indigenous people representing less than 3 per cent of the total Australian population but more than 8 per cent of the Australian population infected with hepatitis C; and
(2) welcomes scientific and treatment advances that greatly increase the chance of curing patients with the most common and hardest to treat strain of hepatitis C.
Question agreed to.
Health in the Torres Strait Protected Zone
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) uniqueness of the relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) given the physical proximity of the Western Province to the Torres Strait, and the familial and cultural ties; and
(b) Torres Strait Treaty with PNG (ratified in 1985) that provides for Torres Strait Islanders and the coastal people of PNG to carry on their traditional way of life, allowing for traditional people from both countries to move freely (without passports or visas) for traditional activities in the Torres Strait Protected Zone;
(2) acknowledges that an increased level of obligation from within existing resources is required to work towards improving the health and well-being of our closest international neighbours;
(3) recognises that:
(a) there is an ongoing crisis in the Western Province region, particularly in relation to the incidence of tuberculosis and other highly-contagious diseases; and
(b) while the Government has pledged $8 million over 2011-12 to 2014-15 for the South Fly District Tuberculosis Management program, it is evident that sufficient medical support and financial resources are not reaching services on the ground;
(4) calls for a review of administration of AusAID funding for the provision of South Fly District Tuberculosis Management;
(5) calls on the Australian Government to ensure it is working closely with representatives from the PNG Government and the PNG Treaty Village Association towards establishing a long term solution;
(6) reviews priorities within the AusAID budget to enable full funding to be restored to the Saibai and Boigu clinics, to provide necessary support until such time as capacity has been established in the 13 Treaty villages; and
(7) recognises that if current policy is to continue unchanged, the health and safety of Torres Strait Islanders and other Australians will be in jeopardy, as evidenced by the recent arrival at Cairns Base Hospital of the first case of multi drug-resistant tuberculosis.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (09:34): One thing which really strikes at the heart of this Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill 2013 is this morning's front-page news of the discussions being had by the coalition's Dams Water Management Task Group. We need to build more dams and develop better water infrastructure. It is one thing having an Anti-Dumping Commission as this bill allows, but we also need, as a nation, to be able to grow more produce to deter international competitors from dumping their unwanted fruit and vegetables here. By constructing more water storage we would be able to have water when we need it, not just when it rains, to ensure supply lines are maintained.
Australia presently uses just six per cent of its available water resources, three per cent less than the world average. If we increased our use to match the world average, similar to that of North America, Australia could double its food production to feed more than 100 million people. Imagine that. The need for an Anti-Dumping Commission would still be there, obviously, but our growers, especially those wonderful, hardworking yet often underrated ones in the Riverina, would not have the absolute necessity to be constantly looking over their shoulders wondering how to compete against cheap imports flooding our domestic markets. There would be regular demand for our products and the awful practice of ripping out citrus trees or churning fresh fruit into the ground would not be necessary. Our reliability would improve, even during drought, and more people would be less hungry in many of the nations around us. Surely that would be a desirable thing. The Nationals have long championed the need for more dams, not just for increased food production and drought-proofing but also for flood mitigation, given Australia's contrasting climate.
Under this anti-dumping legislation before the House, the government will empower the new commission to investigate breaches and to address some of the many stakeholder concerns with the impracticality of current provisions and the significant complexities and costs associated with accessing the system. Such concerns are broadly shared by the coalition. We have long been concerned that the present system is widely considered too costly to access and is unworkable in its present form.
Disgracefully, its processes also demand a greater burden of proof on local industries than their foreign competitors, and that is an absolute shame.
The bill's intention is to establish a commission to inherit, from the International Trade Remedies Branch of Customs, the responsibility for investigating and pursuing antidumping cases. Assuming the bill is passed, the government will also direct additional funding of $24.4 million to antidumping administration, although, probably not surprisingly, it is not yet clear from where this money is coming. Nothing unusual, I guess, about that, given this Labor government's history in that respect.
The commission's establishment, and to inject new funding into the system, has generally received solid support from Australian manufacturers. This is principally because they believe that the move will help to enhance the quality of antidumping investigations and increase the focus on an issue which is increasingly hurting a range of Australian businesses, including as I said those good fruit growers and citrus producers of the Riverina. However, it should be noted Labor is essentially playing catch up with the coalition. As part of our policy—
Mr Laurie Ferguson: Very neat that, very neat.
Mr McCORMACK: Yes, you are once again playing catch-up. Yes, I can hear the interjection, and indeed you are.
As part of our policy announcement of 7 November 2011, we said that the provision of extra resourcing for antidumping administration was a critical step in enabling improvements to the system. More resourcing will surely lead to the use of stronger interpretations and evidence in prosecuting dumping cases. In short, we believe what it is most urgently needed is a substantial improvement in the quality of the economic and legal analysis which underpins Australia's antidumping investigations to protect our to protect our own. Therefore, I urge that this bill be passed. (Time expired)
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (09:38): I thank all members for their contribution to the debate. The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill 2013 establishes the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission, which was the principal recommendation of the review into antidumping arrangements last year by the Hon. John Brumby, the former Premier of Victoria. The fact that this bill passes this chamber today, less than three months after the report was released, is a credit to the diligence, the hard work and the professionalism of the policy team at the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. I take this opportunity to thank them for all their hard work in preparing this legislation for our consideration.
Throughout the course of the debate, a number of members of the opposition made the argument that this legislation and the establishment of an Australian Anti-Dumping Commission is Liberal Party policy. That is just not correct. I need to take this opportunity in reply to correct the record. I have a copy here of the coalition's policy on antidumping and at page 2 of that policy document, it says:
1. Transfer anti-dumping responsibilities from Customs to the Department of Industry
We—
that is, the coalition—
will make the Department of Industry responsible for Australia’s anti-dumping regime.
That is not what this bill does. The bill does not transfer this responsibility to the department of industry; it creates a new agency, the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission, which is established inside Customs. It is very different. It is not the same thing and it is not correct to say that in this chamber.
Over the past 18 months, four tranches of legislation have been passed through the parliament. Together they represent the biggest reforms to our antidumping system in a decade. This legislation is the fifth of those tranches. The establishment of an Anti-Dumping Commission that is well resourced, with the extra funds that have been allocated by this government, over $24 million, is an important part of this reform program. It will help deliver stronger protection for Australian industry against unfair competition from overseas and help support Australian jobs that are put at risk by products that are dumped into Australia. Therefore, I have great pleasure, in commending this legislation to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (09:41): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (09:42): As I was saying earlier during this debate, unlike this government which has incessantly sought to utilise and manipulate the NDIS as a tool for attacking non-Labor state governments, the coalition will continue to place this issue above politics and are prepared to work with the state and Commonwealth governments towards a better deal for people with a disability.
While we supported the government's commitment of $1 billion to the NDIS in the federal budget, absolutely, we have significant challenges reconciling this figure with the $3.9 million the Productivity Commission said would be necessary over the forward estimates for the first phase of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We can only assume the government will account for this and make appropriate provisions in the upcoming budget.
The bill establishes a framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency. This will enable the scheme to be launched and the agency to operate the launch in five sites across the nation from July this year. The first stage of the scheme will benefit more than 20,000 people with disabilities, their families and carers living in South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania, the Hunter in New South Wales and the Barwon area of Victoria. The agency created in this bill will function in line with legislative instruments called the NDIS rules. Subjects covered will include eligibility and assessment criteria.
The bill therefore is essentially a framework and establishes the transition agency, the board, the CEO and a general definition of eligibility. But the guts of the scheme, the mechanics, will be established by the rules. What is of concern to the coalition is that the discussion paper on the rules, released by the government on 1 February, contains little information, posing only a series of questions. Unfortunately, it does feel that I have made the following statement every time I have risen to speak in this place during the tenure of the current government. Despite the enormous opportunities offered by the creation of the NDIS, the government is risking the full and effective functioning of the system by attempting to push through legislation providing for its processes without appropriate expert review or consultation.
The bill is currently being inquired into by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which will report on 13 March 2013. A recurrent theme in evidence presented thus far by witnesses is that it is hard to offer advice or pose questions or plan for the launch sites in the absence of the rules. These need to be released quickly and well before the passage of the bill through the parliament, particularly as the Prime Minister has indicated that she intends to bring the final version of the bill to a vote in the budget session.
It is tremendously difficult to gain a complete picture of how the NDIS will unfold, limited as the coalition, stakeholders and the wider Australian public are by insufficient information. The work of the Senate committee is critical and it is to be hoped that they will have the benefit of seeing the NDIS rules and the operating guidelines for the agency before they conclude their work. In the absence of these other two elements it is difficult to determine if further amendments will be required to this legislation.
The coalition support the National Disability Insurance Scheme and we want the establishment of the launch sites to progress effectively. Although we have serious concerns regarding the actual functional structure of the NDIS, the coalition stand ready to work with this government and those of the states and territories towards making the National Disability Insurance Scheme the integral core of Australia's support for people with disabilities, their families and their carers.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (09:47): In this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of a national disability insurance scheme to assist some of our nation's most vulnerable people. The concept of a national disability insurance scheme has gained momentum over the past five years, with a strong grassroots campaign that I have consistently supported. The electorate of Bennelong is a great example of a community that holds high its obligations to those facing some of life's toughest challenges. The need for the NDIS should not overshadow the incredible work and tireless, thankless efforts of so many whom I wish to recognise here today.
As patron of Achieve Australia I have been fortunate on many occasions to witness firsthand the support services they provide to approximately 550 local people with disabilities, assisting them to become independent through employment and accommodation. Achieve Australia boasts many local heroes. In particular, I would like to highlight the efforts of Jo and Don McKerrell, who have volunteered for community disability service organisations for nearly 50 years. Jo and Don work with Achieve Australia, where their daughter is provided with accommodation services.
Minimbah Challenge, located in Marsfield, assists over 60 people with disabilities through respite programs. Formed 30 years ago by the Epping Branch of the Challenge Foundation, Minimbah use a person centred planning model which encourages individual independence and autonomy. This initiative is organised by Amanda Murphy, the development coordinator, with the help of care support workers Anita, Sarah, Jeff, Shayla, Beth, Khyati and Kyle. As their federal MP I am proud of the Commonwealth funding that assists the facilitation of Minimbah's Saturday respite program for schoolchildren and young people with intellectual disabilities.
Ryde Area Supported Accommodation for Intellectually Disabled, or RASAID, is run with passion and with very little funding by local mum Jenny Rollo. Formed in 2004 by 19 families with disabled children, RASAID aims to secure long-term accommodation, particularly as the parents approach retirement. RASAID supports 20 adults in their 20s to early 50s with dependent intellectual disabilities. I have spoken in this place previously of the immense respect I have for these parents and the courage they show in the face of such difficult circumstances.
Catholic Community Services Northern Sydney are based in Meadowbank and assist school leavers to find work through their transition to work program. North Ryde Community Aid and Information Centre assists people with disabilities by hosting morning teas, lunches and special outings for those with mobility issues. I again in this place commend the general manager, Helen Crouch, for the great work that she and her organisation do. ESTIA Foundation is an initiative of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and provides 24-hour respite care for young adults with physical and intellectual disabilities, from their respite homes in Gladesville.
The NDIS concept was conceived by John Walsh, a partner in PwC, and progressed by Bruce Bonyhady, the president of Philanthropy Australia, and was first canvassed at the 2020 Summit in 2008. In 2009, the federal coalition supported the government's referral to the Productivity Commission of an inquiry into an NDIS. The final report of the Productivity Commission inquiry was publicly released on 10 August 2011 and confirmed that the current system of support for people with disability is broken. This conclusion was endorsed by the federal coalition and all jurisdictions. Agreement has been reached with five states and territories—New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT—to host launch sites commencing in July 2013 or, in the case of the ACT, July 2014. In December 2012, the New South Wales state government and the Commonwealth government concluded an intergovernmental agreement for a full state-wide rollout of the NDIS beyond the Hunter launch site. Further expansion of the NDIS will be dependent on the Commonwealth negotiating and concluding further bilateral agreements with each jurisdiction.
Yesterday commenced in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation as we joined together in support of the historic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill.
It is fitting that, 24 hours later, this important issue brings with it another example of cooperation and bipartisanship. In this election year, it is too easy for us all to fall back into familiar positions of conflict. Yet there are some issues, such as those regarding our Indigenous people and those with disabilities, that are just too important to be bogged down in partisan politics. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that the NDIS is a policy whose time has come. It should give all Australians immense pride that the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme has cross-party support at both federal and state levels of government.
This bill provides for the establishment of a national disability insurance scheme with established rules and the creation of an agency to oversee the implementation of the scheme. This covers eligibility, assessment criteria, registration, compensation, review processes, support plans and governance. The scheme will provide funding to individuals or organisations to help people with disability participate more fully in economic and social life through the provision of an entitlement enabling things such as aids, equipment, supported accommodation or personal attendant care. The agency will have a board, consisting of a chair and eight members, who collectively will possess an appropriate balance of skills, experience or knowledge in the following fields: the provision or use of disability services; the operation of insurance, compensation or long-term liability schemes; and financial management or corporate governance. The minister will appoint the chair and must obtain the approval of a majority of jurisdictions before appointing members.
The legislation also establishes an independent advisory council that will include at least four people with disabilities; at least two carers; at least one person with skills, experience or knowledge in the supply of equipment or provision of services; and up to five more members. The legislation also provides for an independent review of the act after two years of operation. The bill is essentially a framework. It establishes the transition agency, the board, the CEO and a general definition of eligibility. But the guts of the scheme, the mechanics, will be established by the rules.
The bill is currently being inquired into by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and will report on 13 March 2013. A recurrent theme in evidence presented to date by witnesses is that it is hard to offer advice, pose questions or plan for the launch sites in the absence of the rules. These need to be released quickly and well before the passing of the bill through the parliament. In her second reading speech, the Prime Minister indicated the government's intention to bring the final version of the bill to a vote in the budget session. The rules need to be released soon. At this point in time, developing a complete picture of how the NDIS will unfold is limited by insufficient information. The work of the Senate committee is critical and it is hoped that they will have the benefit of the NDIS rules and the operating guidelines for the agency before they conclude their work. In the absence of these two elements it is difficult to determine if further amendments will be required to this legislation.
The concept of the National Disability Insurance Scheme has gained momentum over the past five years. It is appropriate to acknowledge the role played by the member for Maribyrnong in helping to elevate the public policy profile of disability. But the lion's share of the credit goes to people with disability, their families, their carers and the organisations that support them. They came together, they spoke with one voice, they decided enough was enough. We want the NDIS to be a success. We want the launch sites to be run smoothly. We stand ready to work with the government and all jurisdictions to make the NDIS a reality.
Regardless of the heroic local stories I outlined earlier, everyone present in this chamber knows that the system of support for Australians with disability is broken. Perhaps this is why we hold so high these heroic acts as the last strains of fabric that offer hope to the most needy in our community. The current levels of support available are determined by a vast array of factors, like where they live and when and how they acquired their disability. These people require a new system of support that is based on a much simpler equation—need. The individual needs to be central to the process, in charge and able to pick the supports, aids, equipment and service providers of their choice. This is the vision of the Productivity Commission's landmark report into long-term care and support for people with disability. This is the vision of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
As one of thousands of members of the Liberal Party I am proud that the coalition have enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission, we supported the $1 billion in the last budget, we supported the five launch sites, we supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch and we support this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated his personal commitment to Australians with disability and those who care for them by dedicating $540,000, raised by the 2012 Pollie Pedal charity bike ride, to Carers Australia. Along the 1,000-kilometre route Mr Abbott met with people with disability, carers and disability organisations. The next two Pollie Pedals will also be in partnership with and raise funds for Carers Australia. On a personal note I have extra pride that a Bennelong based business, Amgen Australia, supports these charitable initiatives as one of the primary sponsors of Pollie Pedal.
The coalition believes an NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission by a prudent government that strongly and effectively manages policy and the economy. It is vital that we have an open, honest and constructive conversation to ensure we can make the NDIS the best that it can be. The coalition stands ready to make this commitment and to work with government to see the NDIS delivered as soon as possible.
As I remarked earlier, this issue is too important to be tarnished by partisan politics. Yet, despite the coalition's wholehearted support, it is disappointing that many Labor members and senators choose to position the NDIS as representing quintessentially Labor values. It does not. The NDIS represents Australian values—a fair go and helping those who face challenges for reasons beyond their control. No side of politics has a mortgage on these values. The NDIS is a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape.
The coalition believes that the full implementation of an NDIS would be nothing short of a new deal for people with disabilities and their carers. We have to get this right. This is a once-in-a-generation reform that will unfold over the life of several parliaments. It should be the property of the parliament as a whole, on behalf of the Australian people, rather than that of any particular political party. To get this right will require a very high level of consultation and attention to detail not just now, not just in the launch sites, but from now to full implementation.
The coalition has called for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee, to be chaired by both sides of politics, to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. This oversight committee would lock in all parties and provide a non-partisan environment where issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. The member for Dawson has had a motion before the House to establish this committee for some time. Regrettably, it has not been brought forward for a vote. Senator Fifield moved a similar motion to establish the oversight committee, but Labor and the Greens combined in the Senate to vote it down.
The Leader of the Opposition reiterated this offer in his Press Club speech last week, saying:
The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we’ve offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn’t flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.
The thousands of Australians that will be directly impacted by this bill will hope that the government accepts our offer of a parliamentary oversight committee. The coalition intend to give the government, the Greens and the Independents an opportunity to accept our hand of cooperation by moving an amendment to this bill to establish a non-partisan oversight committee. The offer, and this amendment, should be accepted.
The coalition will continue to place this issue above politics and are prepared to work with state and Commonwealth governments towards a better deal for people with a disability. While we emphatically supported the government's commitment of $1 billion to the NDIS in the federal budget, we had some difficulty in reconciling this figure with the $3.9 billion the Productivity Commission said would be necessary over the forward estimates for the first phase of the NDIS. We assume the government will account for this and make appropriate provision in the coming budget. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Before I call the member for Page, I ask members of the opposition to please take the chocolates on their desks with them as they leave the chamber. I do not have a problem with them, but I would hate to see any of those beautiful chocolates squashed and smeared all over the chairs. I call the member for Page.
Ms SAFFIN (Page—Government Whip) (10:02): I am sure the chocolates are there because of Valentine's Day—they look tempting!
I rise to speak in strong support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. Like a lot of things, it has been a long time coming. It pleases me to be able to stand here and say that I am part of a group—the federal parliamentary Labor Party—that did the work and got to the stage where we can have a bill before the parliament. At this point I would like to thank some people. I think it is important to do so.
Firstly, I would like to thank ministers, particularly Minister Shorten, who was previously the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services. This was already a big issue, but he was able to make it a big issue in a political sense so that a lot of people took notice. I thank him for doing that when he was in that role. When I talk to local people in my electorate, who welcome this scheme, they always mention his name. He visited my seat of Page and met with a lot of those people when he was parliamentary secretary.
Secondly, I would like to thank Minister Macklin, the Minister for Disability Reform, for her support, her leadership and her detailed work on this issue. It is not easy to say that the system is broken and that we have to reconstruct it into a whole new system—and that is what we are doing. This is a new system that is being built on a patchwork of systems, projects, programs and services that exist across the country, across jurisdictions. A lot of that is done in the states and territories but also with Australian government involvement.
I would also like to thank former Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard for their leadership and support in working to make sure this bill could come to fruition. That is really important, because it is not an easy thing to do.
I would also like to thank a local person, the late Jacob Baldwin. Jacob was a friend of mine over decades. Jacob was a disability activist, having once done a tour of Australia in his wheelchair to highlight the issues faced by people with disabilities. I can report that some more good things will later be flowing out of the early advocacy and work that Jacob did. For many years Jacob talked about how we could have a different system, how we could have a national insurance system that guaranteed that people with disability would be included and able to participate in life. Jacob was a strong advocate for the services following the individual, not the other way around, so that service delivery is not a model for the service that applies; rather, the person gets the service that they need. That was Jacob's dying wish, and he knows that this work is being carried on. It pleases me to be able to stand here and thank the late Jacob Baldwin.
This bill establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency—the agency, as it will become known, which will enable the scheme to be launched. Commencing in July 2012, the agency will launch the scheme in five sites across Australia. The first stage of the scheme will involve and benefit more than 20,000 people with disability, their families and carers living in South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT, the Hunter in New South Wales and the Barwon area in Victoria.
Like everything, everybody in Australia wanted it to be in their area. But it is a transition agency and it will launch it and it will finesse it, so it is good that it is on the road.
The bill also sets out the objects and principles under which a national disability insurance scheme will operate, including giving people choice and control—and choice and control are the two key words—over the care and support they receive. That means they have independence in a way that they cannot when they are offered services and told, 'These are the services you can have.' So choice and control are very important for all of us.
This bill, with its objects and principles, also gives effect in part to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which sets a really good standard and a universal standard that we all subscribe to. But, importantly, it gives expression to the Australian value of a fair go. We talk about a fair go; that is an Australian value writ large in our nation. It is a bit of a hackneyed expression, but we do know what it means. It means fairness, it means access, it means inclusion—and all the things that flow from that to give people with disability that choice and control over the care and support they receive.
The bill also sets out a process for a person becoming a participant in the scheme, how they develop a personal goal based plan with the agency and how reasonable and necessary supports will be provided to participants. I am sure in the future there will be a lot of discussion about reasonable and necessary supports. It is important to have that language in there to work out just what sort of support will be available for people. People will be able to choose how they manage their care and support and how they can receive assistance from local coordinators should they wish to. A lot of people with disability are of course adults or growing into adults, and often they have families who assist them with their care and their daily lives. It is always about the balance of working their family and their carers into the care that they receive so they have still got their independence but there are other people involved in their life in providing that care. It is a perennial issue but one that we have to be mindful of as well.
There are a few other things I would like to say about the bill. There was a Productivity Commission report called Disability care and support. The Prime Minister released that report in August 2011. All governments agreed with the recommendation to establish a national disability insurance scheme. That was the easy part—everybody agreeing—and we are now facing the challenging part in rolling it out. But it is not beyond us. In Australia in public life we have done other great things, nation-building things that are about infrastructure—this one is about people's lives—so it is not beyond us. Also it is not beyond us to get the right mix with the states and territories to make sure that we have got the best scheme we possibly can. People with disabilities deserve the best. For too long, while there has been extremely good care and support in some places, in others it has been patchy. All of us need to be focused on that and not on some of the argy-bargy that can go on in this place.
There are a couple of other things and people that I would like to mention. Another person in my area who has been an advocate for this is Michael Lockrey. Michael is profoundly deaf. When Michael and I have conversations we do it by email, Facebook and all those other written forms. He recently met with me in my office to discuss some issues to do with people with disability, particularly the deaf community. He has his technical equipment with him so that when I speak it is converted into text and he can read it online. I use that technology as well sometimes. I have got it on my computer and I have been using it for quite some time—Dragon dictation. I think, for occupational health and safety reasons alone, a whole lot of people in this place would be better off if they used that technology as well—talking to their computer instead of sitting there writing all the time.
When Michael came to see me, we talked about the NDIS and we also talked about something that goes to the heart of this whole national disability framework, and that is the things we take for granted, like watching television. We watch television and we hear it, but people who are deaf obviously do not hear it. You see a lot of captioning on television now, and that is administered under ACMA. We had a big discussion about that. I put in a submission to ACMA on its draft Broadcasting Services Television Captioning Standard 2013. I said there were two main types of captioning services available to consumers and one is better than the other. The two types I referred to are block captioning and live scrolling captioning. The pre-prepared block captioning is essential for all non-live content as it provides the best possible outcome for people who are deaf or have a hearing loss. The live scrolling that you see is understandable for live events such as sport and live crossovers, but it is the worst way to go and it is disrespectful to consumers when used on non-live programs.
I just want to take this opportunity—I will not go through my whole submission—to say that that is a key issue affecting people in our community who are deaf.
Also, there is a process under ACMA for exemption, so media can apply for a whole lot of exemptions. Currently, I am in discussions with ACMA—I cannot cover that here—about the whole exemption process. I stand to be corrected, but my reading and the advocacy I am getting from Michael Lockrey and others indicate to me that exemptions are given too easily. I am taking up that issue directly with them on behalf of the community. I just have to do some more reading in that area to get right on top of it. But, as I said, at first look it does not excite me. It appears that those exemptions are given too easily.
In closing, going back to the bill, I would like to say a few things about its actual content. First of all, the scheme will consider the whole-of-life context of people with disability. It will respond to each individual's goals and aspirations for their life and will plan with each person to take account of their individual circumstances. This will include looking at how to support carers to sustain their caring role and will take account of their needs, goals and aspirations. It goes back to the issue that I discussed earlier in my contribution about how to involve carers but still give the person receiving care their independence. The bill will also cover other crucial elements of the NDIS, including interactions with compensation schemes, registration of service providers, appointment of nominees in certain circumstances and merits review.
Recently, I was lobbied by some senior people who are talking about the scheme. I have yet to have a look at that information and give that some consideration as well. I have received a few emails from some of my local people asking me to look into that.
The agency will be overseen by a board made up of people with extensive experience in the provision or use of disability services; in financial management and governance—both those are essential; and in the operation of insurance schemes. There will also be an advisory council made up of people with lived experience of disability and caring. That is absolutely critical to adding to the management and the success of the scheme, and the ability to review, and to ensuring that people are getting the services they need.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (10:17): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. The core function of government is to provide support for the disadvantaged. Outside of the defence and security of our country, the government has a core responsibility to provide for the disadvantaged, including the profoundly disabled and their carers, who sacrifice so much. I would suggest that perhaps they are the highest priority among the disadvantaged. Yet, in my eight years as a member of parliament, the most illuminating issue for me in my local electorate and the thing that has surprised me most is the observation, over time, of the number of people in local communities who, in all sorts of ways, are profoundly disabled. For many of the carers of those people, it is almost a life sentence. They make enormous sacrifices. Some have devoted their whole life to looking after a loved one who is profoundly disabled. In many ways, because they have led a life all-consumed with that problem and that responsibility, many of them are not well placed to be champions for that issue in those areas of responsibility that the government has.
We as parliamentarians tend to get appropriate representations from people across the community dealing with all sorts of other legitimate disease issues, expressing grave concerns about all sorts of other social issues; and, in many cases, they are very well represented by champions, as they should be. Celebrities and others have often taken up the cause of any number of different, well-known diseases and problems in our community and, as a consequence, a fair proportion of what available moneys there are is devoted to many of those areas.
But, in many ways, in the case of the black spot, the black hole, the unseen one—and I have also seen this in particular with mental health because of the stigma and for the same reason—there are no champions. Quite frankly, the profoundly disabled are in the worst situation in terms of their ability to grab the national attention and to get what is and should be a significant focus on dealing with their needs before we deal with many others.
This bill—this debate, this issue—has progressively emerged in the last few years and I think now, quite properly, there is a clear focus on it. We now need to move forward and put in place, in a very systematic, efficient, effective and compassionate way, services that will meet the needs of the disabled, particularly the profoundly disabled. We have to make sure that we draw this distinction not in totality but in terms of where the priority is, and I will come back to that a little later in my comments.
This bill is the first step towards providing appropriate support through a national disability insurance scheme, the NDIS.
As the Leader of the Opposition and many of my colleagues have said, it is an idea whose time has come, and I agree. This is something that should be above politics, and the coalition lend our unequivocal support to this bill. The coalition have enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road to the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission; we supported the $1 billion in the last budget; we supported the five launch sites; we supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full, state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch; and we support this legislation.
The NDIS is a once-in-a-generation reform whose development will unfold over the life of three parliaments. It is complicated, it is comprehensive, it is enormously expensive and it has many components. As a piece of public policy it needs to be properly considered, and we need to carry the community with us in this exercise. If we are to fund this, it will in many ways put pressure on other programs; but, again, government is about setting priorities. As I said at the outset, if there is one core responsibility of government on the social side, in my view it is looking after the profoundly disabled.
The coalition maintains that the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the implementation of the NDIS is not only appropriate but essential. The track record of the Rudd and Gillard governments in regard to program implementations suggests that the government alone cannot be relied upon to implement the best possible NDIS. Given the complexity and the state nature of much of the services, a multigovernment approach to this is needed, at this level, so that over several terms of office we have bipartisan commitment and carriage of this process. This process requires proper and extensive consultation and attention to detail.
A parliamentary committee would lock in all parties and provide a non-partisan environment where issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. This issue should not go to party politics. This is a golden opportunity for this place to demonstrate that some issues are clearly above party politics. There is no ideological difference on the issue of looking after the profoundly disabled. It is regrettable that the government has rejected bipartisanship on many occasions in a bid to claim ownership. George Christensen has had for some time a motion in the House to establish this committee, but it has not been brought forward for a vote. Senator Fifield moved a similar motion to establish the oversight committee—Labor and the Greens combined in the Senate, sadly, to vote it down. From the outset, every Australian government and opposition, state and federal, endorsed what the Productivity Commission proposed. It takes special skill for a prime minister to turn this into a political bunfight. I hope that she will reconsider the approach that has been taken to date.
Sustainably funding a full NDIS is crucial. Beyond the first $1 billion for the trials, the government has provided no insight into how this might be achieved. If the assistance is not sustainable, expectations could far exceed the ability of the taxpayer to support it. We have to be very careful that there is a clear understanding in the community of what is involved in a financial sense. We need to carry the community with us in developing this. Even the $1 billion does not reconcile with the $3.9 billion the Productivity Commission said would be needed for the first stage. It is one-quarter of what was suggested by the Productivity Commission. What does that mean for a proper rollout—for design, preparation, planning and all the rest? It is totally unclear.
An NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission, but only by a prudent government. It comes down to priorities and deciding what is important. It also comes down to clearly identifying who will be eligible, who will qualify, for NDIS support. In the announcement of support for this proposal, it seemed like the government was making policy on the run. No prior thought seemed to have been given to it, including through discussions with the states. There seemed to be no idea of the reach and cost of the scheme. We now have seniors concerned that at 65 they will be cut off. These sorts of issues should not be emerging; they should have been given some thought before a formal announcement of the NDIS. There is an issue here which needs to be remembered: expectations have already been raised because of the vagueness in the process to date, the lack of definition of what was being considered when the announcement was made.
I suspect there are well over a million people who think that their needs, often legitimate needs, will automatically be covered by the NDIS. The profoundly disabled probably number 300,000 or 400,000. They and their carers are the priority. They must be the ones that get the detail. They are the ones that need the services. And those who are beyond the expectations need to be managed; otherwise, we are going to have a very disgruntled community, with lots of unnecessary political debate, disagreement, and people feeling totally let down. It is unnecessary. We need to carry the community with us in this process if this whole thing is to be properly accepted and implemented and if it is to do what it must do.
We need to be in a position where government can fund the scheme. This goes back—and I will not dwell on this—to the whole substance of economic management and prudence. We are now paying $7 billion in interest each year on debt. These things are relevant to issues like this. That amount could perhaps cover much of the Commonwealth contribution, but it goes off in interest. We can only assume the government will make appropriate provision in the coming budget. The whole notion of the NDIS is to provide a ubiquitous level of support for those eligible, wherever they live. As it stands, the level of support can vary depending on things such as the state or region you live in, whether your disability is congenital or was acquired, and, if it was acquired, whether it was acquired in the workplace or in a motor vehicle—and the list goes on.
We need a new system based on need, not on rationing, with the entitlement to support resting with the individual. The NDIS is a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape—very important principles in the design of this program.
There can be no full NDIS without an intergovernmental agreement with each state and territory, and it was a welcome development when New South Wales Premier O'Farrell and the Prime Minister signed such an agreement in December for a full state-wide NDIS rollout after the Hunter launch project. It is now up to the Prime Minister and the government to continue this constructive approach.
Momentum for an NDIS has gathered over the past five years. Those with disabilities, their families and carers and the organisations which support them have formed a loud and single voice. Much credit must go to them for bringing this important issue to the forefront of national political consideration.
In my own electorate I acknowledge organisations which provide an enormous contribution to supporting people with disabilities, organisations such as MOIRA in Hampton East, led by the very competent Warwick Cavanagh. Then there is Bayley House, an outstanding organisation which has been in the community since 1951 providing a wide range of services; Bruce Salvin, the CEO, is running an outstanding and wonderful organisation. Of similar quality is Marriott House in McKinnon, with CEO Dan Romanis, which provides a range of programs, including employment support, for adults with intellectual disabilities. Other groups include Autism Victoria in Black Rock and Hampton; CareChoice in Elwood; NIDKIDS Support Group in Caulfield; and Berendale School, a wonderful school at Hampton East under the guidance of Paula Barnett.
These sorts of groups you find in all electorates. There are people all over our communities looking to support, but in many cases the services that they can access are disjointed, not available, inadequate, or good in some places and not in others. These things must be addressed and hopefully will be addressed as we move forward with this very important project.
We want the NDIS to be a success—a huge success. We want its launch sites to be run smoothly. We stand ready to work with the government and all jurisdictions to make the NDIS a reality, and to ensure that, in particular, the profoundly disabled and the carers who have sacrificed so much, while expecting, in so many cases, little in return—their demeanour just inspires me when I meet these people—are looked after. These people deserve to be looked after by us, and we will look after them if we get this bill in place properly. (Time expired
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (10:32): I also rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. I follow my good friend and colleague the member for Goldstein and his contribution, which I thought was a particularly good contribution to this debate, summarising the issues very well. There would not be a member of this chamber who has not been touched by people in their community and groups in their community who are living with the challenge of disability every day. We all have such groups and individuals who have approached us, who are our friends, or who we meet as part of our jobs as members of parliament and whose organisations we get around to, and we have seen how difficult it can be to live with disability, particularly profound disability, as the member for Goldstein said, and the challenges that it brings.
It is one of the hardest things to see children with disabilities. We have been very fortunate to have three healthy and active children. Watching parents who are living with disabilities just reminds us of how lucky we are. It also reminds us of how we have to deal better with this issue, because clearly the level of intensity about this in recent years indicates just how hard it is and how badly we have been managing this issue over time.
I want to make three major points in my contribution to this bill. Firstly, the coalition absolutely supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have been in lock-step in support of this policy for some time now. The shadow minister for disabilities, Senator Mitch Fifield, has done an outstanding job in getting around the country to talk to disability groups, moving around electorates, understanding the issue deeply, and applying his ample intelligence to what is a very significant challenge.
As the member for Goldstein said, this is a policy which has to be done in conjunction with not only both sides of politics but also the states. So the coalition has indicated it supports this—to the extent that we have moved motions in this House, through the member for Dawson, and in the Senate through Senator Fifield, to bring this to a bipartisan committee to watch over the implementation of it. This is such a complex scheme that we think it is important to have a bipartisan commitment to ensure that it is done properly.
It is not an issue that the electorate wants to see politicians playing politics with. They want plans. They want this well thought through. They do not want it to be another of the debacles we have seen so many of in the last five years. They want to see a genuine commitment, and they do not want to see prime ministers and leaders of the opposition trying to use disabled people as political toys in the lead-up to an election. I think that has been one of the disappointing aspects of the debate in more recent times. We hear lots of claims that this could only be implemented by a Labor government. Well, of course that just ignores the fact that the coalition has been in lock-step in committing to this for some time.
In fact, it is very much a scheme which is directly related to the values which bring the Liberal Party together. The NDIS has a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned to the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape. That is very much what drives us and is the commonality between so many of us on this side of the parliament.
We believe that people are much better with their money and their resources, are able to make choices for themselves, do not need to be told by government what they should and should not have and should not be waiting desperately for a minister to hand them their next important piece of infrastructure to ensure that they can get on with their lives. In South Australia—as my colleagues in the chamber know—in recent years we have seen the now-Premier, who was disabilities minister, completely mess up the way that disability was run in South Australia. It is an absolute disaster. Children wait years for specialised wheelchairs because the Labor government has cut funding, and when they get the wheelchair, the wheelchair is too small because they have grown. And the Labor Party made him Premier! Honestly, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is exactly the sort of scheme, exactly the sort of model that we have been arguing for, for a very long time.
This has been so badly handled in South Australia to the extent that there was such community outrage that at the last state election, Kelly Vincent, who lives in my electorate, ran on the Dignity for Disability party ticket and got elected to the upper house. That is the level of intensity that we find in this debate, because it has been so badly managed for some time, and thus we do need a bipartisan committee to ensure that this is implemented properly, and that it is not just a political promise to try and run an election scare campaign that we see day in and day out right now from a desperate and dying government.
It is a tragedy that in Australia there is different treatment for the same injury, depending on how you got that injury in the first place. If you are injured at work and you are left disabled, you are treated very differently than you would be if you are injured falling off a ladder at home. That is an issue which has to be dealt with, and this bill, this scheme, is a way to deal with that inequity in the system. Ultimately, as the member for Goldstein said, government is about priorities. There is a limited amount of money that a taxpayer pays each year, and the government needs to make a decision on how to use that money, and we say that this is a priority for the federal government. The federal government should be managing this within its means because it is something that we think is very important. That is why we are committed to it, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is why we have rejected proposals to apply a new tax to fund it. We think that this is about government priorities, and that we should be delivering upon the commitment to have a National Disability Insurance Scheme within the current framework of the government. That is why we say that this is such an important issue and that it should have a bipartisan committee which oversees its implementation.
We do not want to leave it to the most incompetent government in the history of the Commonwealth to stuff it up on the way through. It is too important for that. And as the member for Goldstein said, we have already seen that the Productivity Commission's recommendations are completely different to what has been implemented by this government. I think the commitment the Productivity Commission suggested was $3.9 billion, and what we have seen from the government for these trial sites is $1 billion. What we saw from the government in its negotiations with the states was an attempt to wedge the Liberal states and create a political flight. The electorate just does not want to see this on this issue. What they want to see is bipartisan commitment to getting this right, not the implementation of a scheme where you put pink batts in people's roofs and you burn their houses down; or you build overpriced school halls; or you change your border security laws, which creates a blow-out of billions and billions of dollars. They do not want to see that level of incompetence applied to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is why we should have both sides sitting around the table, looking at how this is being implemented and implementing it properly, because we need the states on board and we need a commitment—a long-term structural commitment—to ensure that this can be funded and funded well. We need groups who are unsure about whether they are covered or not by the scheme to have some clarity about that, because as the member for Goldstein said, we are already seeing different groups in the community concerned about whether the government's commitment will indeed cover them or not.
These sorts of questions, this lack of detail which is in these announcements, do not fill people with a lot of confidence. We have had, for some time now, the member for Dawson with a motion before the parliament to establish a committee. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister some time ago, but sadly, unfortunately, those on the other side do not want this to be a bipartisan issue. They want to try and politicise it in the lead up to the 2013 election. That is the sad reality of where we sit with a government that is looking at an electoral disaster and is desperately running around looking to try and find a wedge issue. They will not have a wedge issue here because we are absolutely committed to ensuring that this scheme is implemented properly.
As I began, each of us in our own electorates have many stakeholders, many people, many friends, that we know who are dealing with this on a daily basis. I am fortunate enough, when I can, to be a member of a small disability housing board in my electorate in the Adelaide Hills, with a dedicated and extraordinarily hard-working mother of a disabled son, Judy Francis. She has been working tirelessly for years, raising money to provide better housing facilities for disabled people, particularly when the parents, who have been carers for a long time, are getting older and finding it more difficult to continue in that role. It very much fits with the idea of this scheme of empowering people to make choices for themselves, and giving people the opportunity to make their own choices. It is exactly those sorts of principles that drive the Liberal Party and which are front and centre of this scheme; it is exactly the sort of pursuit that Judy Francis and her group have been pursuing in my electorate. There are so many people in all of our electorates who are touched in some way by the issue of disability, and it is a challenge which we have to deal with in a better way, with a national approach, working with our states to ensure that people are getting access to better services, that they have access to better choices.
Government is about priorities and that is why we have put this as an absolute priority. We will have to make the hard decisions to ensure the funding is there to implement this properly. Again, that gets to planning this well, working through the detail, working through the detail with the states and not rushing out to announce things just to get a headline for the next 24 hours. This is far too important to be left in the hands of, as I say, the most incompetent government in the history of the Commonwealth.
This is an issue that should be dealt with in a bipartisan manner. We should be at the table. I call on the government, I urge the government to rethink their politicisation of this scheme, to come back to a genuine commitment to a long-term strategy to implement this properly, and to engage with the shadow minister, who knows so much and who has done so much work in this space. He is to be congratulated for the efforts he has gone to in understanding this complex issue and for working with the stakeholders on this scheme. He is also to be congratulated for giving us a genuine understanding on our side of politics about how it will operate if we enter into government and what work needs to be done to ensure this can be implemented properly and well so that it is not done in a fashion that does not meet the expectations of the people who are out there needing these services delivered in a far better way.
The other ways of managing disability services across the country have failed. They have failed certainly in South Australia. There has been no worse example, in my view, of the failure of the implementation of disability services than by the current Premier of South Australia when he was the disability minister. It was a complete and utter debacle. That is why you need a far better system, a system which focuses on the individual, that is well defined and clarified and that is prioritised by governments everywhere to look after those people in our society who need assistance. Ultimately the responsibility of what we do with welfare is to look after those who cannot look after themselves or who need our assistance to be able to live a fulfilling life. That is exactly what the disability sector has been asking for. That is the commitment from this side of the House. We want to do it in a structured, thought-through way. We do not want this to become another policy debacle. That is why the government should come to the table and should work with this. We should be doing this in a bipartisan fashion because it is too important to play petty politics with.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:47): I would like to commend the speech by my friend and colleague the member for Mayo. He has rightly pointed out how we on this side of the chamber believe that the time for a national disability insurance scheme has most certainly come. No one in this place thinks that we have got support for people with a disability right. In fact, I think both sides of the chamber can agree that the status quo is not working for the benefit of those with a disability to meet their needs and it is not working for the families or carers of people who spend their lives ensuring that their loved ones get the care that is required and so desperately needed.
At the moment one of the reasons the disability funding is not right is that there are so many different ways that people with a disability are funded. Currently, support and disability funding depends for some people in some states on whether they were born with a disability or whether they acquired it in a particular way. The sort of support that you get depends on how you acquired that disability—for instance, whether you acquired it in the workplace or whether you acquired it through a motor vehicle accident. In fact, we see differences from state to state. So unfortunately people in one state who have acquired or been born with a disability in one instance may receive completely different care to somebody in another state. Clearly, we need a better system that meets the needs of the people we are trying to ensure receive our care and our help.
The Productivity Commission delivered an excellent review on this. It pointed out very specifically:
The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient, and gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate supports.
It also pointed out:
The stresses on the system are growing, with rising costs for all governments.
So we are not under any misapprehension here. The number of people we are talking about who would require assistance under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, according to the Productivity Commission, would be around 410,000 people. When we look at that figure and think beyond it, we are looking as well at their family members who support them. It is clear that there is a problem with disability funding and it is clear that we need to do something in this place about it.
It is important to note that the coalition has been strongly supportive of a national disability insurance scheme from day one. Let me say at the outset that we commend the conception of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the work done by John Welsh AM, who is a partner at PwC, and Bruce Bonyhady, the president of Philanthropy Australia, who have, along with families—those who suffer with a disability and broader carers organisations—lifted this issue to national prominence.
Let me also commend the shadow minister for disability, Senator Mitch Fifield, who has been so incredibly keen to make sure that this disability insurance scheme is one that we can as Australians all be proud of and who has put front and centre our offer to work with the government to ensure that we deliver an appropriate scheme.
Each step along the way of a National Disability Insurance Scheme has been supported by our side of politics. We supported the Productivity Commission review and we supported the $1 billion that was put into funding in the last budget, but we do note that $1 billion is much less than the amount of money that the Productivity Commission said is required for a fully comprehensive scheme. And let me quote again from the Productivity Commission report:
The Australian Government currently provides funding to the disability sector of around $2.3 billion, while state and territory governments provide funding of around $4.7 billion - a total of over $7 billion.
It goes on to talk about how the funding for this sector is subject to the vagaries of government budget cycles. There is volatility and variability in this funding; resourcing might be good one year but not good in the next year, and in order to deliver a comprehensive scheme an additional $6.5 billion per annum is required. That is $6.5 billion—a very significant amount.
The Productivity Commission recommended that the Commonwealth provide over $3.7 billion in the first instance. We have seen the current government make provision for $1 billion. We agreed with that provision for trials, though we are concerned that there is more money required for this scheme and the government has not provided any detail as to where that money will come from to have a sustainable scheme.
I will come to those question of funding a little bit later in my speech, but let me first say that one of the reasons we need a revamped National Disability Insurance Scheme—why we need to deliver this scheme—is because previously the funding that has been provided has been block funding. It has not been funding that has been provided to individuals to suit those individual's needs. We need to deliver a scheme that offers flexibility and choice for those who have a disability. We need to make sure that it is a system that is not wrapped up in too much red tape. We need to make sure that we empower individuals, their families and their carers to make the best choices about their individual needs. That is why we support this National Disability Insurance Scheme.
We all in this place want a scheme that will be a success, but we have some concerns about the implementation of the scheme and some concerns about the detail that is so lacking in this bill today. It will be in the detail that we will have a fully functioning scheme; detail around the eligibility requirements for people to access the scheme and the assessment tools that will be used to assess against the eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, there is no detail available yet. The bill needs a framework in which to operate and, again unfortunately, there is no detail in this bill. The rules which will demonstrate the operating of a National Disability Insurance Scheme are not part of this bill; again, we are lacking in details.
We only have the broadbrush strokes of an agency and a board—all of these very important things—but, again, we require a lot more detail around the rules of the scheme and how it will function. We are told by the government these rules will come—the detail will come and the eligibility requirements will come—but we say it needs to come very quickly, and we will work with them to do that.
Let's just place on the record that the shadow minister for disabilities, along with the Leader of the Opposition, made a proposal to the government to form a joint parliamentary committee that would be chaired by both sides of this place in order to get these details right. This scheme is going to last beyond the life of this parliament and beyond the life of the next parliament; it needs to be a scheme that all sides of politics can sign up to and can work through any problematic details.
It is concerning that the government has not wanted to put in place this committee and that it seems to want to play politics on this very important issue. It is also concerning that it does not wish to have the state governments—who, critically, also deliver this important care—involved in a joint committee either. Instead, it wants to play politics with them as well. This is not a partisan issue. It should not be made a partisan issue, and again I implore the government to join with us in forming this joint parliamentary committee that will be chaired by both the minister for disabilities and the shadow minister for disabilities, and will include all of the relevant state ministers as well. It is too important for us not to get this detail right.
It is too important to the families in my own electorate of Higgins, who I have sat down with and discussed the importance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I had the very good fortune to be able to invite the shadow minister for disabilities, Senator Mitch Fifield, to my electorate to sit down with the parents, friends and carers of people with a disability to talk through with them their concerns and the urgency around a fully functioning National Disability Insurance Scheme. I have been told personal stories by parents—ageing parents—who are concerned about the future of their children when they are not around, and who are concerned about who will fight for their children to ensure that they receive the best possible care.
But we want to ensure that, more than simply receiving care, all Australians, no matter what their ability or disability, can engage in our social and economic life. Again, the great value of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be to ensure that this occurs.
The funding is critical—it is important that we get the funding right. It pains me to say this in this place, but so much of Commonwealth funding has been squandered and wasted by this current government through its own fiscal incompetence. We are in a situation where we are spending more than $7 billion each and every year on the interest bill on the borrowings of the government. Let me remind you again what the Productivity Commission said: to implement a National Disability Insurance Scheme we need an additional $6.5 billion per annum. It is clear that, if this government were not so incompetent with the way it manages our finances, we could have a fully functioning National Disability Insurance Scheme. We on this side understand the need for a strong economy so that we might deliver a strong National Disability Insurance Scheme.
We call on the government to provide additional detail around the rules, the reporting and the requirements regarding quality assurance as quickly as possible. We do not want to see politics played on this important issue. We ask again to be involved in this process through a joint parliamentary committee.
The status quo is not an option. In this place, we have a responsibility to do something about those who suffer from a disability and to right the wrongs of a confused funding scheme that exists already but is not meeting those needs. This is something I will work towards and that the coalition will work towards. Once it is achieved, we will be proud in this place to be able to say we were part of it.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (11:02): I rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 because, in the words of Tony Abbott, this is an idea whose time has come. This is a concept and a bill that is supported by both sides of the House. Indeed, I think it is interesting that the list of speakers from this side of the House is greater than the list of speakers from the government side of the House.
My personal commitment comes to the concept of and need for a National Disability Insurance Scheme because of my belief in the philosophy of individualism, which means that every individual matters and is important. That means not just the brightest in the land or ordinary people getting on with their lives; it means people who are disadvantaged and people with disabilities. Within the concept of that philosophy, it means that we all have an obligation to ensure that each individual is able to reach their maximum potential. Of course, each maximum potential will differ with each individual, but our obligation to help our neighbour does not—and the obligation is on each and every one of us to reach out our hand to our neighbour to assist them to reach their potential.
In my electorate and in my experience over my life, I have met many people with a disability whom I would call friends. I have met many parents whose energy and dedication to ensuring that their children will have the best they can has been nothing short of heroic. When one looks at the needs of people with disabilities, they vary so dramatically. People with disability vary from those less disabled to a child who has no ability to ever learn to speak or to show affection in the way that you or I might consider ordinary, or will never learn to feed themselves or be able to be trained in the way we consider to be normal. Yet it is when you see the love that can be generated between the mother and the child, and the father too—although, unfortunately, so often a broken marriage will result and the mother will be bringing up the child—that you see more and more the need for services that will perhaps allow those marriages to survive because the strain is not so great. For so many of the mothers I have seen who remain and have that burden, the support is just so desperately needed.
When I became the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, I met a quite sensational woman called Margaret Fisk. She in 1993 had gathered together a group of friends in the Defence Force who had families with members with disabilities, or special needs, as they were called. Margaret formed the Defence Special Needs Support Group with the support, as I said, of other families who were meeting similar difficulties that had to be overcome. For instance, if you were posted from one state to another, the assistance that was available to you would differ from state to state. Whereas you might have received reasonable service delivery in one state, when you moved to another you could be right back where you started from.
This terrific group of women and men came to my attention when I first became minister and General Baker was the Chief of the Defence Force.
We saw that there was a great need in the defence family to see that there was a program of support for such families. It was announced just recently that Margaret Fisk has just stepped down as the Coordinator of Defence Families with Special Needs. She has a lovely son Brendan, who 20 years later, since this group was founded, is now a man. In her words, and in her own story, Brendan is just Brendan and we get on with our lives. She pointed out the difficulties that she had with another child who had so often perhaps be left without attention, and then she would have to remember that 'Yes, you also have to look after the child who is without a disability.' There are thousands of people who face that every day.
There is a need for access to services that people can count on and rely upon. I have heard countless stories in this chamber. The member for Mayo was talking about the problems for children who have to get on waiting lists for special wheelchairs. By the time they get the wheelchairs they have grown and the wheelchairs are no longer adequate—all those sorts of things.
There are hearing-impaired children who need a cochlear implant, yet the number of cochlear implants are limited to a set number per year. I dramatically remember going to the Institute for Deaf and Blind Children, with which I have been associated since I was 18 years old, only in the last few years and being invited to sit in on their kindergarten class. Half those children have cochlear implants and the other half were children from ordinary families. You could not tell the difference. The cochlear implant makes that difference. It is because we have early detection. I am very proud to say that when I was minister, I introduced the requirement that every child be tested at birth for hearing deficiency, so that it can be picked up early. The earlier you pick it up the more we can do about it.
As I said, disability varies from person to person so dramatically. There are people who have disabilities who can live fulfilling, active lives. That includes people who might have blindness and people who might have paraplegia who can be in the workforce, but there are others who cannot. There are others who will always be dependent. When we look at the design and the rules and who is eligible for this scheme, it is essential that we allow the definition to cover those children who are born with a disability and of course those who acquire it—which has been central to the focus of this—and point out that people who are born with a major disability and those who acquire it are treated differently, and those people who acquire it through a car accident and can be compensated and those who might just be having recreation in a swimming pool and acquire the same disability are treated differently. It has to encompass the total range of differences of the individuals.
None of this will work without their continuing dedication of people who work in these fields. In my own electorate in the northern beaches we have Special Olympics. It was 21 years old last year. The fantastic dedication of parents who work with children who have mental disabilities allows these children to be able to be called athletes. They participate worldwide in sports. One of the members of Special Olympics went off with another group to Italy. He came back fairly recently and brought his medals to the presentation night for Special Olympics. He had won six gold medals. A prouder young man you could not have met. His parents were equally proud. At that same presentation night, I met six young women all of whom have Down syndrome, and they have become part of a ballet troupe which is comprised of dancers who are dancers in the traditional sense. They perform to the degree of excellence that they can. They have included these young women from the Special Olympics group to be part of their troupe and they will be going to the United States to dance. They are included in this group.
There is KaddyTransport of which I have the honour to be patron, I am honoured to be patron of the Special Olympics as well. Kaddy Transport enables people to have an outing. We run buses, pick people up and take them not just for shopping or doctors' appointments but for entertainment. We have a lunch once a week where they can come together. It is the continued input of people in the community who are reaching a hand out to their neighbour to help that has to be acknowledged and encouraged within this debate as well.
The money is vitally important and there has to be certainty about the rules that are being laid down as part of this bill which we are yet to see. There is one part in here, as the shadow minister for seniors, that disappoints me enormously—that is, once again, we see that dreaded 65 being a cut-off for eligibility for the scheme. National Seniors have made a very strong submission to government, very strong indeed—one which I do hope they will pay heed. I think it is worthwhile listening to some of the National Seniors' members' comments. One of them says, 'I cannot believe this is happening, it is like we are being written off as being of no value whatsoever just because we are 65.' Another says, 'I have been a supporter of the NDIS scheme; however, I find that I have to have this new age issue called over 65.'
'This is particularly difficult issue for people affected by polio during the 1930s and the 1960s', says another. At 65 many people have a good 20-plus years of life left to them and they can be productive and valued members of society and yet there is this age cut-off that has been introduced into this legislation.
People who at age 65 have no age related disability and who then have a traumatic event that gives them a disability are not covered, even though they would be covered if they were 64. And somehow they are then supposed to come under the aged-care system. There is no explanation as to how this will happen. It just is not reasonable.
We have been saying forever that we should not have young people in residential aged-care facilities. I have met young people with grave disabilities who have been in residential aged care because there simply was nowhere else. It is interesting that we do not have an age below which you may not enter an aged-care facility but now we are saying that there is an age cut-off for access to disability services. That does not seem logical, particularly when this government has put the pensionable age up to 67.
The National Seniors Association have said that they would like Australians who are 65 and older with no significant age related condition to be included in the scheme; alternatively, the government should at least start to explain how someone over that age who acquires a severe or profound disability and has no requirements for support for significant age related conditions is going to be covered. Are they simply to be left out in the cold?
This is a bipartisan issue: the care of those who are in our midst, who are part of us. Every person with a disability is part of our national family and we have an obligation to them, just as we have an obligation to the rest of society, to allow them to achieve their potential. I think of my friends who have been born with disabilities that have made speech difficult or movement difficult or every cramp in their body cause them pain; yet these people are able to take a position on a board because, with services, their mental activity is unimpaired. And I have met other people whose mental ability is impaired but who have enormous physical strength and pose other problems. But each one of them is part of us and part of our responsibility.
We on this side of the House support this bill enormously and with passion. I will conclude as I began, with Tony Abbott's words: this is an idea whose time has come and we must see it treated as something that we—as Australians who are members of this parliament, not just members of political parties—are committed to because of the obligation that we have to each other.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (11:17): I thank the member for Kennedy for allowing me to speak first. Let me state clearly and unequivocally that, in the words of Tony Abbott, the NDIS is an idea whose time has come. All of us in this chamber know that the system of support for Australians with disability is, frankly, broken. The provision of disability services has long been the purview of the states. But unfortunately the states have reduced funding, failed to consult and work together, and failed to deliver a seamless, consistent disability support program.
The concept of a national disability insurance scheme has gained momentum over the last half-decade, due in large part to a grassroots campaign by carers, Australians with disabilities and the various organisations that support them. The idea was largely conceived by John Walsh AM, a partner at PwC, and progressed by Bruce Bonyhady AM, the president of Philanthropy Australia. It was first canvassed at the 2020 Summit in 2008.
It is important to note that in 2009 we the coalition supported the government's referral to the Productivity Commission of an inquiry into this important area. The final report of the Productivity Commission inquiry was subsequently released in August 2011 and received bipartisan support. Its conclusions are wholeheartedly endorsed by this side of the House. It is pleasing to see that agreements have been reached with five jurisdictions to host launch sites, including New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT. Queensland and Western Australia are not hosting launch sites but have both submitted proposals to the Commonwealth to be part of an NDIS. It is important to note that the Productivity Commission never envisaged every state hosting a launch site and never saw the absence of a launch site as a bar to taking part in a full national rollout. Indeed, Premier Newman has written to the Prime Minister with a proposal to be part of the national rollout, and Premier Barnett has written to the Prime Minister proposing a joint WA-Commonwealth NDIS.
The Labor government have sought to claim this idea as their own. They put it to the Productivity Commission, to their credit. But now is the time for bipartisanship. Again, this is an idea whose time has come. The coalition have enthusiastically supported each milestone on the road towards the NDIS. We supported the initial work by the Productivity Commission. We supported the $1 billion in the last budget. We supported the five launch sites. We supported the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full state-wide rollout after the Hunter launch. And we support this legislation.
We support a person-centred and self-directed funding model. It is aligned with the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape. This truly is a once-in-a-generation reform. It will unfold over several parliaments. It is therefore the property of the parliament, the 150 men and women who represent the country as a whole. This is the property of the Australian people, not of one particular political persuasion. We all know we need a new system of support based on need rather than state based rationing.
The individual needs to be at the centre of this. They need to be in charge. The individual must be able to pick the supports, aids, equipment and service providers of their choice—personal choice, personal empowerment. That links in with personal responsibility, with the people at the centre. I love it. It is classic liberalism, with government out of the way and individual choice front and centre.
I am personally committed to this mostly because the calibre of a nation is reflected by how it treats its marginalised, its elderly, its infirm, its disadvantaged and its veterans, and also because I watched as my Aunty Sue, my mother's sister, battled the system for decades and decades for her two children, my first cousins, Alex and Joel.
These two little children were born profoundly deaf, unable to speak, suffering Down syndrome and suffering a range of other substantial conditions including severe autism. These combined disabilities would take the life of little Alex; through the grace of God, Joel still lives his life as productively as possible, considering the profound and multiple disabilities he suffers. And what about my dear Aunty Sue? She volunteers and works for and with kids with disabilities, and dear old Uncle Reg remains a champion by her side. Some people are true gifts. They epitomise what Jesus meant when he said: 'Whatever you did for the least of my one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Aunty Sue and Uncle Reg are two of those people.
There are other people in my electorate who are gifts. One is Mike Dwyer and his family, who live in Runaway Bay. They have two daughters, aged 22 and 20, both of whom suffer from Friedreich's ataxia, a neurodegenerative condition that has both girls in wheelchairs. It is a condition for which, currently, there is neither treatment nor cure. The two young ladies are intelligent, they are engaging, they attend university and they have an enormous amount to contribute to society, but they suffer a physical disability—physical only—and they need a reasonably high level of support.
Mike Dwyer is the President of Friedreich's Ataxia Research Association, FARA, which is a not-for-profit organisation whose purpose is to fund research on FA. They have raised $4 million to date—impressive—for research into this condition that affects approximately 300 Australians. Every dollar FARA raise is put to work. Every research project they fund and every trial they sponsor represents progress. Small steps they may be, but progress it is. They are on a mission, with an objective that is realistic and that they believe, and I believe, will be achieved. Like all things, it is a question of time. Progress is made every single day, and researchers' continued commitment is explained by the sentiment: 'We think we can get this one done.' The work they do is important. Mike is quite rightly looking forward to the day when the current disjointed system of rationing is replaced with the full implementation of an NDIS. It will be a new deal for people with disabilities and their carers, and a new deal for his daughters, these two bright, intelligent and engaging young women, enabling them to make their own choices about their own care for their own lives.
The coalition have demonstrated a personal commitment in this space. Tony Abbott has demonstrated a personal commitment in this space. It is a commitment to Australians with disability. He has raised over $540,000, through the 2012 Pollie Pedal charity bike ride, for Carers Australia. Along the 1,000-kilometre route Mr Abbott met with people with disability, with carers, with disability organisations, with mums and dads and with brothers and sisters. He met with everyday Australians who would otherwise never have the opportunity to front up to a senior politician like the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. He met them in lycra, on his bike, on a journey through small country towns. The next two Pollie Pedals will also be in partnership with, and raise funds for, Carers Australia.
The coalition believe an NDIS can be delivered within the time frame recommended by the Productivity Commission by a prudent government that manages well. Any comments that should be made in this House about an NDIS must be offered constructively and in the spirit of helping to make the NDIS the best that it can possibly be. Let me state categorically that we stand ready to work with the government to see this delivered as soon as possible. This will require a very high level of consultation and attention to detail, not just in the launch sites, but from now to full implementation. The coalition still believe that a joint parliamentary committee, chaired by both sides of politics, to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS is the best way to go. It would lock in all parties and provide a nonpartisan environment where the issues of design and eligibility could be worked through cooperatively. The NDIS is not owned by a party, by a side, by an ideology or by a belief. It is owned by the people of this nation. George Christensen has a motion in the House to establish this committee. I look forward to it receiving widespread support.
The NDIS is not an issue that we will draw swords on. We will draw swords elsewhere. I look across the table at Minister Clare, until recently a senior minister with Defence. He and I would draw swords regularly, although we would decide on the field of battle, like in times of old, to keep our bipartisanship to the fullest extent and only fight the issues that we had decided on, because defence is important. There is something else that is as important as defence in the public life of our nation, and that is the care of those with disability. Just like our strong bipartisanship in defence, just like the strong bipartisanship the minister across the desk and I have had on combat operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we offer that same bipartisanship on the NDIS, with the same strength and the same commitment, because we all just want to see it get done.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:28): We join the opposition in, and we are very, very pleased to hear, their positive remarks. We should work together as a team in this place to achieve good outcomes. We thank Minister Clare for adopting the same spirit of bipartisanship on this issue. He is a young minister who we hope will go on to bigger and better things in this place.
We are a very, very rich nation. We will secure, from our gas resources alone, $45,000 million a year, from which the Australian people will receive virtually nothing. I think people like me will have to revise our positions with respect to the minerals resource rent tax, because previous governments have allowed all of the gas industry to be owned by foreigners.
Since there are almost no wages involved in the gas industry, and it would be flat out with $4,000 million a year, what do the Australian people get out of the gas industry? What the Australian people get out of that $45,000 million is virtually nothing, except some dirty aquifers. It seems to me that some $5,000 million or $6,000 million is ready to be picked up from that industry. If we were to introduce ethanol and build a railway line into the Galilee Basin, a canal and an electricity transmission line to get the great mineral resource of the north-west mineral province in Queensland, and if we had the same rules for our prawn farms as Thailand does, there would be figures of $20,000 million and $20,000 million, $10,000 million and $10,000 million, and the tax revenue would be $20,000 million to add to that $5,000 million.
There is a 10 per cent customs duty on everything coming into this country. Surely we should protect jobs in our motor vehicle industry with at least a 10 per cent customs duty. An extra 10 per cent is going to make no difference to a person buying a Volvo. It would bring in $34,000 million a year and help to protect jobs, manufacturing and industries such as the timber industry in my electorate and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams.
Those few simple things would bring in an extra $60,000 million a year. This is not radical. The Americans have already made huge moves towards ethanol. China, India and the United Kingdom all moved down that pathway. Those things would make the cake bigger and bigger. I saw that when I was in government in Queensland. We had a lot of money to spend on community services, such as the benefit for disabled people that we are talking about today. As each day went by, we were making the cake bigger and bigger. But this place does not concentrate on making the cake bigger and bigger. All it talks about is balancing the budget and screwing every government service down through the floor—and that is true of both sides of the House.
I was pleased to hear the previous speaker refer to Christianity. The second sentence outlining the values and principles of my own political party states that we are a Christian nation, and we go on to define 'Christian' as being our responsibility to our fellow man. At the very heart of our cultural inheritance—whether we are atheists or agnostics, whether we want to admit it or not—built into our thinking DNA, is Christianity: we do have a responsibility to our fellow man. We are seeing that manifest today in this much needed and greatly overdue legislation. We pay the government and the opposition great tribute for their bipartisan remarks today.
Everyone will get their turn. I have always been amazed that, through many generations on both sides of my family, we have never had a family member with a disability. Suddenly, one of my grandchildren was born with a very rare disease called Williams syndrome. One says, 'That's terrible.' But, when I see little kids and babies, I always say, 'We should pass a law stopping them from growing up,' because they are so cute and lovable at that age! There are two ways to look at these things. If you have Williams syndrome, you will not grow beyond the age of seven, so my granddaughter will always be a little kid.
I reflect greatly upon my generation, who were told that women should have careers, not children. So, within 10 years, we become a vanishing race. Those women of my vintage are very old and very lonely. Their careers have left a very bitter taste in their mouth. They have no-one to love; they have no-one to love them. Even if you have a child who may be very greatly impaired, at least there is someone to love and someone to love you. I feel very sad and sorry for those people that have not enjoyed that experience.
In my family we are great pet lovers. When the abortion debate was on in Queensland, a leader of the Liberal Party said to me, 'People love their pet dogs, yet they have a different attitude towards a debilitated human being, who is infinitely more lovable.' I thought it was a profound insight by Tony Bourke, pharmacist and later Mayor of Toowoomba.
Family breakdowns often follow the birth of a crippled child. Families that stay together have a very strong relationship, because a terrible stress is placed upon such families. The mother is chained to the child 24 hours a day every day of the year, in many cases forever. The enormous psychological burden, the crushing burden, that occurs can break a human being. If we can provide money for respite care, which I think would be one of the major uses for this money, that will be a huge advantage. Sholto Douglas's wife in Townsville was a great advocate of this, saying to me on many occasions that respite care was desperately needed. 'Chained' is a pejorative word and I do not like using it in this context, but I have to use it for the metaphor I need. The trauma and hardship that is placed on a woman by being chained to a child 24 hours a day every day of the year for the rest of her life can be a very shattering experience. We will be able to overcome that problem with this legislation.
I have a very good friend named Wayne Maitland. The highway into Gordonvale is called Maitland Road, after that old pioneering family. Wayne's brother was head of the CFMEU and is also a very good friend of mine. Wayne lost his leg in a very simple accident. He slipped off a ladder while climbing onto the roof. He did not fall from a very great height. He nearly lost his life but he lost his leg. Wayne has always been a leader of men. He is the unofficial deputy mayor, deputy sheriff, of Gordonvale. They sent up an assessor, who travelled a long way at very great expense, to find out whether Wayne needed a lift. Wayne has got a two-storey house and he has only got one leg—and you have to have an assessor spend a day or two, with huge travel costs, to assess whether he needs a lift!
There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of this gravy train. There are a lot of people thinking Christmas has come, with this money flowing in. If this is not oversighted properly you will find that the actual benefit that flows to the disabled will be very, very small indeed. We have had a doubling of the cost of administration in our old people's homes because of the runaway public liability terror and also the terror of ministers and departmental heads who are protecting their own backsides. So people are not being looked after because people in power want to protect themselves—
Mr Neville: Excessive bureaucracy.
Mr KATTER: Yes, excessive bureaucracy. I thank my honourable colleague from the great city of Bundaberg. It is because of excessive bureaucracy and the cost of it. I ask, Mr Clare, if you could please take note of this. There will be a huge bureaucratic absorption of that money. The communication breakdown between the government handing out that money and the people who are disabled receiving that money is already in many people's opinions—not just Wayne Maitland's—a huge problem now. They are simply not getting the message through on where that assistance needs to go.
Many people have heard me say many times in this place that the amount of money going into first Australian affairs, Aboriginal affairs, in this country is excessive—and I speak with extreme authority because I was a minister in this area for the best part of a decade, and I did so well that I do not hesitate to say that there are still two books on the reading list at the university which are highly laudatory of the things we did in those years. I took all the credit for it. I do not think there was a single thing I did that I deserve credit for—it was the first Australian people themselves that were involved in every initiative—but I was perspicacious enough to realise that the people I had to listen to were the people with black faces that lived in the community areas and in the towns and cities of Australia. That is all I was interested in listening to. I was not listening to the bureaucrats and the do-gooders and all the people who man these mechanisms that absorb the money. Wilson Tuckey and Ian Causley said in this place again and again that the money should be put in a box with a chain around it and it should be sent to Doomadgee or Yirrkala or wherever. At least that way the people who need that money will get it. Whether they misspend it or not, at least it will be misspent by black people instead of white people in Australia. But the vast bulk of that money goes into white pockets.
I plead with the minister to take into account that this money needs to go to the person who has been born with a disability or has lost a limb through injury in their lifetime. The money should go to them and not be absorbed by the in-between people. A lot of them are well-meaning people, but that is not the way that it ends up. As minister I really came to loathe and detest the do-gooder class, even though there were some very good people amongst them.
Finally, Wayne said the government are listening to the big service providers, where there is huge money involved. They are not listening to the little local groups that are close to the people with disabilities. I asked him to give me examples. He immediately mentioned St John's, who are his contact point, and Blue Care. So we would plead with the government to ensure that, unlike in the field of first Australian affairs, the money actually goes to the people it is supposed to go to and not to do-gooders dreaming up new and ever more sophisticated methods of service delivery. (Time expired)
(Quorum formed)
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 6) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (11:47): Noting that we were given two minutes notice that this bill was being brought on for debate, I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 6) Bill 2012, which deals with a range of changes to the taxation system which I will go through in some detail.
Schedule 1 deals with changes to native title benefits and seeks to classify such benefits as non-assessable, non-exempt income so that they are not subject to income tax or capital gains tax. The changes within this schedule also allow impacted taxpayers to amend their tax returns in certain circumstances where the amendment period has expired.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into this schedule of the bill found that opinions shared in the inquiry fell into three broad categories. Indigenous organisations generally supported this amendment, as it provides clarity for relevant income and capital gains tax issues. Indigenous groups also called for the scope of the schedule to be broadened in order to include making investment income generated from native title payments tax exempt. Mining groups supported a tax-exempt vehicle for such payments but felt that this schedule could not proceed in its current form as it may encourage substantial up-front payments to individuals at the expense of longer-term intergenerational goals. The third group comprised the government of Western Australia, which stated that tax exempt status for native title benefits was not warranted outside the normal provisions for charitable trusts.
The coalition have expressed the view, through our dissenting report in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics advisory report into this bill, that there may be unintended consequences of this change. In particular, it may encourage large payments to individuals that would be contrary to the long-term development goals for Indigenous policy. This view was also expressed by the Minerals Council of Australia, which stated:
… we are concerned that the proposed native title payment tax treatment may have a range of unintended consequences. Specifically, we consider that those amendments disincentivise investment in intergenerational wealth creation, as tax will be payable on any transfer of monies to future generations or on income earned. It disincentivises the provision of benefits under agreements to Aboriginal people who are resident in an area but who are unrelated to native title determination and it limits the main tax treatment to the defined beneficiaries.
The coalition also raised concerns in relation to principles which are offended by the operation of schedule 1, making compensatory or any other income exempt from tax and violating the key tax principle of horizontal equity. A dollar earned by one person, regardless of how it is earned or from what activity, should be given the same tax treatment as though it were earned by another person.
As set out in the coalition's report to this inquiry, if this income were to be taxable in the hands of an Indigenous recipient, or recipients, it would likely increase the compensation sought by the amount of tax expected to be paid. As such, the incidence of any tax paid would likely be borne by the compensator. As it stands, the changes contained in schedule 1 make no distinction between native title compensation paid to individuals and that paid to groups or their trust funds. If paid to an individual or a number of individuals with possible inside running, the benefits of native title are unlikely to be shared widely or equitably, which does not seem to be in the spirit of the Native Title Act.
Where such compensation payments are paid to a large group, possibly to a community trust or a fund, then the benefits of native title are likely to be shared more widely and even across generations. That would enhance the justification for allowing these payments to be exempt.
Making this distinction would add some complexity and may appear paternalistic—it could be open to that argument—but it is more the spirit of native title compensation in the act that is worthy of further consideration and debate. The coalition calls on the government to reconsider its approach on this policy matter, and it is for those reasons that the coalition will move an amendment to excise this schedule from the bill.
Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to update the list of deductible gift recipients and extends the listing to another three entities. The coalition is not opposed to this schedule.
Schedule 3 of the bill seeks to extend the immediate deductibility of exploration expenditure provided to mining and petroleum energy explorers. This measure was announced by the government as part of the final design of the mining tax, the MRRT—the minerals resource rent tax—and is therefore expenditure linked to a failure. This measure was raised in discussions between the government and the Policy Transition Group. The Policy Transition Group was established specifically to advise the government on the technical design of the mining tax—gee, that went well! The Policy Transition Group did not include this change as a specific recommendation but, rather, made an observation about the anomaly of the inconsistent treatment for geothermal exploration, noting that the issue was outside the parameters of the terms of reference. The measure was specifically linked to the mining tax in the 2012 budget, on pages 28 and 29. So there is no argument that this is part of the mining tax package. The coalition view this measure as having originated within the mining tax process. We will be moving to excise this schedule from the bill on the grounds that we are opposed to the government's mining tax package and we will not support any expenditure that is linked to this failed tax, apart from the increase in the superannuation contribution rate from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
The Treasurer—what a Treasurer!—has linked over $15 billion worth of expenditure to the mining tax, which has now raised $126 million. Now the Treasurer has no money to pay for the $15 billion of expenditure. The Treasurer has been forced to admit the truth about his handcrafted mining tax—which he, the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Prime Minister personally negotiated, to the exclusion of the Treasury. They personally sat in the cabinet room and negotiated with the heads of BHP, Rio and Xstrata, and what did they come up with? A tax that raises hardly any money and $15 billion of expenditure against that. This will be the government's signature high-water mark. I am reluctant to say that, but I cannot believe that in just a few months the government could come up with any further policy initiative on the scale of the mining tax. The mining tax will be the benchmark for incompetent governments. No-one has encapsulated that better than the member for Griffith, who belled the cat earlier this week by identifying that the people that actually negotiated the mining tax were in fact just the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.
It now looks likely that all the commitments made by the Treasurer in relation to the mining tax will be funded by borrowing money. So the government goes out and borrows money to give it to the Australian people or borrows money to hand it out somewhere. It is clearly unsustainable. We have been constantly saying this, reminding the Australian people. The first version of the mining tax, the superprofits tax, was going to destroy the mining industry. The mining industry said it, and they were right. It is going to have a huge impact. Then they dumped Kev and put in the now Prime Minister. She identified that the mining tax was one of the things she was going to fix—and, boy, she fixed it! Not even the Greeks can develop a tax that raises no money! I apologise to any Greeks in the gallery. It is a great country, it is the home of democracy—
Mr Robert: But it doesn't raise tax.
Mr HOCKEY: but it has not raised much tax over the years. Obviously the government was upset about the fact that Greece won the international award for introducing taxes that raise very little money, so they came up with a new version of the mining tax! Maybe that is how the Treasurer got his bouquet as the world's best treasurer—he should have a post-politics career in tax design!
We are helping the government to improve the budget bottom line by identifying this as another area that is being funded by the failed mining tax—or isn't being funded, as is really the case. Therefore, we will not support this initiative. We will be moving an amendment to excise this part of the bill so that we can separately vote on it, and we hope that the government gives us the opportunity to do just that.
Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to extend the interim streaming rules for managed investment trusts until the commencement of the new tax system for MITs. The interim rules enable the streaming of capital gains and franked dividends to beneficiaries, subject to relevant integrity provisions, until the new MIT regime commences. The commencement of the new MIT regime has been deferred by two years to 1 July 2014, to coincide with the intended commencement of rewritten MIT and other trusts provisions in the income tax acts.
Originally these interim streaming rules for MITs were to apply from 1 July 2012, but that was extended by two years to 1 July 2014, because the provisions for the new regime were not ready in time—what a surprise! This extension of the transition period is a direct consequence of delays in progressing other announced and anticipated changes in the tax law. It reflects a growing backlog of changes to the tax law which have been announced but not enacted. This process has not been helped by the fact that the Assistant Treasurer's portfolio has seen five different assistant treasurers under Labor in five years. That is a pretty good record! How do those members on the back bench feel? They did not get a guernsey. The member for Canberra over there—is it Canberra?
Dr Leigh: Fraser.
Mr HOCKEY: Fraser; I am sorry. How could I forget? He was a Liberal Prime Minister. He delivered the odd surplus.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Gee, that got a reaction, didn't it?
Dr Leigh: Defamation!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! We will come back to the bill, thank you.
Mr HOCKEY: We are on the bill; I am just paying tribute to the member for Fraser and identifying that he has more economic skills in his little finger than the five assistant treasurers Labor has delivered over the last five years. I mean, it has been a conga line of assistant treasurers. What is it with the Labor Party and this turnover? There has been turnover in prime ministers, turnover in assistant treasurers, turnover in workplace relations, turnover in leaders of the Senate, turnover in a range of areas—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: and there is someone like the member for Fraser, who has a very healthy respect for himself, who does not get a guernsey, and I think he should.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member—
Mr HOCKEY: I think the gene pool of the Labor Party—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HOCKEY: is not so shallow that the member for Fraser couldn't get—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member, the shadow Treasurer, to respect the chair, and I ask him to come back to the bill.
Mr HOCKEY: I will, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, and I, too, respect your contribution to this place over an extended period of time. I would just make the point that one of the reasons there is an enormous backlog in taxation bills before this place—in fact the bills are not even getting to this place—is that there has been enormous turnover in the number of assistant treasurers in the government. There could be no other explanation. How could we have assistant treasurers making announcements about tax changes, creating uncertainty in the business community and yet not being able to deliver the legislation in this place? How does that happen? How could a government be so incompetent?
At any rate, because we are endeavouring, from opposition, to try to repair just a touch of the damage that the government has inflicted in relation to taxation policy, we are going to support the schedule proposed to delay the streaming rules for MITs.
Schedule 5 seeks to apply an income test to the rebate for medical expenses from 1 July 2012. This measure was announced in last year's budget by a government running out of money. The rebate for medical expenses provides taxpayers with a non-refundable tax offset for out-of-pocket medical expenses—which are eligible medical expenses incurred during the year, less available reimbursements from government or private health insurance—above the claim threshold.
The current claim threshold is $2,120 per year for all taxpayers, which is indexed by CPI, with net expenses exceeding this threshold giving rise to a tax offset or rebate worth 20 per cent of the excess above the claim threshold. The parameters of the new income test will generally align with those for the Medicare levy surcharge. For singles with an adjusted taxable income above $84,000, or, for married couples, above $168,000, the claim threshold will instead be $5,000 and the tax offset or rebate will be worth only 10 per cent of the excess above the threshold. The income threshold increases by $1,500 for each dependent child after the first.
This is another tax grab from an imprudent government that cannot seem to deal with its addiction to spending. This means that the Labor Party, since coming to government, has introduced or increased 27 taxes in just five years. Here is another one.
Schedule 6 of the bill makes changes to the 1997 income tax act following the High Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation v BHP Billiton Limited. Contrary to the original intent of the tax law, this decision distinguished between explicit and implicit contractual arrangements in relation to limited recourse debt and the deductibility of capital allowances. To give effect to the original policy intent, this schedule clarifies the definition of 'limited recourse debt'. So we support this initiative.
The changes within schedule 7 of this bill seek to amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act in order to remove the concessional fringe benefits tax treatment for in-house fringe benefits accessed through salary packaging. In-house fringe benefits arise when employees receive goods or services from their employer that are identical or similar to those provided to customers by the employer in the ordinary course of business. Quite clearly, the government continues to reduce and eliminate concessions in the FBT system, and it continues to look, rather desperately, for more revenue. This is just another tax grab from a government running out of money. Schedule 8 of the bill makes miscellaneous amendments to tax laws and regulations affecting superannuation and tax legislation generally, and we do not have any issue with those particular points.
So, as I have mentioned, the coalition will be moving an amendment to excise schedule 1 and schedule 3 from the bill. And, as the member for Lyons would know, it is important to give certainty and stability to Australian taxpayers; I think he would know that. He would also know that only the coalition could do that, and only the coalition is prepared to be consistent and predictable when it comes to taxation policy. So we are moving to excise schedule 1 on the basis that we fear unintended consequences will arise from making tax-exempt the payment of large native title benefits to individuals. In the long term—and we do focus on the long term—we believe this will be contrary to the development goals for Indigenous policy. The changes within schedule 1 also violate the key tax principle, as I said, of horizontal equity. The measures contained in schedule 3 are linked to the government's failed mining tax, and we will move to excise this schedule from the bill.
If coalition amendments to remove schedules l and 3 from the bill are not successful, then the coalition will not oppose the bill's passage through the parliament because, ultimately, we aim to be constructive and we want to try to help the government fix its massive self-imposed budget mess. We are feeling incredibly magnanimous when it comes to this, because they have got themselves into a hole. We understand that the easy politics would be to oppose everything, but we are not going to do that, and we do not do that.
Over 86 per cent of the legislation that has passed through this place has been supported by the coalition, and as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams—or more particularly, you, as the member for Lyons—would know, the inflated rhetoric from the Labor Party about negativity is just a little unfair given that we have supported 86 per cent of the legislation that has passed through this place. Here is another classic example: we are trying to improve the legislation, we are trying to improve the government's bottom line, but, despite our best attempts, I fear that we will fail at that. Ultimately, the only way we are going to improve the state of the nation's economy and the government's budget is with a change of government, and I am sure the member for Lyons would agree with that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The shadow Treasurer should not verbal the chair.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:08): It is my great pleasure to serve as the member for Fraser, a seat named after Jim Fraser, who was the ACT's sole representative in this House from 1951 through to 1970. It is true that he did serve alongside Malcolm Fraser for much of that period, but there are significant differences in outlook between them. Jim Fraser was a proud Labor member, committed to social justice, committed to the rights of workers and a true reforming member of this House. While the shadow Treasurer may seek to model his politics on those of Malcolm Fraser, that is not my role model here in this place.
I rise today to speak about one of the schedules in the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 6) Bill 2012, which provides tax deductible gift-recipient status to an organisation known as Teach For Australia. Teach For Australia is modelled on Teach For America, which is now in its third decade. Teach For America bases its success on two vital truths: firstly, that there is no more important job that teaching disadvantaged children and, secondly, that there is a reservoir of idealism among talented university students. More than one in 10 US Ivy League graduates now applies to Teach For America. Its recruiting is so selective that it is able to take just the top 20 per cent of applicants.
Since starting in 2009, Teach For Australia has sought to bring the same model to disadvantage in Australia's schools. Disadvantage is rife in the Australian school system. A few statistics bear that out: according to Teach For Australia, the most disadvantaged students in Australian schools are three years of learning behind the most advantaged by the time they are in mid-high school. One in five year 9 students living in households with no-one in paid work fail minimum reading standards. In remote schools, 39 per cent of students do not finish high school, and in very remote schools that is 65 per cent. Of those attending university, only 15 per cent of university students come from the bottom socioeconomic quartile, compared with 42 per cent from privileged backgrounds. There is a crying need to get great teachers into disadvantaged schools. The government's Gonski reforms are focusing on improving resources for those schools, but Teach For Australia also plays an important part.
Teach For Australia associates, as the teachers are known, train for six weeks in intensive summer training at the University of Melbourne, and then continue to receive formal education, mentoring and leadership coaching through their two-year placement. Teach For Australia associates are now teaching in schools in Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory. Like Teach For America, they are an extremely selective program. Fewer than one in 10 applicants to Teach For Australia is selected. The average university entrance score of Teach For Australia associates is 97.
Tony Simpson, principal of Copperfield College in Melbourne's outer west, describes his Teach For Australia teachers as 'mindblowingly successful'. The way in which Teach For Australia trains their associates encourages students who might not have studied education to combine theory and practice. As Teach For Australia founder Melodie Potts Rosevear put it:
TFA allows select individuals to complete roughly one-third of their degree, and then to combine theory and practice by doing the rest of the degree over the course of the next two years as they are teaching.
Like the UK counterpart, Teach First, independent evaluations support the success of the Teach For Australia model. For example, a randomised evaluation that Mathematica Policy Research did on Teach For America found that the benefits from having a Teach For America teacher were equivalent to an additional month of learning.
But we will not just see the benefits of Teach For Australia in the classroom. Teach For America now, with nearly a full generation having gone by since the first Teach For America teachers went through the system, is beginning to reshape US education policy debates. Two Teach For America alumni have founded KIPP schools, a set of charter schools that focus on teaching American students in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. There are more than 26 elected officials in the United States who have a direct experience of teaching disadvantaged students as a result of Teach For America. Like President Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, who taught in Chicago and Melbourne, these politicians are far better policymakers for having taught disadvantaged students.
The challenge that Teach For Australia faces is to show the same successes in Australia.
As the minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth said:
I congratulate these graduates for completing their initial training of the Teach For Australian program and for their commitment to teaching kids in some of our most disadvantaged communities over the next two years. Through Teach For Australia we are giving some of Australia's brightest and keenest graduates the chance to make a real difference in the lives of students who may be struggling because of their social circumstances.
I know the commitment to Teach For Australia is a bipartisan one. I would like to acknowledge the member for Aston, who served on the board of Teach For Australia and who I know is a strong supporter, as am I, of the Teach For Australia model.
Right here in the ACT we have terrific Teach For Australia teachers working in our schools. Imogen Byrne at Belconnen High School has now finished her TFA time and is still teaching at that school, as are Corey McCann at Calwell High School and Igraine Ridley-Smith at Calwell High School, who received the New Educator of the Year Award at the 2012 Public Education Excellence awards—a real testament to her hard work with science and maths students. Felicity Olver at Erindale Secondary College and Lia Van den Bosch at Hawker College have also passed their first two years of the program and are teaching in the education system, which is a clear indication that many Teach For Australia associates stay in the education system beyond the two years they are required to.
Now in year 2 of the program in the ACT are Sebastian Knox at Belconnen High School, Bridget Martin at Erindale Secondary School, Stephen Barnard at Lake Tuggeranong College, Jessica Brunton at Lake Tuggeranong College, Tanya Greeves at Lanyon High School and Helen Baxendale at the Canberra College. Now in their first year of the program in the ACT are Min Kim at Calwell High School, Robert Pickup at Erindale Secondary School, Jessie Snodgrass at Kingsford Smith School, Alpha Cheng at Caroline Chisholm High School, Zed Mancenido at Lake Tuggeranong College and Hannah Brickhill at Melrose High School.
I had the pleasure of having two Teach For Australia associates work as fellows/interns in my office. These people not only work hard in the classroom and work in programs out of school hours but in their school holidays decide to work for a member of parliament. It is a crazy idea but I and my staff delighted in having their ideas and enthusiasm with us in the office. I thank Daniel Carr and Tanya Greeves for that.
The power to change lives is a power that is in the hands of great teachers. I will read a letter from a Melbourne girl to her English teacher Liam Wood. She wrote:
You were the only teacher that believed in me... I was doubted, labelled dumb/stupid and put down constantly in every class, except in Writer's Workshop. You created an environment that made each student special, like they belonged in the class ... I know I never spoke about personal things but you and Writer's Workshop changed my life just before I had given up. Things at home have even gotten better since I joined your class. ... Never forget that by treating young adults/teenagers like equals or as a friend and just simply believing in them you'll give them faith, hope, dreams and inspiration.
That was just one of the several letters that Liam received from his students.
Teach For Australia is a powerful program. It is changing lives among children in disadvantaged schools. I hope that as a result of it receiving tax deductible gift recipient status through this bill it will encourage further philanthropic support for a program which is part of the broader work that all of us in the House have to do to improve the quality of education that the most disadvantaged students in Australia receive.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:19): I am very pleased to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 6) Bill 2012. I quite often speak on tax law bills and have done so since I was first elected nine years ago. I have said in the other place, where they are usually debated because they are usually non-controversial, that I find the TLAB bills, as they are known, really quite interesting. In many cases they incorporate policy decisions made elsewhere and you can see the work of the government in practice as they implement what are sometimes quite small changes. They are usually non-controversial, because usually they deal with a range of largely administrative matters.
This bill deals with a number of matters, seven in fact. Some of them are largely administrative and some are applying decisions that reflect requests from the community. But they are always interesting and they are always worth speaking on. This one has seven schedules. The member for Fraser has already spoken on schedule 2. I am going to skip over schedule 1 because it is the one I find quite fascinating. It is concerned with native title and I am going to come back to that one. I am going to run quickly through the others.
Schedule 2 updates the list of deductible gift recipients; TLABs often do that. These are lists of important organisations that are entitled to tax deductible gift recipient status. This TLAB adds AE1 Incorporated, which seeks to relocate and honour of the crew of Australia's first submarine; Teach For Australia, which seeks to attract top graduates to teach in disadvantaged communities—and we heard the member for Fraser speak very highly of that program; and Australia for the UNHCR, which raises funds to support the humanitarian programs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Again, it is a very small schedule that adds three organisations to the list. But if you look at the history of all the TLABs, they reflect the importance these extraordinary community organisations that do such good work.
Schedule 3, which I am very surprised to hear the opposition is not going to support, extends the immediate deductibility of exploration expenditure already provided to mining and petroleum explorers—which they already get, but this schedule extends it to geothermal energy explorers.
The intention of this schedule is to restore competitive neutrality in the sector, and to support a clean energy source.
Earlier, I heard the shadow Treasurer state in this debate that the opposition was going vote against it because somehow it was raised in the development of the minerals resource rent tax. They do not like that, so they do not like anything that was mentioned in the same sentence as it was. But this issue is not associated with the minerals resource rent tax. It was raised by the Policy Transition Group—that is certainly true—but that was completely outside the terms of reference for them. They raised it as an anomaly when they had the chance during the inquiries, and they provided advice to the government that the tax law should be amended to take out that anomaly and restore competitive neutrality. This is something that the industry wants, it is something that other sectors of the industry already have and it is a perfectly logical extension which takes out an anomaly and restores competitive neutrality. It is going to be very difficult for the opposition to explain why they would vote against this, if their only reason is that it was once mentioned in the same room as people discussing the minerals resource rent tax. That is what we heard from the shadow Treasurer earlier.
Schedule 4 extends the interim streaming provisions for managed investment trusts from 2012 to 2014. The government had already made the announcement that they would defer until 2014 the commencement of the new overall regime for managed investment trusts and the new general trust income rules. The purpose was that by providing a coordinated commencement of all the different systems, compliance costs would be reduced for taxpayers. It was an announcement already made and which is now incorporated in the system through this TLAB No. 6.
There was also schedule 5, which applies an income-based means test to the rebate for medical expenses. There has been some argument, particularly from the AMA, that it should not apply to the Medicare safety net. However, it does result in a far better targeting of health expenditure and a more sustainable health system as part of a range of improvements by this government to achieve just that—to ensure that we spend health dollars in the best possible places for the community.
Schedule 6 amends the definition of limited recourse debt. Again, this is quite an interesting one. Following the High Court case in 2011, where BHP Billiton secured double deductions for its iron briquette plant in Western Australia, it appeared that the High Court had interpreted the law in a way that industry and the tax office had—well, put it this way: the tax office and industry seem to have accepted the ATO interpretation for many years, but this High Court ruling essentially affected that interpretation and it made it possible for companies to double dip. This schedule 6 essentially reinstates the ATO's interpretation and, again, it is simply putting back in place what was thought to be the case before that High Court case in 2011.
Schedule 7 removes the concessional fringe benefits tax treatment for in-house fringe benefits which are accessed through salary sacrificing. Again, that is an equity issue that puts employees on a level playing field.
Schedule 1 is the one I want to talk about for the remainder of my time, because it is a very interesting one and a really, really important one. It concerns native title, which is something that should be of concern to us all. It is very much a part of our land and it is very much a part of who we are as a people.
Native title, in the sense of traditional ownership of the land, has been in existence in Australia for tens of thousands of years. Not all of us, including me, understand exactly what that means—I am not sure I ever will—but I have a great respect for the Indigenous owners of this land and a trust in them about the importance and the value of this ancient cultural tradition. We as a nation benefit from the stories, the philosophies and the approach to land management that our Indigenous people bring to the table.
The legal concept of native title is one that was created back in the early nineties to recognise in western law this communal ownership and this ancient cultural tradition—not a perfect fit between western law and traditional Indigenous cultural beliefs, but it was the best we did at the time.
Traditional ownership is communal, of course, and most western law concerning ownership is individual. It is actually quite a complex area, yet there was some very good work done in the early nineties with the Native Title Act 1993 and amendments to that in 1998 which first introduced issues of tax into native title. The first Native Act 1993 was silent on the tax treatment of native title. So, we have come a long way there.
Essentially, this schedule puts into law what the Australian Tax Office has been doing for quite some time on native title. I will outline briefly what it does. It has a very narrow purpose: it simply seeks to clarify that payments and other benefits made under native title agreements are not subject to income tax, and that certain transfers of native titles to trusts do not attract capital gains tax. It sounds very simple, but up until now every transfer of services or cash as compensation for either extinguishment of native title or impairment of native title was handled by the tax office on a one-on-one basis and people had to seek a private binding ruling for every single decision.
What this schedule does is really quite simple: it takes the range of decisions that the tax office has been making, and is continuing to make, and puts them into a form in tax law. So for people who are approaching their compensation payments within that framework it creates a lot of certainty, because that framework is now set in law. It reduces a hell of a compliance burden on a whole range of people who will now know exactly what the law is. People who are slightly outside the range of transactions included in this schedule will still apply for private binding rulings. But there is always a group of people just outside the law, no matter where you put the law, who will apply for binding rulings.
We did have a number of contributions to the Economics Committee which expressed concern that, by formulating it and putting it into law, you might encourage people to move to within the bit that is now covered by the law and away from other options. That is true for any law. But the creation of certainty for a broad range of stakeholders in this matter is something of extraordinary value. I will say it again: no matter where you put the line of the law, you will have movement across that line, with private binding rulings on one side and certainty on the other—that is true for all laws.
The really interesting bit about this schedule is the things that it does not do. The vast majority of people who have commented officially on this schedule have raised issues that extend beyond the range of this schedule—and that, in many ways, is the part that is most interesting. Native title, as a legal concept, is around 20 years old. The previous Liberal government, in 1998, committed to further work on the tax treatment of native title. That stalled, and it essentially stayed stalled until we started receiving, in 2007, a growing number of papers on the intersection between native title and taxation law. That is probably what you would expect because, as a legal concept, it has been around for 20 years and for much of that 20 years Indigenous people have been arguing about whether or not they can get native title—they have actually being fighting for it for 20 years.
When you go to the Northern Territory, as my committee was lucky enough to do when we did the inquiry into Wild Rivers, and you talk to the incredible diversity of Indigenous groups up there, you see that the actual return to country and the confirmation of native title and what that means in a Western legal system is still quite new. So what we are seeing now is some really interesting exploration by some growing and increasingly independent groups—some quite small. The situation in the older days, when we had larger land councils and some of the governing and decision making bodies were city based, is exploding in many ways into a situation whereby we have myriad smaller organisations and powerful local voices. So we are seeing a growth in the range of options that Indigenous people have for converting what is a traditional cultural ownership into an economic asset and benefit for future generations. It is a really interesting time for our Indigenous community and it is a really interesting time for our nation. We are going to see over the next decade, I suspect, a growing range of ways for Indigenous communities to benefit from something they have always owned and of which they can now enjoy the benefits of ownership within Western law.
So I will restate the conclusion that the Economics Committee made by saying that I personally look forward to the next few years, as I hope governments both now and in the future will open up that dialogue with Indigenous communities while they work out exactly the best way to convert that traditional ownership into an economic benefit, and governments work very seriously with them in working out how our tax laws and our definitions of ownership et cetera can be amended to reflect their vision for the future ownership of their very important assets. For our nation this is probably one of the most important things we will do for our soul in the next 10 years. If we have not woken up yet to how valuable these traditions are to us all, and how they do and should impact on the way we think of our own land and the way we walk in it, then we are missing out on something very special that lies within us.
I commend the Assistant Treasurer for this bill. It has seven rather important schedules. I commend him also for simplifying and confirming the treatment of native title as it is currently treated by the ATO in law, to bring certainty to a very important range of stakeholders. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (12:35): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (12:36): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (12:36): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. This bill establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency. As the federal member for Hinkler, which has not only one of the highest percentages of senior citizens in this country but also one of the highest concentrations of people with disabilities, above the national average, this bill has vast implications for my electorate.
There is no doubt that there is bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There is, however, plenty of scope for further amendments given that neither the NDIS's rules nor the operating guidelines has been released. The NDIS, as a person-centred and self-directed funding model, is akin to a voucher. As such, it has philosophically aligned the objectives of empowering the individual, removing government from people's lives and reducing red tape. It would be a tragedy to see the NDIS weighed down with the bureaucracy and paperwork that has hampered aged-care for more than a decade. The coalition envisages the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to be chaired by both sides of politics to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. My colleague and the federal member for Dawson, George Christensen, has had a motion in the House for some time to establish this committee. Unfortunately, it has not been brought forward to a vote.
In the lead-up to where we are today, the report of the disability care and support inquiry, released in August 2011, made several key points, including that most families and individuals cannot adequately prepare for the financial impact of a significant disability and that that the current disability support scheme is underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient and gives people with disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate support. The inquiry recommended that there be a new national scheme—the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS—that provides insurance cover for all Australians in the event of significant disability.
The inquiry also found that funding of the scheme should be a core function of government. The commission proposes several options for providing certainty for future funding. Its preferred option is that the Australian government should finance the entire cost of the NDIS by directing payments from consolidated revenue into a national disability insurance premium fund, using an agreed formula entrenched in legislation. However, sadly the funding of the NDIS has become a political football and, in my opinion, that is very disappointing.
Some years ago I was invited by Channel 10 to a day out for disabled kids. I turned up as the dutiful member, but when I got there I was absolutely staggered. I had never seen so many kids in wheelchairs, on crutches, in walking frames, even in little beds that were wheeled along; they were coming for this day out that had been put on by Channel 10. There were literally hundreds—and that was just in my home town of Bundaberg. It left me with a profound sense that a lot of disabled people are never seen. They live in houses and it is just once in a while, at a function like that, when we see the extent of how much disability is around us.
In my electorate of Hinkler, there are many passionate people who advocate for those with disabilities. Perhaps one of the most dedicated is Mary Walsh. As the mother of an intellectually disabled son who passed away six years ago at the age of 40, Mary knows about having to fight for every single service her son received during the course of his life. Mary's son had Williams syndrome, a rare disorder in which premature ageing is a clinical feature, but the system would not recognise it. Though clinically prematurely aged at 35, he would have to live a further 30 years to obtain federal assistance with day-to-day care. Premature ageing is aggravated by the fact that many of our people are now living longer and no provision has been made within the current system to accommodate this.
As an advocate for people with disabilities, Mary wrote a submission to the Productivity Commission and to the Productivity Commission's draft report. It is her firm belief, and one which I support, that the Productivity Commission's recommendations need to be adopted and that the federal government, which is responsible for the implementation of the NDIS, should do so. As Mary put it:
The solution is in the government's hands. It the government's responsibility to remove feelings of desperation, desolation and desertion so that many families and carers who experience this can have a better lifestyle. It is time that the government ends the nightmare process, which so many families endure, processes which result in families having to give up their children because they can no longer care for them—
that really frightens me, that people have to give up their kids because they cannot care for them—
and others who are doomed to endless family struggle for the basics of a reasonable lifestyle.
Another submission of which I took particular note was from the group Every Australian Counts, a group which holds events in my electorate every year and last year held a successful DisabiliTEA, which I attended. In its submission, Every Australian Counts said:
It is hard to believe that in a democratic country as wealthy as Australia that people with a disability and their families are still left to struggle alone every day. Most Australians assume that if people are born with a disability or acquire one later in life, that some system, somewhere, will take care of them.
But we all know it does not happen. As the father of a partially disabled son and the grandfather of a disabled granddaughter, my interest in this is not merely academic. My family and I have lived with these problems with my son, and now I am encountering similar problems with my granddaughter, but in a different field. She suffers from a disease called tuberous sclerosis. I am more lucky than most: while I have never been rich, I have always had reasonable salaries and I have been able to cope with these conditions, get my kids to good doctors and help my granddaughter. My son and my daughter-in-law have been absolutely marvellous with the care of my granddaughter. She has every possible opportunity to overcome her condition, but a lot of people do not.
In Australia disability support is a lottery. People receive different levels of support depending on how, when and where their disability was acquired. People count themselves lucky—note the word 'lucky'—when their disability is the result of a car accident in the right state—note the word 'right'—where they are entitled to support. In the wrong state—note the word 'wrong'—they are entitled to nothing, no matter how much their disability expenses skyrocket. There is no entitlement to support if you acquire your disability at home. There is no private insurance to cover the costs incurred of a baby being born with a severe disability. No matter how severe the level of disability, people with a disability, their families and their carers struggle daily to support and service what are sometimes even basic needs. The current system fails to deliver essential services, leaving exhausted, impoverished families to fill a huge gap, sometimes as long as 50 years.
I know of one family's situation in Western Australia. I will not use their surname, because I do not have their permission. But Samantha is a very focused wife. Samantha has two boys, and one of them, Reuben, nine years of age, has an undiagnosed condition and also suffers from dyspraxia, where he cannot speak. He can hear but not speak. On top of that, as if that were not enough—and that would be a challenge for any family—her husband is a quadriplegic. Just imagine the twin problems of a disabled child and a disabled husband in one family. When Samantha goes out to earn some money—what for?—to put her son through additional speech therapy, she is pulled up by Centrelink because has exceeded the allowable amount of income, which affects her pension. We should be doing these things a lot better. The Samanthas of the world are out there doing a job that governments should be doing. Their husbands and their kids are entitled to a fair go, and I hope this system delivers it.
I also want to make a plea for younger people with disabilities who require institutional care. What we do today is try to get them into hospitals. Sometimes a country hospital will take them; sometimes they end up in a nursing home. I can remember one fellow I used to go to see regularly at Christmas time in a nursing home. I can still see him in his white shorts. He had no movement at all other than having a little scratching device he could scratch his back with. He loved to talk about the races and various things like that, but he had no young people of his own age around him. Part of the package for disabilities should be to get those young people and younger middle-aged people out of nursing homes and into some form of group home. Of course, these would be have to be staggered in the amount of care given, because there are different levels of disability, but they should be a place where people could live out their lives with other younger and middle-aged people with similar worries and cares—somewhere where that would have some form of interaction and lifestyle and not have to endlessly live in a room with older people being their only company. That would be one thing I would recommend to both sides as we start to put flesh on the bones of the NDIS.
I would volunteer my electorate of Hinkler, in particular Bundaberg, because many years ago, in the sixties, we built one of the first Bright Horizon schools for disabled children. We built it over two weekends; it was a remarkable feat. We also have a farm and a packaging works, where Bright Horizon also engage younger people in packaging fruit and vegetables and the like, and growing them; and also making trophies for sporting clubs. Yet a third group work where the council sort the rubbish for environmental purposes. Bundaberg also has a number of these group homes that are aimed essentially at young people with reasonable abilities to get around themselves, not those who are bed-bound. So I think Bundaberg has the foundations of where you could trial some of these models for younger and middle-aged people with disabilities.
I think the current system fails to deliver essential services, leaving exhausted and impoverished families to fill a huge gap, as I said before, for as long as 50 years. It is the great fear of ageing parents that there will be no-one or no system to look after their kids. The NDIS represents a fundamental reform to the way services are funded and delivered. It is a social reform on a scale of Medicare and compulsory superannuation, and we should give it every support and make sure, as I said before, that it works efficiently and does not become a victim to excessive bureaucracy.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (12:51): I am very pleased to follow the member for Hinkler in this debate, who has taken a keen interest in disability issues for the entire time he has been in the parliament. He has been a champion for local disability groups in his own electorate.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 is providing the members of this chamber with an opportunity to highlight the plight of many Australians who must live with a disability. However, further to that, this bill is also providing the opportunity to recognise not only the difficulties disabled Australians face every day of their lives but also the huge contributions that many of their family members and carers make to support those in their care.
Almost every family includes someone with a disability, often a lifelong disability. Severe disability can not only destroy the lifestyle of an individual but also impact on the broader family: there are parents unable to achieve their ambitions in life and work and siblings who must go without so the needs of the family member with disabilities can be met. But let us not forget that family members with disabilities—sons, daughters, brothers, sisters—also bring joy to their parents and their family members. Small achievements are celebrated because they are, in reality, great achievements.
Many people overcome disabilities to lead productive lives and make full contributions to their communities. The role of a caring society is to make sure all its citizens are able to achieve to their potential and live satisfying lives. Australia already has a wide range of services for people with disabilities and their families. These services provide a great deal of help and make a real difference for many families. I respect and admire those who provide this care and thank them for all that they do in what is often very challenging work.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme concept is intended to take these services to a new level and to deliver them in a different and more comprehensive way. The coalition wants to ensure that all Australians receive a fair go, and that is what the NDIS aims to achieve. People with disabilities, their families and their carers must be at the centre of the scheme.
The scheme is intended to provide disabled Australians with opportunities that many of us simply take for granted. Currently, the level of support a person with a disability receives is dependent on the state they live in, the type of disability they have and when, where or how it was acquired. Those who are born with a disability or who acquire one when they are older are less likely to be provided with the level of assistance they require. Every member in this chamber knows that the system of support for Australians with a disability is failing many families. We need a national approach in order to support people with disabilities, who have for so long been marginalised.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, just under one in five Australians currently suffers from a disability. That is more than four million of our country men and women. Obviously, those four million cover a multitude of degrees of disability—from mild to severe. Not all of those four million Australians require assistance to manage their health conditions or to cope with everyday activities. It is proposed that the NDIS will provide people with disabilities an opportunity to be in charge of their supports, their needs, their equipment and their service providers. However, the Labor government have failed to outline the eligibility and assessment criteria that will be used to determine who will receive assistance through the NDIS. Over and over, the Labor government show that they are a government of concepts but not delivery.
This bill seems to be part of a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister to create a legacy in the last days of her office. She wants to take credit for the NDIS, even though she will not deliver a single service. The bill does not deliver an NDIS or the money to fund it. The four million Australians that live with a disability deserve results. The issue is not about getting support for the NDIS. In fact, every government and every opposition in every state across Australia support the NDIS, as does the federal coalition. The issue with the NDIS is in the detail. How will it work? Who will it benefit? Where will the money come from? Where will the extra carers come from? How will the NDIS be managed and the quality of services assured? These are the details that the government has so far failed to provide and which should have been a part of any meaningful legislation to actually implement an NDIS—details that are fully costed and fully budgeted; details that comprehensively outline the guarantee that those who so desperately need this scheme will be the ones who benefit from it.
This is called a National Disability Insurance Scheme, but it does nothing to assure those four million disabled Australians that the scheme is more than just a concept. To guarantee that this scheme will work well and is generous will no doubt cost the Australian people a lot of money, and from latest estimates it will be at least $8 billion extra per year. But the Labor government has huge deficits and massive debt. If this is a genuine insurance scheme, as it is called, then, we have to assume that, like other insurance schemes, there will be a premium to be paid. So I ask the government: what is the premium that everyone needs to pay in order to be covered? The Labor government has failed to provide any assurance to disabled Australians that this program has longevity and that the cost of having the scheme, which is paid for by Australian taxpayers, will not spiral out of control.
Currently, the government has committed $1 billion to the NDIS over four years. However, the Productivity Commission figures show that the first pilot phase alone should cost around $3.9 billion over this period. Like all insurance schemes, the more people who make a claim the higher the premiums and the higher the costs. The more generous the scheme the more people will want to be part of it. There is evidence of this kind of a response to disability pensions in Australia and around the world, yet the government provides no explanation about how the gatekeeper will work, who will control access to the scheme to ensure that it benefits those who need it most and how much will be considered to be affordable.
There is already dispute about whether the scheme should be available to people of retirement age. In the past this may not have been an issue, as most people with significant disabilities did not have a great life expectancy. But that is no longer the case as modern medical science enables people to treated for conditions which once would have taken a person's life.
It appears that many Australians who could benefit from the NDIS will not be eligible. People who are aged over 65 years will not be eligible to request support from the NDIS. Just over half—52 per cent—of people aged 60 years and over have a disability. Most of these do not need any assistance to manage health conditions or cope with everyday needs. For those who do, the most commonly reported needs are help with property maintenance, household chores and mobility. By the time Australians get to 90 years and over, 88 per cent will suffer from a disability. The cost of caring for these people is obviously significant.
The NDIS will need to provide arrangements to enable those who have been receiving support, perhaps for the whole of their life, to continue to obtain help once they turn 65. They cannot simply be cast adrift at a time when they will need the help most. Even previously fit people usually need help in their later years, and a care and support system will need to remain in place for these people also.
One of the primary concepts of the NDIS focuses on early intervention in order to mitigate, alleviate or prevent the deterioration of a person's functional capability. If this element of the scheme is successful it could have the potential to reduce the numbers of people who suffer with a disability and, in turn, reduce the cost of caring for elderly Australians. This is just another example of the benefits that the NDIS could have if it is planned and delivered correctly.
But it is not just the people with a disability who will benefit from the NDIS if we get it right. There are over 2.6 million carers who provide assistance to those who need help because of disability or old age every day in Australia. In fact, it was carers who originally came up with the concept of an NDIS about five years ago, and who have continued to lobby for one. No one better understands the need for an NDIS than those who have tirelessly and willingly provided everyday support to someone with a disability. There is no denying that acting as a carer for someone is an incredible act of love, and all Australians must recognise the sacrifices that carers make daily—often with little reward. Disability impacts the whole family, and all too often I hear stories of hardship and struggle when people have to give up careers and paid work in order to care for someone with a disability. The NDIS could provide a huge level of assistance to carers if the details are right.
The coalition has supported, and will continue to support, an NDIS. We supported the Productivity Commission report, the $1 billion in the budget, the five launch sites and the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for a full state wide rollout after the Hunter launch. Beyond this, we are calling for the government to establish a joint parliamentary committee in order to continue to progress the development of the scheme. We need a national approach which harnesses the resources of the states, private sector providers and the charitable sector. A NDIS will never work unless there is an intergovernmental agreement between all states and territories.
I was recently reminded of the vulnerability of disabled Australians. A young man from my electorate of Wide Bay was, unfortunately, killed in the floods as they swept through the Gympie district last month. This young man was confined to a wheelchair with cerebral palsy. While driving through a flooded creek, waters surrounded his parent's car and washed them down the creek. His parents were able to cling to trees long enough to be rescued. However, the young man was unable to fend for himself. This terrible incident highlights the fact that people with disabilities often need help at the most unexpected times, and also the importance of doing all we can to support our disabled Australians.
I implore the government to get the details right with the NDIS and to support the coalition's call for a bipartisan parliamentary committee to oversight the scheme. It will after all be the task of the incoming coalition government to actually implement the scheme.
The NDIS must represent good and reasonable value for money. It must take into account current support networks, families and carers and it should not include support that is more appropriately funded or provided elsewhere. Full implementation of an NDIS would be nothing short of a 'new deal' for people with disabilities and their carers. The NDIS must be a success, and all members of this chamber have a responsibility to ensure that it succeeds. The NDIS can provide real change and real hope for disabled Australians. That is why it is so vitally important that we get this scheme right.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:05): It is self-evident that there is strong support for a new disability scheme in this country. It is probably not as obvious to many observers that we are still a long way away from making it happen, despite the strong support at all levels of government.
I cannot use my time any better today than to tell the stories of Tina, Louisa, Karen and Kimberley, who live in my community, and the struggle they have had up until this time. I do not think I would add much to the debate by talking about the Productivity Commission's findings, except to say that it was a masterly understatement when they said, 'The additional investment of $6.5 billion simply reflects just how bad the current system is'. I would like to emphasise the unexpected nature of a catastrophic event that can lead to lifetime disability. I would like to tell Tina's story and read it into Hansard.
Tina's daughter is Ava and she is just five years old, turning six in May. She is in grade 1 at our local special school. She developed completely normally as an 18-month-old little girl, until suddenly her milestones reversed: her skills started to leave her; she began having seizures; she lost the ability to walk, which she had just learnt six months before; she could no longer swallow and suddenly therefore failed to thrive. She lost all hand function and lost all her speech. She was diagnosed then with Rett syndrome, a completely sporadic X-chromosomal mutation that happens about once in every 10,000 times.
For this family the challenge is simply to keep their daughter walking, eating and still being able to communicate without being able to use her hands. They rely on eye-gaze technique, even though those devices are so expensive and are not covered under the current scheme. They do have some help with the autism package but there is virtually no flexibility within it. The limited physiotherapy has been excluded until recently for little girls with Rett syndrome. The family dreams of a day when they can direct their spending to things for Ava like horse-riding, hydrotherapy, music therapy or even dance for kids with special needs, but up until now that has simply not been possible. And that is because a funding body decides these things—where the money can be spent and how it is used. And at the age of seven it is arbitrarily lost all together. So there is a race in the next 18 months to access as many services as possible to set Ava up as well as they can before she falls into the black hole of having no support at all.
The experience for Tina's family is that, if you are not literally begging and desperate and beyond coping, then you do not get the assistance. It sets up a curious world where families actually have to exaggerate the problems just in the hope of funding, and a situation where families with a disabled member look to each other and wonder whether they are gaming the system or behaving in a way that makes their case more compelling to disability services, and that takes away the sense of consistency and fairness.
A great example was when Tina had her second child and, after eight months of virtually no sleep with the second baby and trying to also look after Ava, she was at the end of her rope and contacted a Commonwealth Respite Carelink centre for some support. They said, 'I am sorry; we can only give you emergency support, and you are not eligible'. She was then told that if they really wanted it they would have to find $500 a week, money that they simply could not budget for. Eventually, in what seemed like a negotiation, they were offered some support, if they would contribute at least $20 a week. Tina said yes, even though they did not have that money. The person who was sent, while well-meaning enough, was so large that she could not get up and down out of the couch; she was not able to help Ava at all; and she would not pick up the crying baby because, she said: 'That's not part of the package. It's not the baby that has the disability.'
It is not the best $20 that this family ever spent. They would love to see a support system that offered more flexibility to allow parents to direct that money where they thought that it could get the most value and support for their individual circumstances. To give an example of how hard it is to find $20 a week, this family faces a bill of $7,500 for a paediatric stroller, $3,000 for a paediatric bath, $4,500 for a special needs bike so there can be some exercise for Ava and, of course, just under $3,000 for a special support chair for feeding and eating, with no help towards those expenses.
We have heard enough in this chamber about the system that we have at the moment. Let us be honest: the political will was not there for decades. It has been a perennial fight between Commonwealth and state governments, and it is these families that we left in the dark and without the assistance they deserve. We know state governments could never handle this on their own, but we chose to leave it like that for a long time. So I speak to the 969 carer payment recipients in my community and the 3,176 individuals who get a carer allowance: our commitment here is that we will not leave you alone and that together we can craft a better system, but there is a long way to go.
That need for flexibility is one that I heard over and over again. Karen Howe, who lives in Cleveland, asked me to read her story into the parliament's Hansard. Her son is eight. His name is Dylan and he has Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that causes global developmental delay. He is non-verbal and completely dependent on his parents to dress him, to toilet him and even to maintain his communication and emotional needs. He suffers from hyperacusis, meaning he cannot even attend large groups like a party or a circus with other kids his own age because he decompensates. His parents have been unable to offer all the services that they know, see and feel would make such a difference. That lack of support means that they cannot have speech therapy or OT and that they have to do that themselves and to rely on a teacher and a teacher's aide, who do not have the training to do that kind of thing. It is virtually impossible, as they see it, for Dylan to be able to maintain his dignity and to fit into society.
These stories exist the nation over, as was emphasised by the previous speaker. But the reality is that even I, having worked in the health system, was never exposed to this. I worked in a clinic with people rolling in and rolling out, and I had to tell every 20th person that their vision could not be saved and there was no treatment for it. That was a half-hour conversation, but I left those people to return home to their own family members, have those quiet conversations at home with those that they loved and lie in bed at night and wonder what their future was. That happened over and over again, but as clinicians we are only touched very peripherally and ephemerally by those experiences. The great benefit of this debate is that I think almost everyone in this chamber now, thanks to the NDIS campaign, has had a real, genuine one-to-one experience, even if it was only for a short period of time with people struggling with these challenges of disability.
What I think has not been mentioned enough in this debate when we look at the large figures is that there are significant economic benefits to instituting a system that is way more responsive and liberates those around a person with disability to participate fully and even allows someone with a milder disability to be part of the real economy. Kimberly Ali is a businesswoman and she lives in my electorate. She and her husband, Marco, have had to give up at least one job to look after their beautiful six-year-old son, who has autism. She has dedicated her time to basically endless trips to therapists and trying to broker a path that is best for her son through a completely fractured system. Her husband has had to let go of full-time staff in order to pay himself enough to cover their son's therapies, which are roughly $200 to $500 a week. Imagine trying to find that kind of money. Marco leaves for work at 6 am and returns at 6 pm six days a week, just trying to keep their small business running. They have obviously had to have conversations about how they can find the extra money that their son needs. In saying that, they describe themselves as the lucky ones. Their son never goes without. They have done everything they can to make sure that he gets a really experienced speech therapist. But it is a sad state of affairs, because they know of kids just like their own whose families simply cannot do it because they cannot find the money.
Evidence shows that ongoing intervention in autism is effective and early intervention is doubly effective. We need to be intervening way before the educational and social deficits compound into people that are way more reliant on social services in the future. Groups like AEIOU will say that intensive intervention with a whole range of kids living with autism increases their odds of making it and getting through mainstream education from 30 per cent likelihood to 80 per cent. It is a fantastic intervention.
It is a credit to the former Prime Minister that he initiated a range of autism packages which, again, were not available until 2008.
Now, I hope I have made the case that, no matter how financially responsible you are, there is no way to prepare for such a catastrophic event. The reality is that in those cases it is almost irrefutable that we need a social system that will compensate. I think it is a smart feature of the design of the proposed system that we divide up catastrophic injuries so that acquired injuries are looked after by the state in an NIIS that will cost around $835 million, with 1,000 new entrants, per year. By 2018, about 30,000 people will be cared for under that state scheme, which will be primarily funded by the insurance premiums that are already being paid. This covers people who suffer a traumatic accident—be it at home or in the workplace or simply in a public place—a motor vehicle accident or the result of some form of criminal action. All of these people should be covered. What side of the street you live on in Tweed Heads should not affect whether you can access the no-fault care and support scheme that exists in New South Wales or, if you happen to be on the other side of the street and you are a Queenslander, no scheme at all. It should not be that, because you live in Western Australia, 85 per cent of care package applications are refused. What an extraordinary number.
Looking at the Shut out report from 2009, we know that people who are disabled are more likely not to complete school and not to be in the workforce. We know that they are more reliant on public housing. They will not have access to decent transport, respite, personal services or emergency care or be given a hand with coordinating the services they need or even access to a guide dog or other therapies.
But one figure that I think we need to remember—one number that one should take home from this long series of valuable and enlightening speeches—is this: in a nation where we take mental health so seriously now at both levels of government, we need to remember that a person living with a disability has up to a 50 per cent chance of also living with depression. That is a far distant number from the six per cent of the rest of us. Furthermore, if you have a disability, you have a 25 to 30 per cent chance of living on or below the poverty line. That is a long way from the 10 per cent odds that the rest of us face.
Structuring a system, of course, is going to have large amounts of money attached to it. I want to give recognition to Queensland. A year ago today Queensland was the lowest investor in disability support services per head of population of all the jurisdictions. On 12 December last year, an important announcement was made by the Treasurer and the Premier, Campbell Newman: Queensland committed to reaching the average spend around the nation. They should be commended for that. This was the largest increase in disability expenditure in Australia's history. They took the existing $979 million a year of special disability support services, plus the $200 million a year for associated services, and promised to boost it to $1.77 billion by 2018. It was a courageous step. It is nearly a 50 per cent increase in real terms. Not only that—often you see the trickery around numbers—but they committed to a 4.5 per cent annual increase, which covers both CPI and the significant population growth that we have in Queensland. So credit goes to Queensland, who have already established the Your Life Your Choice program under the Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, for having already begun this process of unfettering service provision and for giving those with disability more choice.
I also want to mention, in conclusion, the story of Louisa. Louisa has a daughter, Gaby, who is 16 years old. I would like people to contemplate the lifetime challenges around disability. They are not always issues with young children we might be seeing at special schools. There is that other significant transition wherein a 16- or 17-year-old leaves those services that are provided through public education and has to fend for themselves as an adult. Gaby has Asperger's disease, ADHD and behavioural issues. This makes her at times aggressive, and there are development delays and learning issues, which makes socialising really, really difficult. Gaby gets three hours of support a fortnight for her disability. In this country, we have nothing like the impressive schools of support that we see in places like North Carolina in the US. There is nothing like that in this country at this stage. Louisa's hope is that a new scheme could start to facilitate schools that provide intensive support for kids like Gaby. Her great fear is that she may not be able to continue caring for her daughter after she has turned 18. Will she be able to live in assisted housing? That is a massive concern for Louisa.
A lot of people blame people like Louisa. They say: 'You could have parented differently. You could have got more help earlier.' That leads, as she describes, to tremendous guilt, and it makes her at times feel both alone and incredibly abandoned.
My message to Kimberly, Louisa, Karen and Tina is: we in this place will do everything that we can to craft a better system. It is a very solemn pledge. It is one that has not yet been made after decades and decades of waiting. We are sorry that it has taken that long to come to this point. Many of us at a personal level in this place came with very different experiences of how the system works, but I am confident to say today that there is a determination, a will and a resolution here to do whatever we can to improve the system and to remove that invisible deprivation—to take away the feeling that you have of being trapped and isolated, to return families out there, wherever we can, to real and genuine economic and social participation, and to welcome you all back to the privileges that this nation offers able-bodied families.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (13:20): In speaking on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012, let me be clear: I support the mothers and fathers of children with a disability. I strongly believe that we should support independent and driven young persons with a disability to achieve all they wish to achieve. I stand with them because I have seen what they have to live through, day in, day out. I have seen what constitutes good practice and bad practice. I am in full support and accord with those who cannot access a system where they get best practice.
But I cannot simply support them and not ask on behalf of the coalition the critical questions of the NDIS. I, and everyone in the coalition, want to see the best possible version of the NDIS. However, the bill at hand and in discussion today will have served only five per cent of the estimated 411,000 people with disabilities after five years.
Is this good enough? The total allocation of moneys for the bill in its current form, as per the parliamentary statements, of $1 billion, represents only 39 per cent of what the Productivity Commission reported as being required. That requirement was to end the treatment of people with a disability as, to quote Minister Shorten, 'being second-class citizens.'
Is it the case then that 61 per cent of people deserve to be treated like second-class citizens? Is that good enough? More questions arise when one asks what are the plans beyond four years? When will the full rollout be achieved? This is typical of Labor policy and financial and economic management, as can be seen by the MRRT and carbon tax debacles. The members opposite cannot even count. Mathematics is not their friend. The coalition and I, on behalf of those impacted by this legislation, are calling on the government to put aside partisan politics and work together for the Australian people. It is not beyond us, as political parties or as a parliament, to demonstrate a bold unity and a brave originality.
To the members opposite, it is time to accept the constructive hand of opposition and put in place a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the establishment and implementation of the NDIS. There are simply too many questions being asked by too many to keep it to the same few of government. It is abundantly clear that people want cooperation, they want consultation and they want the best possible NDIS because they deserve it. People with a disability in this country deserve certainty and dignity. Agreeing to establish a joint standing committee is a dignified action that removes the NDIS from ambit partisan politics. It is not a Labor issue or the Liberal issue, a Labor belief or a Liberal belief, but an Australian belief. To be an Australian is to believe that no matter who you are or where you come from you are entitled to a fair go. Today, I fear the government will not heed the better angels of its nature and will not heed the helping hand of the coalition.
I fear for the funding of disability services. I fear the NDIS will not create a bigger pie but become an exercise in how that pie is cut and, worse, under this Labor government the pie has got smaller. These are the fears of the thousands in my electorate of Tangey impacted by this bill. I want to be able to look the critics of the NDIS in the eye and say that the gross price tag of $14 billion is being optimally allocated and is value for money. I want to be able to tell the apoplectic voters in Applecross that the sort of rorting that happened in New South Wales will not be a problem when we get to the issue of naming approved providers and the implementation of the scheme.
To the members opposite, will you help us do this? Money is important but not most important. There are ways to make money smart and ways to make money dumb. This government possesses a unique ability to make everything dumb. Smart money invested in the NDIS would give a better return and a way from suboptimal allocations, a way from back-ending towards front-loading. Invest more, earlier and at a younger age. This is where close cooperation with the states is vital. State governments know their state better than Canberra. Therefore, trying to paint a picture of non-cooperation between Liberal state governments of WA and Queensland is both wrong and destructive. There are further economic-centric arguments that focus on the implementation of the scheme, such as the case of the treatment plans written by the individuals themselves or their carers. Is it possible that there could be asymmetries of information operating on all sorts of level. For example, is it not necessarily the case that the individuals will use their allocation of funding optimally? Similarly, for the approved providers, does this set up a marketplace for government funded oligopolies in the provision of services? These fundamental questions, which are to be laid out in the legislative instrument, would benefit from scrutiny and oversight of the coalition's proposed joint committee on the NDIS.
Ultimately, all in this place want to see a new day for all peoples with a disability. When nearly one in 50 Australians live with a disability, the time to act is now. It is true that right across our respective electorates we need to get to where we see ability not disability. Every day those living with disabilities are serving and contributing towards the country. If they are willing to answer their country's call, then surely our country can he hear them out. While we in the coalition commend any and all action taken to move forward in the area of disability services, we note the track record of the current Gillard administration—blunder after blunder, blow-out after blow-out. That is why the coalition want to help guarantee, through the establishment of a joint committee, the best possible outcome for the largest number of people. I take heart in noting that the Labor administration, in outlining the operation of the NDIS, have opted for a model long advocated by the coalition. Empowering the individual through individual care plans and funding, a voucher system ensures the most efficient social and economic use of resources. It minimises value destruction and makes for good policy.
As with most Labor plans, however, there are often overlooked areas—sometimes purposely overlooked. And in politics, as in life, no man is an island. For example, those developing a disability after 65 will not be covered, and there are scare stories relating to those with low vision. Certainty is something that these people deserve. Let the broadsword of history fall against those of small-minded vision for those with physical or mental challenges and all those differently abled. No-one in this coalition will speak against the amount of money it will cost, for as Wilde said: 'A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.' Tony Abbott champions people with disability. The Pollie Pedal raised $540,000 in 2012 alone.
The challenge is real. The work must go on. We have to get this right. We have to get it right because, quite frankly, Labor have got so much wrong. They were wrong on the predictions of the revenues to be raised by the MRRT. They were wrong on Green Loans, pinks batts, solar schemes and school halls. They were wrong on the carbon tax. Were they wrong on Rudd?
I wish to thank all those in the disability sector in my electorate of Tangney in Western Australia who met with me, worked with me and inspired me. It must be noted that further expansion of the NDIS will be dependent on the Commonwealth negotiating and concluding further bilateral agreements with each and every jurisdiction. Having the coalition parties inside the tent would indubitably help the cause of getting agreement with the states.
The hyperactive nature of what is proposed in the bill causes me some discomfort. This stems from the one scheme providing advice, assistance and referrals, and also funding for individual treatment plans and block funding. The question is: where does the money come from and at whose expense? We have already seen defence spending cut. Today we are at a defence spend equal, in percentage of GDP terms, to that of 1938. We have seen commitments to reform education though the Gonski review of school funding, yet there is no commitment of funds until 2022; a decade will go by before an extra red cent goes in.
The undisputed big win in the bill is for the cause of personal liberty. No longer will the scarred hand of government bind the choice of a person with disability. Moving to self-directed personal plans of treatment is an immensely positive step. The bill talks about 'becoming a participant' and not just passively 'getting' but actively 'becoming'. In the final analysis, I am critical not because I disagree with NDIS but because I support it. I support the end of discrimination against our fellow Australians. I support knowing the price but also the value. Freedom is the birthright of the weak as it is of the strong. This bill is about hope. I certainly hope it delivers.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:32): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012. As we know, the concept of the NDIS was something that came out of the 2020 forum that took place in 2008. It is a concept that acknowledges how different the services and the support for people with disabilities are across this country. There are differences between states and differences based upon the manner in which the disability occurred—through accident or birth. It is clear that there are massive differences across the country. It is also very difficult in certain places to access support.
The NDIS is a scheme designed in a bipartisan manner. In 2010, there was a disability forum within the electorate of Cowan as part of the election campaign. I was there; my opponent at the time was represented by a senator, but I was there. I was very clear about our support for the NDIS because what needs to be done is clear. I find it amazing, though, that this is one of those policy areas in which most in the government have attempted to paint the questions and concerns that we have raised in our desire to make this scheme work and be viable as opposition to it. When I look back through some of the blogs at the things that have been said over time, the government created the false impression—an impression that has hopefully been resolved—for people in this country that the opposition are against the NDIS. Obviously, nothing could be less true than that. When we see the efforts that the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has made with things like Pollie Pedal, it is very clear that we are completely onside.
I am like many in this place, in that I am fortunate that my two daughters, aged 14 and 10, have developed without any disabilities. They are doing well at school. As with a lot of the issues that people bring to us, I see this with detachment—from a distance, really. What I hear in this place does not affect me. But when people come to your office and describe the lifestyle that a disability within the family brings with it, and the impact of that, you cannot help but be moved. The difficulties of trying to earn a living, trying to exist, trying to take care of other children in the family or adult children impact deeply upon people's lives.
Even though many of us here may not have felt the direct impact that a disability brings, when you hear the stories you know that something needs to be done. Whilst a lot of the disabilities we are aware of are often birth related, we must also remember that a stroke, for example, could completely debilitate someone. Through doorknocking over the last couple of weeks in my electorate of Cowan I have met two people that have had strokes. There are also car accidents and other incidents that could happen. We and our families are all potentially exposed to incurring a disability. The NDIS is something which we must deliver. We must do it because it is something that affects, or could potentially affect, everybody in this country. We all have a reason to back this initiative.
The trouble is that expectations have been built up. People are talking about full delivery of the NDIS. In some of the rhetoric that I have heard, it is delivered already. But the reality is that people in my electorate are not going to be part of this for some years to come. I know that the trials need to take place and that the trial sites have been selected. There is a lot of money required for this. Given the situation in the budget, the coalition are quite concerned about the ability of the government to put the money aside to deliver the NDIS. Having built expectations substantially, having talked about the delivery of the NDIS, ultimately it needs to be paid for. Taxpayers will need to pay for it, or money will need to come out of existing revenue—which, again, is taxpayer funded. Of course there needs to be value for money and it needs to be efficient. In the years since the disability support pension was first created, there has been a massive take-up of that pension. The Hon. Leader of the Nationals made the point very clear in his earlier remarks that, when a system, a process or this sort of support is available, it needs to be clearly defined so as to make sure that the value for money is there and that the people who really need it get it.
As I said, it is going to be very expensive. Given the inability of the government to manage things like the mining tax—the lack of revenue that has come out of their plans for the mining tax, not the lack of expenditure linked to the mining tax—there are challenges that they face and that the next government of Australia will also have to face. The Productivity Commission said that it will cost $3.9 billion a year to run an NDIS, and we expect that it is going to quite a bit more than that. The big challenge is to try and find the money and then to make sure that it is properly spent—that it actually impacts correctly, beneficially, on as many people out there as possible. As we know, there are some 400,000 Australians who have some form of profound disability. It is important that the money is generated and then properly spent.
At the moment there is a lot of need out there. Across this country, there are a lot of people who claim to be victims. There are a lot of people who say that their circumstances are beyond their control. But, if we are talking specifically about the National Disability Insurance Scheme and about the 400,000 people with profound disability, it is they who are exactly, absolutely, the victims of the circumstances that beset them, and these are the people who need to get access to the support that the NDIS will provide.
We all have had people meet us in our offices, in shopping centres and through knocking on front doors who have talked to us about their circumstances. Back in 2011, I met Anne and Mitchell Wood, from the electorate of Cowan, and Anne spoke to me about her son, Mitchell. He has a major intellectual disability and for years he had remained undiagnosed. It is a difficult life for Anne in looking after Mitchell, providing for him and making sure that the day programs, respite and support that she requires to get him through his day—and to have a life herself—are provided. It is very difficult for her. Anne and Mitchell Wood's story is an example of real people out there in the streets of our country who are in need of support. Provided we can find the money and be able to sustain the NDIS as an efficient and effective program for people, then we will proceed with it.
Recently I was at the Gladys Newton School graduation, which is a school for disabled young people within the electorate of Stirling, which is Michael Keenan's electorate. At that graduation ceremony I spoke with a 72-year-old lady called Trish. She told me about her daughter and her disabled granddaughter, Britney, who was one of the graduates that day. This 72-year-old lady told me that she was the second carer for Britney, who is almost my height and is about a foot and a half taller than her grandmother—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Volunteering: Senior Australians
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (13:45): In the recent disasters of flood and fire, the courageous efforts of volunteers have been seen and recognised alongside those of the emergency services. But one group of senior Australians has also lent an unheralded hand. They are the members of the Campervan & Motorhome Club of Australia, travelling seniors, often given the tag of 'grey nomad'. Many of them have for a number of years worked as volunteers with BlazeAid and given generously of their time and effort. Travelling as they do in self-contained vehicles with their own water, power, and greywater and blackwater storage, it means that these volunteers do not need to be housed by relief organisations or locals, who are already struggling. Their efforts have gone largely unnoticed, except by farmers whose fences are being repaired or those who are being aided in their flood or fire clean-up. Ken Kipping, national consumer representative of the Campervan & Motorhome Club of Australia, has brought these volunteers to my attention and it affords us all the opportunity to acknowledge the assistance given by these senior Australians to other Australians in times of need.
Fowler Electorate: Australia Day
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (13:46): Nothing better symbolises the spirit of Australia Day than the laughter and good cheer of the community coming together to celebrate their national pride. For a long time Australia has had a good reputation of welcoming immigrants and refugees from all quarters of the globe. A clear indication of this is seen in my electorate of Fowler, where more than 60 per cent of people were born overseas and have a first language other than English.
With pride, Australians from this multicultural community came together in great numbers on 26 January to rejoice and celebrate over a barbecue, which is after all the most traditional way of celebrating this most significant day. The barbecue was held at Freedom Plaza in Cabramatta. It was a great success, attracting more than 300 people from the local community. Apart from celebrating, the barbecue also importantly raised $6,000 for the Liverpool Hospital and the Westmead Millennium Institute for Medical Research.
I would like to thank Jenny Tew, President of the Cabramatta Lions Club; Adrian Wong, the Secretary of Cabramatta Lions Club' and the many volunteers from Cabramatta and Canley Vale Leo clubs who turned up to help on that day. Importantly, the Mayor of Fairfield, Councillor Frank Carbone, also lent his great support. Thanks to their tremendous efforts and valuable contributions, they have made and continue to make a very colourful, diverse and vibrant community, something that we are truly very proud of. Their contributions to our community at large have been most impressive. (Time expired)
Dawson Electorate: Mining
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:48): Tomorrow is the final day for submissions to be made to the Public environment report on the proposed dredging at the Abbot Point coal terminal just north of Bowen and the expansion that is proposed there. I want it on record that I strongly support the Abbot Point expansion, but I believe it needs to be done without dumping dredged material at sea. Despite assurances from North Queensland Bulk Ports that all precautionary measures that can be taken will be taken, I still have major concerns that there is going to be or could be a negative impact on the environment and also on the fishing industry, recreational fishing and even tourism through the dumping of dredged material at sea.
North Queensland Bulk Ports plans to dump dredged material near Holbourne Island, which is also adjacent to the RAAF PBY-5 Catalina A24-24 crash site, now an important dive site and certainly a tourism drawcard. I will be engaging with the community. There is strong community sentiment against this throughout Bowen. I will be not only writing to the minister but also putting in a submission today to that effect to North Queensland Bulk Ports.
I call on the environment minister, who will have the ultimate approval on this, to do the right thing by the environment, the fishing industry, the tourism industry and the Bowen community. Let the project go ahead but not with the dumping of dredged material at sea.
Saville, Mr Glen
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:49): On 31 January this year the people of the Illawarra saw the end of the career of Wollongong Hawks' greatest ever basketball player, Glen Saville, who was sadly forced to retire before the end of the season due to a debilitating knee injury. 'Sav', as he is known, holds just about every Hawks' record after a staggering 18 seasons with the club, including the team's first NBL championship in 2001, when he was the co-captain. This includes all-time leader in points scored, games played, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. Sav also has had more career rebounds than any other active player. He currently sits ninth on the all-time list.
It is fitting to be standing in parliament today reflecting on the career of Glen Saville, as it started right here in Canberra at the Australian Institute of Sport in the early nineties. As a young kid on a scholarship Sav rose through the ranks at a phenomenal rate to represent Australia at the Junior World Championships in 1995, when he was just 19 years of age. Fast forward to 2004 and he was playing for the Boomers at the Athens Olympics and was selected again in 2008 to represent Australia in Beijing—not bad for a young bloke who will go down as one of the league’s best defenders and one of the most respected players to ever put on an NBL jersey.
While it is sad to know that Sav has played his last game, thousands of local supporters will get the chance to send the big guy off in great style next month at the Hawks' final game of the season. I am hoping to get along to the game and help celebrate with thousands of other people from the Illawarra.
Australian Natural Disasters
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:51): I rise to express my condolences on behalf of the people of Gippsland to the family and friends of the two firefighters who passed away yesterday in the Harrietville fire. The tragic death of 19-year-old Katie Peters from Tallandoon and a second firefighter, whose name has not been released at this stage, is a stark reminder to all of us about the dangers faced by our firefighters. It comes after the death earlier this year of a firefighter from my electorate, a man by the name of Peter Cramer, a popular firefighter who was working in Tasmania during the severe outbreaks which affected that state in January.
It is a horrible reminder of the threats posed to our professional and volunteer firefighters. These two individuals, we understand, were killed when a tree fell on their vehicle. They do a dangerous job and they do it with great courage, with determination, with passion and with care for our community. All three of those firefighters will be sadly missed and they will be fondly remembered by their family members, their friends and their colleagues.
I would like to quote the Australian Workers Union Victorian secretary, Cesar Melhem, who said today:
The DSE firefighters are the SAS of our firefighters. They work in the most horrific conditions imaginable away from the big centres, out in the bush, with very little recognition of their heroic contribution to the state. They have died heroes, which will be no small comfort to those that grieve them.
I think all members of the House will join with me in expressing our condolences to the families and friends of the firefighters who have passed away. To those who are facing battles again this weekend throughout Australia, we wish you safety in the work you do on behalf of our community.
St Giles Society
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:52): I rise today to put on record my thanks to the St Giles Society in Launceston. St Giles has allied health campuses in Hobart and Launceston, adult group homes in the north, south and north west, and in-home respite, as well as being a provider of multiple services for adults and children with disabilities. They recently celebrated their 75th year of service to the Tasmanian community. More than 200 people from around Tasmania and interstate gathered at St Giles's Amy Road, Newstead centre on Friday, February 8 to enjoy the 75th anniversary reunion. I am told that the reunion was a huge success, bringing together some people who had not seen each other since their school days and home days at St Giles in the sixties, seventies and eighties.
Wherever there is a need within the disability community, St Giles is there. It applies the ethos of 'whatever it takes' to make a positive difference. St Giles was founded by the community for the community, and this underpins everything they do. I thank the St Giles staff and volunteers for the work they do. I am a proud advocate of St Giles. I was most pleased that the federal government provided them with $6.8 million last year to continue the great work they do for our community.
Queensland Floods
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:54): Last weekend I toured the West Bundaberg-Wallaville area with Councillor Wayne Honor and spoke to many flood victims. Many of these people were still in a state of shock, thankful to be alive, unsure and concerned about how to refinance their homes and properties, and asking themselves whether they should relocate and start again, what their future is and what part of their assets are covered by insurance. People are asking themselves about the wisdom of rebuilding on the existing site with the threat hanging over their heads of a similar disaster occurring in the future. This is a very valid point. I believe there is a growing consensus that all levels of government should look very closely into the relocation of affected people to higher ground. At the very least, there needs to be a greater focus on flood mitigation strategies, as no government or insurance company can continue to finance the cost of rebuilding time and time again.
Organ Donation
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:55): Today I urge all Canberrans to show their support for organ and tissue donation and to discuss their wishes on organ donation by joining thousands of others in the Gift of Life Donation Life Walk around Lake Burley Griffin at 7 am on Wednesday, 27 February. The walk is part of Donate Life Week, which runs from 24 February to 3 March. Last year more Australians than ever before received a life-saving transplant. Figures released by the government and the Australia and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry show a five per cent increase in donors in 2012, which resulted in a four per cent increase in transplant recipients. Each donor can save many lives. The Gift of Life president, David O'Leary, said about this increase:
The overall national outcome represents steady progress over the past year, resulting in a significant increase in organ donation and transplantation since the Australian Government's reform program began a few years ago.
One of the biggest obstacles to increasing organ donations is family consent, which is always sought. I urge and encourage everyone to discuss their wishes with their families and friends and sign on to the Australian Organ Donor Register. The evidence shows that in the majority of cases where families know their loved one's wishes to become a donor they provide their consent. If people want to register for the walk they can register their details at www.giftoflife.asn.au.
Defence: Road Works
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:57): Last night during estimates, officials from the Department of Defence confirmed that this government is walking away from its commitment to the construction of the Samford Road entrance to the Enogerra Barracks, at the edge of my electorate. This means that the state government upgrade to Samford Road and Wardell Street will have to proceed without any works occurring on a new entrance to the base. In recent years the size of the base has expanded greatly due to new projects, and the impact of increased traffic on local roads is significant. It is absolutely imperative that the federal government recommit to the new entrance to help alleviate the impact on local residents of traffic going to and from the base.
What is even more puzzling is that, after 2½ years of negotiation with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, they waited until the state government was ready to commence construction on the upgrades to Samford Road and Wardell Street before deciding on 're-assessing the benefits of providing a new entrance'. I call on the government to immediately cease the delay, cease the uncertainty, get on with the job and recommit to the new entrance on Samford Road.
Australian Baseball League
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:58): On Saturday night the Canberra Cavalry blasted Perth Heat out of the park to win the title of Australian Baseball League champions. Baseball may be a game that is played on the south side, but it is a game close to my heart. As somebody who enjoys numbers and sport and also the enthusiasm with which the sport is played, it is great to see a Canberra team coming out on top. In particular, I pay tribute to Canberra's first baseman, Aaron Sloan, who was named MVP of the season, hitting .625 and scoring three runs on the weekend. Canberra Cavalry are building a local fan base. They are a team of which I am proud in a city where sport is played as well as anywhere in Australia. In fact, I would put my electorate of Fraser up against the sporting prowess of any other electorate in this place. We are assisted slightly by the fact that we have the Australian Institute of Sport; nonetheless, we have great teams like the Brumbies and the Raiders and now the Canberra Cavalry showing the way and showing that Canberra is not just the political capital, the bush capital, but also the sporting capital of Australia.
Government Spending
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (13:59): In 2007 the Labor Party came to government and they were bequeathed a golden legacy of not one dollar of government debt after John Howard and Peter Costello created more than two million new jobs, with a more than 20 per cent increase in real wages, paid back $96 billion of debt and left $70 billion in the bank—
The SPEAKER (14:01): Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): I inform the House that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and Minister for Industry and Innovation will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Attorney-General will answer questions in relation to climate change and energy efficiency. The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, and Minister for Small Business will answer questions in relation to industry and innovation.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Minerals Resource Rent Tax
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her statement one day after she personally renegotiated a heads of agreement with the big three miners, and I quote:
… I've obviously stamped my authority on these negotiations …
Given that the tax has collected just 10 per cent of the revenue forecast, is the Prime Minister still satisfied with the outcome she negotiated?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): I refer to my answers earlier this week on this question. I do believe that Australians are entitled to a share of the mineral wealth within their grounds. I do believe that businesses, at the peak of the profitability cycle, should pay a tax: the minerals resource rent tax. I worked hard with Australia's biggest miners to make sure that we had an agreement and got this done. It is, unashamedly, a profits based tax. We have seen volatility in commodity prices, we have seen a strong Australian dollar, and that has had implications for revenues. But, as the Treasurer has said to this House repeatedly across this week, when you design an arrangement like the minerals resource rent tax you are designing a revenue stream that matters to the nation not just now but into the future. It will matter to the nation's children and grandchildren.
I have to say that I am a little bit surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would today, of all days, decide to ask a question on tax, because the Leader of the Opposition has been out doing media interviews today, and it is no surprise that they have retired him from breakfast television because he just cannot hold up under questioning. The Leader of the Opposition has said today that the right amount of company tax is the current rate. What that means is one of three things: he has walked away from his paid parental scheme—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked whether she was satisfied with the outcome she negotiated on the mining tax. She is not even attempting to answer that part of the question. She is just ranting against the Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: Up until that point, the member for Sturt's point of order was valid. I was actually going to call the Prime Minister back to the question. But the continual abuse of points of order is wearing thin. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: My point to the parliament is this: we are very happy to debate, in this parliament and beyond, economic matters and taxation matters based on the facts and based on a real understanding of the future. What is apparent from the Leader of the Opposition's media interviews today is that he cannot hold up in a discussion on tax policy, not even his own, for five minutes. He does not even know his own tax policy. He has made a major gaffe today. He needs to be explaining to the Australian people how, if the current amount of company tax is right, is he going to fund his paid parental leave scheme? Has he cancelled his paid parental leave scheme? Or is he out looking for another $2.7 billion worth of cuts?
Workplace Relations
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the government helping to ensure Australian workplaces can meet the needs of modern families?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I know his part of Melbourne well and I know that his part of Melbourne is full of families who do face the pressures of juggling modern life. They are families where dad works, where overwhelmingly mum works too, where they are putting together a combination of jobs—a full-time job, a part-time job, two full-time jobs—in order to help families make ends meet. That does put real pressure on. What modern families need are modern workplaces which help them balance work and family life.
We understand that we do not live in a world of 'nine to five' work, with a parent at home. That means that the pressure can be there, when you have to care for the kids, when you have to make arrangements for ageing parents and their care, and when you are coming back to work after having had a child. That is why across this week we have announced a new series of policies to help families with these modern pressures. We have specifically said that we will extend the National Employment Standards—part of the system we put into place to get rid of the hated Work Choices—to provide the right to request flexible work arrangements for more workers, for carers, for mature-age workers, for workers with school-age children and those experiencing or caring for those undergoing domestic violence or recovering from it.
We will also make it clear to employers and employees how to reasonably deal with these requests. We are making it easier for mums who are returning to work, having had a child, to request part-time work arrangements so that they do not have to choose between work and family and so that it can be easier to balance, putting the two together. We are better protecting mums-to-be by ensuring that they can get transferred to a safe job, whether or not they have been with their employer for a year. We are also boosting protections for workers against having their rosters and hours of work unexpectedly changed. People obviously organise their lives—their child care, their pick-up of the kids from school, the help that they provide aged parents—around their roster and all of these arrangements can be disrupted by an unexpected change.
And we are addressing the modern challenge of workplace bullying. Too many young people in particular have lived with this burden of bullying, not knowing who to go to. We will make sure that the industrial umpire is there to help them.
During the week to come we will be outlining our plan for Australian jobs, but we will always ensure that workplaces have fair and decent working conditions, and we have added to that fairness and that decency this week.
Taxation
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:07): My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer of his statement that the government 'will never increase the rate or broaden the base of the GST or remove tax-free superannuation payments for the over-60s'. I also remind him of his statement last year that 'we have ruled death duties out'. Why did the Treasurer claim this morning, when asked about increases to income taxes, that he never rules anything in or out, when this is simply untrue?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:08): I am delighted to receive a question on tax from the shadow Treasurer, absolutely delighted, because like everyone on this side of the House I am proud of our record when it comes, in particular, to personal income tax—$47 billion worth of income tax cuts. Of course, the measure that I am most proud of and that is most important, particularly in terms of fairness to the low-paid workers, is the tripling of the tax-free threshold. Workers do not pay a dollar of tax until they earn $18,200. So a combination of those measures means that someone who was on $50,000 is paying $2,000 less in tax each and every year. I think that is a pretty good record.
What we understand is that it is very important for working families to get a fair go in the tax system. The only one advocating an increase in tax in this House is in fact the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is going to increase the corporate rate of tax to fund his PPL scheme for millionaires. He is on the record saying that, yet he denied that this morning. But, even worse than that, those opposite have said very, very clearly that they intend to abolish the tripling of the tax-free threshold. What that means is a tax hike for over six million Australians.
Mr Hockey: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. He was asked a question about his own words and his hypocrisy in that regard, and he is talking about us.
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The question went to taxation. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: I do thank him for his assistance, because what he is really pointing to is that those opposite do have a plan: to smash hardworking Australian families by abolishing the tripling of the tax-free threshold. On top of that, they have their Coles and Woolies tax—the one denied by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. The fact is that they have a $70 billion crater in their budget bottom line, and a consequence of that is a set of policies to smash hardworking Australians.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:10): Madam Speaker, I ask the Treasurer a supplementary question: will he rule out increasing income taxes in this year's budget—yes or no?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:11): As I said before, the only party advocating an increase in income tax in this House is those opposite. We will not be increasing personal income taxes. What we will be doing is continuing to reform the system so people on low incomes get a fair go.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:11): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from India. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. They changed their schedule so that they could come and see question time, so I want to say thank you to our visitors from India.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Taxation
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): Madam Speaker, I ask a further supplementary question to the Treasurer. Given that the Treasurer also ruled out a carbon tax before the last election, how can anyone take this latest reassurance seriously?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:12): I certainly do welcome that supplementary. There are two proposals to increase taxation in this parliament, and both of them come from that side of the House: the Leader of the Opposition's proposal to increase company tax on the largest, and medium sized, Australian companies and, in addition to that, to give a tax increase of up to $600 or $500 for people who are on the lowest incomes in our community. We know what the priorities are here. We stand for low-income earners. Those opposite go down on bended knee to the mining billionaires.
Economy
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on recent developments in the global economy? How do these highlight the need for reforms to strengthen Australia's economy for the future and why is it important that these economic reforms are implemented in a detailed, properly costed way?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:13): I thank the member for her question, because this afternoon I am flying off to Moscow for the G20 finance ministers meeting.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SWAN: It is very important. I know those opposite are not interested in the facts of the national economy or the global economy. But, most importantly it is an opportunity to take the temperature of the global economy and to sit around the table with the finance ministers from the 20 countries who make up the G20. What is important about that is that, when you sit there and look at all of the developed economies, you see there is one thing very different about the other developed economies around the table: every single one of them went into recession during the global financial crisis. This reminds us of how well Australia did and is continuing to do, given the consequences of the global financial crisis.
What it really points to is the fact that this government got the big economic calls right every step of the way when there were challenges in the global economy. A consequence of that is the creation of something like 850,000 jobs. Of course, if those opposite had had their way, we know what would have happened: Australia would have gone into recession and hundreds of thousands of people would have lost their jobs. We on this side of the House put jobs and growth first, unlike those opposite. We understand that to get jobs and growth you have to put in place some of the most significant economic reforms which will generate prosperity into the future, and carbon pricing is one such reform.
But of course to get in place those reforms you have to do it in a methodical and responsible way. That is what you need to do when you are putting in place big reforms.
We have seen another leak from those opposite over the past 24 hours. There have been so many leaks now there is a very big hole in their policy dike, I can tell you. What we have seen is a proposal, a $30 billion proposal, to float large plastic water bags up the Queensland coast! That is simply bizarre. It is like something out of a Woody Allen movie. The facts are: $30 billion, in terms of dams and floating water up the coast; a $70 billion crater in their budget bottom line—no wonder the shadow Treasurer over there is using every excuse under the sun to avoid putting his policies out there for scrutiny, because what this demonstrates, yet again, is the size of the hole in their budget bottom line, and the fact that the price will be paid by working Australians, to fill that hole, because we know what they are going to do. They are going to abolish the schoolkids bonus—gone; abolish the contribution to the superannuation savings of the lowest income workers in Australia—gone; abolish pension increases—gone; abolish the instant asset write-off—gone. This means damage to working Australians and small business. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Individuals are denying the Leader of the Nationals the call.
Superannuation
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer her to the Treasurer's statement that certainty is paramount when it comes to the retirement income system. We want people to have confidence that they can save in the way in which they have in the past. To end the uncertainty surrounding superannuation, will the Prime Minister join the coalition and rule out changes to the tax treatment of Australia's 500,000 self-managed superannuation funds?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:17): Let me say to the Leader of the National Party: I most certainly will not join with the coalition in attacking the superannuation benefits of low-income Australians. I will not join with the Leader of the Opposition in attacking 2.1 million working women. I will not join with the Leader of the Opposition in attacking more than three million low-income Australians and attacking their retirement savings. We will not do that. And I will not join with the Leader of the Opposition in attacking superannuation for working Australians and preventing contributions from rising from nine to 12 per cent. I want to see working Australians able to retire with a decent retirement income, and I will not join with the Leader of the Opposition in—
Mr Truss: What about self-managed funds? Tell us about self-managed super funds.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: Well, I think people are entitled to the contrast. So on this side: super, from nine to 12. On this side: care and concern for low-income Australians. On this side: a plan to support low-income working women, not hit them with a cut.
Mr Pyne: Speaker, on a point of order: with great respect, how can the Prime Minister be accusing the opposition of hurting low-income superannuation when it was this government that reduced the low-income co-contribution—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat—
Mr Pyne: from $1,500 to $500?
The SPEAKER: and he is warned! If you wish to take a point of order on relevance that is one thing, but being at the dispatch box for points of order is not an opportunity to enter into debate.
Ms GILLARD: I was asked about stability and certainty in superannuation and I am addressing that question. I can very clearly say to working Australians: under this government they will see their superannuation contributions rise from nine to 12 per cent. I can say to low-income working Australians, disproportionately women, that under this government they will see benefits that assist them with their superannuation. Yes, there are attacks on certainty and stability for those Australians in the superannuation system, and they come from the Leader of the Opposition's plans to attack the superannuation of working people. Why? Because he has always thought superannuation was a con—his words, not mine.
Mr Ciobo: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to clarify whether it was appropriate for the Leader of the House to interfere with parliamentary attendants undertaking their activities and presenting gifts to the member for Griffith.
The SPEAKER: The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat.
Infrastructure
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (14:20): My question is addressed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Given the success of my lobbying, and that of others, resulting in the upgrade of the Bruce Highway to six lanes from Brisbane to Caboolture, and in view of the commendable investment by the government to further improvements north of Fisher, including the Cooroy-Curra section, which will save lives, when can the Sunshine Coast expect the Bruce Highway from Caboolture to the Sunshine Coast to be upgraded to six lanes, removing appalling congestion and providing road access to and from Brisbane of a similar type to that between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and Ipswich? (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:20): I thank the member for Fisher for his question. I can get some questions from those opposite, just not from the shadow minister. Indeed, we have significantly increased funding for the Bruce Highway: some $3.3 billion in funding for the Bruce Highway. This compares with $1.3 billion over 12 long years from those opposite—investing more than twice as much in half the time. Our record is: we are currently putting some 3,500 people to work rebuilding more than 90 kilometres of the highway right now, and during the break I opened section B of the Cooroy to Curra upgrade—promised, funded, constructed and opened under this government. I also announced joint funding with the Queensland government of $790 million for the section A upgrade. These are the sections of the highway that are in the electorate of the member for Wide Bay, the shadow minister. He was the minister for transport who described this section as the worst section of road in Australia but could not deliver a cent in spite of the fact that he was the local member and the minister; he could not even turn up to the road opening, so embarrassed was he.
And just today I have announced funding in the electorate of the member for Fisher of $80.7 million for a new interchange at Roys Road and Bells Creek Road near Beerwah, with work to start in the middle of this year. Ten people have lost their lives on this two-kilometre stretch of the Bruce Highway since 2002—I have had representations from the member for Fisher, as well as other community members, about this—and this is why it is important for this funding to proceed.
What I can guarantee also is the work we are doing further north of the member's electorate, on the Bruce Highway from Cabbage Tree Creek to Carmen Road. What I can guarantee is that we will have real projects with real funding and real time frames. And there is some support from those opposite. Indeed, the member for Herbert had this to say:
I'll give Labor a pat on the back and say they have spent more in their four or five years on the Bruce Highway than we did before.
That is what they say in their electorates, because they know that it is the case. They are embarrassed by the performance of the member for Wide Bay, that is why there has been no opportunity to ask a question on infrastructure since 2010 given by the Leader of the National Party.
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (14:23): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. While I thank the minister for the welcome news contained in his answer, given the fact that the population of the Sunshine Coast will double over the next 15 years or so, will the government look, as soon as possible, at fully upgrading the Bruce Highway to six lanes from Caboolture to the Sunshine Coast?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:24): We certainly have, on top of today's announcement, allocated additional funding for the section of the highway that the member refers to. We are also in discussions with the Queensland government about nation building 2, the next part of the program, which begins in 2014-15. We are absolutely committed to upgrades on the Bruce Highway, which is why we have, as I said, invested more than twice as much in half the time than our predecessors. And in identifying the areas that are most dangerous, I am aware that a number of those are in the area referred to by the member because of the population growth that has occurred.
Indeed, the Cooroy to Curra section, which construction will begin on later this year, is a section in which about one in five of the vehicles that use that particular stretch of highway are heavy vehicles. That makes it particularly dangerous, and it makes it particularly appropriate that you have a divided carriageway. I look forward to the discussions with the Queensland government about the priorities for the Bruce Highway, but this government will maintain our commitment to upgrading the Bruce as part of our upgrading of our nation's roadworks. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Ms BURKE (Chisholm—Speaker) (14:25): I inform the House that we have in present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation of parliamentarians and civil leaders from Afghanistan. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to the delegation a warm welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit to the parliament today.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Water
Mr LYONS (Bass) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to improving Australia's water security? How have dams factored into the government's approach, and what kinds of issues need to be taken into account in the building, funding and approval of dams?
Mr McCormack: This will be good!
The SPEAKER: The member for Riverina will also show his ability to abide by the standing orders.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (14:26): I want to thank both the member for Bass and the member for Riverina for their comments on that question. It is no surprise at the question coming from the member for Bass, because he is aware of the whole midlands project that we have done through Tasmania: the building of the Milford Dam, the building of the Headquarters Road Dam, establishing a new irrigation area through there—just as the member for New England would be aware of the work we have done in augmenting the Chaffey Dam. Where you have the correct location and where you have the right proposal, there are occasions where the footprint of dams can be increased, done in a way that works and done in a way that is environmentally responsible.
When I read Simon Benson's article today, I saw something that was not economically, environmentally or in any way responsible, but I will congratulate whoever wrote this document for breathtaking logic. What they have proposed in that document, and what government policy absolutely rejects, is that you can use your dams in this magical way so that they will provide against drought, provide against flood and provide renewable energy. If you are managing a dam to avoid drought, your dam has to be constantly full; if you are managing a dam to avoid flood, you need to keep your dam empty; and if you are managing your dam to be able to provide hydroelectricity, you need to keep the dam flowing. Only the opposition could come up with a dam policy where they have dams that will be always full, always empty and always flowing! But that is what they have decided to release.
Let us not forget what happened the last time there were major dam proposals in Australia. When the Traveston Dam was proposed, who was it who was there, in this parliament, and on the site, campaigning against the building of the Traveston Dam? It just may well have been the Leader of the National Party, there, in the front line, saying all the reasons why it was so bad to build a new dam. I thought, well, maybe there has been an occasion where the opposition have had a rethink and they want to ditch their old view on this and move forward. I had a look at whether they have been out there in social media arguing in favour of the policy today.
The opposition leader has not touched it. The shadow minister for the environment did something about Gotye last night; he has not gone near the policy today. But the member for Paterson did decide to comment on the policy today. His tweet was to tell us that under no circumstances will there be a Tillegra Dam. The one thing they are willing to back is the old-style opposition to dams, which they have always followed. They have a policy that they have now put out and that they want to run a million miles away from, because they know when you promise everything to everyone in every contradictory fashion, it is a policy that cannot work.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (14:29): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. In the minister's answer, he talked about some of the problems that can arise if dam policies are not implemented responsibly. Can the minister also outline the impacts this approach would have on consumers?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (14:29): I thank the member for the supplementary question. I wish the member for Riverina had chimed in again but he has gone quiet now.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Do not encourage him to break the standing orders.
Mr BURKE: The impact on how the opposition plan to pay for this is extraordinary, because they have decided to come up with this incredibly clever idea—that must have sounded really smart around the table—that industry will come in and it will be private investment that will pay. That way they do not need to put down the dollars to fund it. Often roads are done in this way. But when roads are done in this way, what does the private investor get back at the end? It is called a toll. That is how the return ends up being paid.
How do you pay the toll on private investment on a dam? It gets paid in one very simple way. What they have decided to launch in their policy is something that will be paid for every time someone receives a water bill. What they have decided in their policy is that if it is an agricultural area it will be the irrigators who pay for it every time they get their bill. So what we now have is that people will know exactly how they pay for the dams policy for the 100 different dam proposals. Let's not forget that in the whole of Australia we have only got about 500 large dams. If you add 100 to that, people will sure know it is being done; they will know it every time they buy fresh fruit, every time they see the outcome of the increased prices for the farmers and for domestic supply, and they will know every time they get their water bill exactly where the policy lands. (Time expired)
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: If the member for Dickson is going to chime in, he could at least get his timing right.
Mining Tax
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer of his statement on 20 November 2011:
The simple fact is . . . the vast majority of the tax will be paid by three companies, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.
Given reports that these three big miners have accumulated at least $1.7 billion in mining tax credits, does he stand by that statement?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:32): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for that question. It is not unusual that there are deductions provided for in a tax such as this. It is the case that there is a starting base allowance. It is a deduction which recognises past investment.
If I am hearing her right, what she is saying is that there should not be a starting base for the MRRT. I think that would come as a very rude shock to industry right across the country, because it would be a deeply irresponsible policy position to hold. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has now referred to numbers that she says have been put in by some of the large mining companies. It may come as news to her, but these numbers were actually published last August by the companies themselves. Somehow, this is news today.
The fact is, because of confidentiality provisions of the act, I am not privy to which particular companies are paying the MRRT. But I have made it very clear, as has the Assistant Treasurer, that we do need to see greater transparency in our corporate tax system and in particular when it comes to the MRRT. The government will do everything we possibly can to ensure there is maximum transparency. But for her to try to say that on the basis of six months she can draw a conclusion about the impact of the starting base vis-a-vis the impact of the dollar, vis-a-vis the impact of commodity prices, is simply stupid.
Asian Century
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:33): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. Will the minister advise the House of the importance of developing the right policies to enable Australia to take full advantage of the Asian century? What other approaches are there and what would be their impact?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (14:34): I thank my friend the member for Moreton not only for the question but for his interest in the development and implementation of a complex sophisticated document, the white paper on Australia in the Asian Century, that sets out 25 pathways and objectives, and policies to achieve those objectives.
Developing responsible, well-considered policy is vitally important, and the Australian people expect it. I am asked about alternative approaches and there are, of course, alternative approaches. There was an alternative approach last week. We heard from the coalition that they want to move the people north. This week they want to move the water south. I guess that people will pass the water, the water will be coming down, the people will be going up and confusion will reign supreme.
In the last week we have heard stories of water, dams, ships, canals and leaks. Certainly that policy unit is leaking. It is a pipeline of leaks to the media as they test their wacky propositions. We heard from the minister for water just now about the confusion of water heights: whether they should be high, whether they should be low or whether they should be moving.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the old standing orders—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: when an answer only had to be relevant, that sort of carry-on was acceptable. Since the concept of directly relevant was introduced, it is no longer valid. He is out of order and he should be sat down.
The SPEAKER: The minister has the call and should avoid debate in his answer.
Dr EMERSON: Speaker, I was asked about alternative approaches to the responsible approach that this government is implementing. As the water minister just indicated, there is confusion about the height of dams.
Mr Simpkins: Just pour another $100 million in.
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan has been advised every day this week.
Dr EMERSON: The dam heights, according to the coalition, should be high, they should be low and they should be moving. It is a case no doubt of damned if you do, dammed if you do not. The big question here—and it is a question of the shadow finance minister—is: where will the money come from? The distressing news is that the Leader of the Opposition has appointed none other than Senator Barnaby Joyce to arrange the financing. This is the guy he dumped as the shadow finance minister because Senator Barnaby Joyce kept getting mixed up between his millions, trillions and gazillions. And now he is back designing the superannuation arrangements, raiding superannuation funds and instructing people who manage the superannuation of the working men and women of Australia to invest in uneconomic projects.
The people of Australia who invest their superannuation funds deserve and expect a decent return. They do not get that, of course; the Leader of the Opposition—himself described by the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, as economically illiterate—has now got Senator Joyce, who is also economically illiterate. This team is economically illiterate in seven languages, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I am seeking quiet. The Manager of Opposition Business is not helping that. Does he want the call or not? The Manager of Opposition Business now has the call.
Employment
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:38): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement that the job creation record of this government is unequalled anywhere in the world. Is the Treasurer aware that without the advantage of a mining boom and the 150-year record high terms of trade, Germany has added over 2 million jobs over this period, Korea 1.2 million, and that in percentage terms jobs growth has been stronger in Mexico, Turkey, Luxembourg and even Chile? Why can the Treasurer not get his facts right? (Time expired)
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:39): It is simply too silly for words. We are the 12th largest economy, but when it comes to population we rank 51. So now we are going to go on and he is going to argue that the rate of growth in employment in Germany, or wherever else he was quoting, is somehow larger—he wants to compare a developing economy to a developed economy. He wants to mix up all of these apples, pears and oranges and then try and get a valid comparison. You cannot do it.
Everyone on this side of the House is absolutely proud of the job creation performance of our country. It reflects the hard work of millions of Australians and people in business who have really put their nose to the grindstone in the most difficult of global conditions—so much so, that we did not go into recession during the global financial crisis and the global recession. Through that we grew, almost alone amongst developed economies. All the other developed economies went into recession. We stand here with an unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent. Just go around all of the other developed economies in the G20 and then go around the rest. This is an outstanding performance. And because we did not experience the massive increase in unemployment that occurred in many other developed economies it would be the case that our employment growth as a percentage would be smaller than that witnessed in other economies where unemployment had been far higher because of the global recession. These are just facts.
We know that those opposite are in deep denial about the most basic of economic facts. And because they are in deep denial about the most basic of economic facts they are a danger to our country, because they do not understand the basics of economic growth and job creation. They do not understand why it is important to have good fiscal policy. They do not understand why it is important to support an economy when there is danger in the global economy. They understand none of these things. They run around our country and talk our economy down every day. They exaggerate debt levels. They make untrue statements. They talk the economy down and the consequence is they are unfit to run a $1.5 trillion economy.
Nation Building Program
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. How is the government's national Nation Building Program helping to build infrastructure that boosts productivity around Australia? How are these investments being received, and are there any other proposals?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:41): I thank the member for Lyons for his question. Indeed, just before Christmas the government opened the largest-ever road project in Tasmania, the Brighton Bypass. Work is continuing on the $200 million revitalisation of the Tasmanian freight rail network to take trucks off the road and put freight onto rail. Our Nation Building Program is fully costed, fully funded and is being delivered.
I am asked about other proposals, and in Tasmania there have been some other proposals recently. The Leader of the Opposition went to Tasmania just a couple of weeks ago and repeated his promise that they would fully duplicate the Midland Highway. He was asked how much money they had, and he said, '$400 million'. He was asked where he got that from and he said he had had informal discussions with road engineers. Unfortunately, it is a $2.7 billion project. His was done on the back of an envelope, and indeed I am advised that $400 million will not get you from Brighton to the Mood Food servo in Kempton. Perhaps that is where he did the maths for this project?
But then when it came up in Senate estimates yesterday, having gone from being fully-funded, Senator Eric Abetz now says that a Liberal government would assist with the upgrading, and that it was always going to be a combined project. This commitment did not last two weeks. It is not surprising. Last week we began construction on the Majura Parkway and we also began construction on the WA Gateway project in Perth, the biggest road project ever in Western Australia. In 2010 those opposite said they would give it consideration for some time after 2014-15. It did not appear in their forwards and did not appear in their costings. Construction is now underway as a result of the funding, as a result of real money being delivered. They go and bag our progress, but they are happy to turn up. In this photo, there is myself, Smithy, the member for Perth, the proud local member. And there is the member for Swan. Hard hat on—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will desist from using props.
Mr ALBANESE: he has got the shovel out and he is in front of the government's federal Nation Building Program sign. That is how you can identify him! They go out, they do not do their homework, they do not put in the costings and they do not provide proper funding.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: You just did not fund it—you just did not fund it! Nothing there in the budget! You said you would do it in the never-never.
It is a bit like the Leader of the Opposition on the Pac Highway, where he said he would fund the Coffs Harbour bypass, and the local member had to say— (Time expired)
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (14:45): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister talked about a range of infrastructure projects, including many in my electorate and some in Western Australia. Why is it important, Minister, for proper planning to occur on all of these projects?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:45): I thank the member for his question. He is aware that you have to do the planning first, then you have to have the funding available, then you can begin construction and get the infrastructure built—something not understood by those opposite. I was referring before to the Pacific Highway. When the Leader of the Opposition did his little truck tour down the highway, he got all his facts wrong the whole way. Included in that was his statement made standing in Coffs Harbour. He said:
My understanding is the $7 billion or so that will be spent does include a bypass.
The member for Cowper, poor Stanley, had to ring around his local press—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will refer to members by their appropriate titles.
Mr ALBANESE: and say, 'No, it doesn't; he was only joking.' He had not done the homework. He said the funding was completely available straightaway. It was not, but there were no details there.
On the WestConnex project in Sydney, he said he wanted to provide people with access to the city and freight with access to the port. The only problem is that the proposal, which he has already ticked off on and said he would provide funding for before the planning is done, does not take people to the city and does not take freight to the port. That is why this government has made sure, along with the campaigns of people like the member for Lindsay and other people in Western Sydney, that they will get it properly delivered—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister's time has expired.
Mr ALBANESE: I table the photo.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I ask the Clerk to turn it over. I know that is a bit of a ridiculous question, but I would rather do that.
Employment
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:46): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his last answer, when he said it was important to get the facts right. I refer him to the fact that he stated that the current unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. Would the Treasurer advise the House what the actual current unemployment rate is?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:47): Yes, I do think it is important and it is 5.4 per cent. I made a mistake, but the one thing I think we should all understand is this: keeping unemployment low and creating jobs requires strong economic growth, and everything this government has done has kept our economy strong and kept jobs growing; 5.4 is the envy of the world.
Mr Hockey: Sit down, Wayne, you're finished!
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney might be finished in a moment!
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.
Workplace Relations
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister update the House on how the government is making rostering arrangements fairer for working people, particularly parents? How does this build on the government's detailed plans to improve the Fair Work Act? Are there any obstacles to these improvements?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:48): I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. I am pleased to report to him and to the House that every day this week the Labor government have provided details about how we are delivering a fair go all around in Australian workplaces for employees and employers. We have been up-front, we have been positive and we have been future focused.
On Monday, we announced that we intend to improve the right to request flexible arrangements. On Tuesday, we announced how we would assist victims of workplace bullying through amending the Fair Work Act. On Wednesday, we announced how we would create more flexibility for people taking unpaid parental leave. Today, I am pleased to tell the House that we are proposing specified policies to help protect workers against arbitrary changes to their rosters.
The reason we are up-front, the reason we are positive and the reason we are future focused is that we know that work is a big part of the lives of modern Australian families. But we also know that Australian workers are not just decimal points on a profit-and-loss expenditure sheet. We understand that Australian workers are not just numbers or units to be kept in the dark. We know that Australians aspire to good jobs and workplaces which have a regular pay cheque and regular hours, where they have some control over the work they do, where they work for profitable and flexible enterprises. Australians are, therefore, interested in the workplace relations policies of the future, and they deserve better than they are receiving from the opposition. They deserve to hear how each side of politics will enhance their prospects in the workplace.
Unfortunately, the opposition this week have not been up-front, they have not been positive and they are certainly not future focused. All we can find out about the opposition policies on workplace relations is that Liberal governments make bad bosses. Just ask 40,000 Victorian teachers today, who had Premier Baillieu break his promise to raise their pay and look after them. We do know that the opposition are notorious union baiters who would blame unions for everything in Australia and we know that they want to introduce a tax on the superannuation contributions of low-paid Australian workers.
But what we do not know in workplace relations is whether they will guarantee penalty rates. We do not know if they will protect Australian workers' rosters. We do not know if they will stand up for existing public holidays. We do not know if they want to make unpaid parental leave more flexible. All that we can find out from the opposition is that they say they can be trusted on workplace relations—but, if they can be trusted, why hide their policies? If there is not going to be a repeat of what they did last time, why hide their policies? If they are not going to sink the boot into Australian workers, why hide their policies?
What is most remarkable is that they can find locations for 100 dams in Australia but they cannot release a workplace relations policy. They say that they can build 100 dams, but they cannot release a workplace relations policy. Again, I issue the same challenge that I make each time I debate the opposition: show us— (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (14:51): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that more people have arrived illegally by boat at the start of this year than in any other year.
On what basis can the Treasurer credibly present a budget update claiming to have stopped the boats and that expenditure on boat arrivals will fall by almost $2 billion over the forward estimates?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:52): That is true. The member is referring to the forward estimates and they are very credible forward estimates. They are very credible forward estimates.
The opposition here made this government wait nine months to put in place offshore processing on Nauru—nine months. The consequence of that has been more boats in the short term. But we are putting in place a response, via the Houston review, and that response is working. Of course, over time, as that response is put in place, the number of arrivals comes down. That is the fact of the matter. That is why we have worked so hard to get these arrangements in place and we would certainly appreciate from those opposite more cooperation on the regional arrangements so we can put in place more policies to restrict the flow of refugees to this country.
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi is warned.
Education Funding
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. What are the important reform elements that underpin the Australian Education Bill 2012currently before the parliament, and can the minister inform the House of the responses to the bill?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:53): I thank the member for Banks for his question. He has seen $83,277 million worth of project investment in his electorate. There have been over 100 projects improving schools right around the electorate of Banks because on this side of the House we do understand how important education is to a child's future, for the parents hopes for their child and also of course to the economy. On Tuesday, we had the extraordinary situation where the leader of opposition business, who is also the shadow minister for education, tried to stop the debate on the Australian Education Bill.
It is an important bill that will provide the directions for the National Plan for School Improvement, locking in important reforms, higher teacher standards and giving every student quality learning opportunities and more power in the hands of school leaders. It was not surprising, I guess, that the member for Sturt wanted to lock out that debate given the decade of neglect that we had from those opposite on education: an unfair funding model, flagpoles instead of libraries, history wars instead of a national curriculum—who could forget that episode. He was possibly even concerned about the contributions from members on his own side, because actually some opposition members did talk about education reform. The member for Aston offered his thoughts on improved education outcomes, saying, 'Improve teacher training and lift teacher quality in schools, have a rigorous national curriculum, more school empowerment.' The member for Murray highlighted the current declining state—
Mr Hawke: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is no secret that the member for Banks and I do not get along, but he asked about the priorities that underpin this bill. The bill is nine pages and the minister is not addressing what priorities underpin this bill.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr GARRETT: The members should listen to this answer because some of his own members have identified those priorities, as I am pointing out, with the member for Murray highlighting the declining state of educational opportunity in her rural electorate. The member for McPherson stated that it is the right of every child to receive a world-class education. Of course, the member for Bowman had already got in on the act by 'giving a Gonski', but there you go.
It is obvious that these members have had a look at the National Plan for School Improvement. All of the elements are there: tick for excellence, tick for equity, tick for teacher quality, tick for a national curriculum, tick on school leadership, tick for the fact that country schools will be properly resourced under a National Plan for School Improvement. Now that just left the member for Sturt, and we do not often get to hear the member for Sturt speaking on education in here. But he clearly laid the coalition's intention on education: to stick to a broken funding system that is failing too many kids. His speech made it clear that for every parent in a small, one school regional town, or a low-income family who do not have any choice in the school they send their child to, the opposition and the member for Sturt believe that they should be having a model that leaves kids behind. We will deliver a model that supports kids for education. (Time expired)
Budget
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:57): My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that Joshua, Imogen, and Natasha, from Wanniassa Hills Primary School, asked him recently: 'Why is the budget so important?' Does the Treasurer recall saying: 'Just like mum and dad, we have to work out how much income we have and how much we are going to spend. You've got to make those sums add up.' Can the Treasurer confirm that if mum and dad ran their household budget the way he runs the federal budget, the bank would have foreclosed on them long ago?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:58): The first thing that I would say in response to that question that was put is that mum and dad would have a mortgage, and mum and dad would probably have an average mortgage of $300,000, which means they would be paying $5,000 a year less than they were paying when the Liberals were last in power out at Wanniassa—$5,000 a year. Why do mum and dad have a mortgage? They have a mortgage because they want to make a significant investment in the most important asset they could have in their lives. And of course they cannot pay for it all at once. They should not necessarily try to do that if they want to provide their family with the best standard of living. They want to be able to afford some education. They want to be able to afford some health. They want to make other investments as well. So they take a common-sense decision to take out a loan and support their family, and pay it off as quickly as they possibly can.
The nation had a sudden and dramatic cut to its national income over the past five years. Suddenly, $160 billion went out the door. If you want to follow the logic of what the member is saying, what mum and dad should do in reaction to losing, say, $160,000 is sell the house and go and live in a tent. We say no to that kind of logic. What we did as a country was say: 'We should support our people. We should support mum and dad. We should keep mum and dad in jobs. We should ensure that their kids get the possible start in life. We should support our economy. We should get economic growth going.' Do you know what happens when economic growth gets going? You have a stronger budget. If you have more jobs, you have a stronger budget. Then you pay down your debt. That is what you do. And that is what mum and dad do, too.
Domestic Violence
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for the Status of Women. Members of the House would be aware that today is V-Day. This year, it is highlighting the One Billion Rising campaign, which refers to the number of women around the world impacted by violence. My question to the minister is: what is the Australian government doing to reduce and prevent violence against women and their children, both here and overseas?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (15:01): I thank the member for Kingston for her question. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that every day millions of women are subjected to violence and physical abuse. V-Day in 2013 is highlighting the One Billion Rising campaign, a campaign that asks us to consider that one in three women will experience violence in their lifetimes. That is one billion women who are survivors of abuse. It is asking us to do something about it.
In Australia, one in three women have experience physical violence and one in five sexual violence since the age of 15. We have a zero tolerance of violence against women, wherever it occurs. We are taking action in Australia, as well as overseas, in contributing to international efforts. Any act of violence against anyone is of course unacceptable. The cost to the Australian community of domestic violence in this country is more than $13 billion per annum.
This government has committed $86 million to the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Through the plan, we have already invested more than $30 million to help achieve these goals: $17 million on 'The Line', a social media campaign encouraging young people to develop respectful relationships; $9 million to fund respectful relationship projects in communities; $3 million for community action grants to groups and sporting organisations to engage at the local level; and $1 million to the White Ribbon Foundation to develop programs to support workplaces to tackle attitudes to violence against women. Our prevention measures have included recently establishing, with the states and territories, a national centre of excellence to guide and promote research on issues affecting women who experience violence. We have created 1800RESPECT, the first national telephone and online counselling support service for victims, their families, their friends and people who are working with them. We are providing free training through DV-alert for health and allied workers to improve their capacity to respond to women who are experiencing violence. We are improving services for women with disability.
This year's session of the United Nations' Commission on the Status of Women, to be held in New York, has the priority theme of eliminating violence against women and their children. Internationally, Australia continues to support initiatives such as crisis services, counselling and legal support. Violence against women has no geographical, financial or cultural boundary. It is, regrettably, happening everywhere every day. On this day, I join, together with the House, the V-Day organisers in encouraging groups and individuals to demand an end to violence against women and to speak out against it each and every day that it occurs.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): On indulgence, I would like to associate the coalition with the remarks of the minister. We hope that the government will join with the coalition in extending more humanitarian visas to women at risk in refugee camps. That is a contribution that we should all support.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (15:04): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to a letter that he wrote to his constituents in May last year in which he said:
I was talking to a local resident the other day who asked, 'Wayne, at a time when we are in the middle of a massive mining boom, why aren't people like me sharing more in its benefits?'
Has the Treasurer written to his constituents, including this one, telling them that his mining tax has collected virtually no revenue?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (15:04): I thank the member for that question. We on this side of the House understand that when you create prosperity you must spread opportunity. It is the case that there is lot mining investment in the pipeline. In that pipeline currently are $270 billion of projects that are committed to. We on this side of the House think that it is only fair that all Australians get a share of this boom—an investment boom that is going to become a production boom that is going to become an export boom.
Because mining is concentrated in a couple of areas of the country, there are some special things that we should do for mining regions, such as the area that the member for Herbert comes from—such as all the investments that we are making in roads up in Townville, including ring-roads and so on, and such as what we are doing at the port. We think that the mining boom should fund some of that. It is like the Gateway project in Perth, which will assist all the mining companies.
On the other hand, there are many other people who are not in the fast lane of this boom. They want a share of it, too. That is why we have been absolutely committed to supporting families and to assisting them with the cost of living through, for example, the schoolkids bonus. This is an enormous boon to Australian families who struggle to get through Christmas and kit out their kids when they go back to school—buying shoes and all the school books and so on. Those opposite want to take it away.
The reason that they want to take it away is because those opposite have a $70 billion crater. What they want to do is take a sledgehammer to the Australian economy through a whole host of cuts. The first thing that is going to go is the schoolkids bonus. That will be gone under them. The second thing that is going to go under that mob is the tripling of the tax-free threshold. That will be gone under the Liberals. The third thing that is going to go is the assistance to superannuation for the lowest paid workers in our community. The up to $500 that they get will be gone under the Liberals. We believe that all Australians have a right to share in our prosperity through policies that give them jobs, access to affordable health and education, and assistance with the cost of living.
Climate Change
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (15:07): My question is to the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Attorney, will you update the House on recent international developments in tackling the threat of dangerous climate change? How do these developments highlight the importance of putting a price on carbon pollution?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (15:07): I thank the member for Reid for his question, and I know of his very longstanding interest in this area. From this year, more than 50 national or subnational regions around the world will have a price on carbon pollution, covering around 1.1 billion people globally. Australia is responsibly playing its part. Our carbon price is already cutting dangerous carbon pollution to slow the devastating effects of climate change. Yesterday we saw President Obama again emphasising the importance of global action, calling on congress to bring in a carbon price. He said:
I urge this Congress to get together to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change—
a market based solution to climate change—
like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will.
The McCain-Lieberman bill was an emissions trading scheme, a market based mechanism just like Australia's. Here we have this Leader of the Opposition claiming he is at one with President Obama on climate change. He said it on radio not two weeks ago—a soul mate, no less. This is yet another blow to the Leader of the Opposition and his catalogue of phoney claims, especially his ludicrous pretence that the world is not acting. He said:
… there is no sign, no sign whatsoever, that the rest of the world is going to do things like introduce carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes.
No sign at all—except from China, Korea, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa, the United States and another 40-odd countries.
This morning this Leader of the Opposition was at it again, ridiculously trying to claim that President Obama had ruled out an emissions trading scheme. Anyone who listened to the State of the Union address would know that that is just plain wrong. The Leader of the Opposition's rejection of sensible, serious, careful action on climate change goes against the wisdom of every living Liberal leader other than himself, against the wisdom of every leading scientist and economist, against the wisdom of prime ministers and presidents around the world, and against plain common sense.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a document of quotes from Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, that says: 'We would never propose a carbon tax and have no intention of proposing one.'
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
Mr Albanese: It is an abuse. No. On what basis? You cannot just stand up; you did not ask a question.
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canning will withdraw.
Mr Randall: I do not think calling the member a clot is unparliamentary.
The SPEAKER: The member for Canning will withdraw.
Mr Randall: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Again, that was an absolute abuse.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (15:11): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr TRUSS: Indeed.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals has the call.
Mr TRUSS: In question time, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport criticised me for not attending the Cooroy to Curra opening. I did not attend because the minister did not give me an invitation to attend, even though all of the money for the project was funded by the previous government.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mayo, the member for Dawson and several others in that vicinity are lucky it is Thursday afternoon.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (15:12): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Aston claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr TUDGE: I do.
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston has the call.
Mr TUDGE: In question time today, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth implied that I had endorsed the government's policy priorities. If he had read my speech or listened to my speech, he would have found that he was not correct.
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston will resume his seat. The member for Aston does need to demonstrate where he has been misrepresented.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:12): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the House claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do—just then.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: As the former minister for transport would know, the invitations are issued by the Queensland LNP government.
Mr Truss interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: They are. You know that is the case, or didn't you do anything? That is right; you did not do any openings because you did not do anything. State governments do the invites.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is now abusing the opportunity and will resume his seat.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:13): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr PYNE: I do, most grievously.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Mr PYNE: Again, for a second day in a row, the minister for school education has claimed that I failed to address the issues of the national school improvement plan in his bill. In fact, there is no national school improvement plan in his bill, so it is quite impossible to address it.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I advise the House that personal explanations are actually a very serious thing. If we continue to abuse them and make them a laughing stock, then they will not have any relevance in the future.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:13): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2011-12—Correction.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Review of the Defence annual report 2010-11—Government response.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:14): I have received advice from Mr Bandt nominating to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Amendment (Protecting Revenue) Bill 2013.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:14): by leave—I move:
That Mr Bandt be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee s inquiry into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Amendment (Protecting Revenue) Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:14): I present report No. 75 of the Selection Committee relating to private members' business and referral of bills to committees. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 11 to 14 February 2013.
1. The committee met in private session on 13 and 14 February 2013.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Reform of Self Managed Superannuation Funds Supervisory Levy Arrangements) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Costs to the self-managed superannuation funds; and ensuring only cost recovery.
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Income tax loss carry-back-measure linked to mining tax.
Standing Committee on Economics:
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Amendment (Protecting Revenue) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
To inquire into: the extent of the erosion of Commonwealth revenue due to the minerals resource rent tax's requirement that increases in State royalties be rebated; the adequacy of the bill to remove this requirement; and whether related issues arise in the application of the minerals resource rent tax that also erode Commonwealth revenue.
Large fiscal implications for the Budget; existing government agreements in place with commercial entities in relation to existing taxation arrangements, this bill will jeopardise any such agreements; controversial issue which requires detailed scrutiny.
Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
Significant economic impact; and ensure drafting is correct
Standing Committee on Education and Employment:
Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
The bill contains a number of provisions relating to OS-HELP and the implementation of the Asian Century policy in relation to study overseas that need to be explored in greater depth.
3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Orders of the Day
Skin cancer (Mr Billson)
Primary language disorder (Mrs Prentice)
Attack on Ms Malala Yousafzai (Mr A. D. H. Smith)
Iran (Mr Simpkins)
Centenary of the Murrumbidgee irrigation area (Mr McCormack).
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Superannuation
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Casey proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The ongoing negative impact of the Government's superannuation tax rises.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (15:15): This matter of public importance really sums up the essence of this government. This matter of public importance highlights the government’s record of broken promises. This matter of public importance highlights the government’s monumental budget failure. This matter of public importance highlights Labor's absolute hatred of aspiration, self-reliance, choice and reward for effort.
Five years ago this week, it was the first sitting of a new parliament with a new government. The member for Griffith, who now sits over there, was sitting here at the table. His loyal deputy was sitting behind him. In the first week of 2008, a new Prime Minister had been elected and the government had changed on the back of a litany of specific promises. Think back to that time. In the days leading up to the election, the then Leader of the Opposition had declared himself to be a fiscal conservative and had declared that reckless spending must stop. That was more than $190 billion ago.
My colleagues behind me look back on that period and say that there was not a single Labor statement made in the lead-up to the 2007 election that has not been breached. If we were to mention every solemn promise, every declaration and every guarantee across every portfolio area, we would need an entire day of parliament.
When it comes to superannuation, we all remember—and, more importantly, the self-funded retirees of Australia remember—a cast-iron, solemn guarantee made on 12 November 2007 by the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith. It was a promise that there would be no changes whatsoever to superannuation if Labor were elected. That is the version in English. Here is the exact quote from the member for Griffith and then Leader of the Labor Party in an interview on Radio 4BC: 'What I find around the country is there's a whole lot of what I describe as whispering campaigns by the Liberals. I discover them here, there and everywhere. Absolutely not, there will be no change to superannuation laws, not one jot, not one tittle.' That solemn declaration was made 12 days before the election. It could not have been clearer.
Along with that solemn guarantee, the people of Australia can remember other solemn guarantees in every portfolio area. Whilst I said before that my colleagues and I would say that every single promise Labor made before the 2007 election was a broken promise, I have to say there is one exception. That was a statement made by the member for Kingsford-Smith about 10 days before the former Prime Minister's statement, and it is the only statement the Australian people can look back on and say, 'That was a true promise.' It was made in a moment of candour to radio journalist Steve Price when he had a conversation with the member for Kingsford-Smith at Melbourne Airport. Steve Price bemoaned the fact that the election campaign was turning into 'me-too' politics and that Labor was copying the coalition’s election promise. Steve Price said, 'I said to Garrett that it was turning into the me-too election. With a straight face, he replied that it would not matter because "once we get in, we'll change it all".' Hasn't that been the only true statement? 'Once we get in, we'll change it all.'
Superannuation is an area where they could not have changed it more from day one—not one jot, not one tittle. And they have changed it by $8 billion of new taxes—eight billion jots and tittles, to use the member for Griffith’s language. It did not take very long. In the 2009 budget, the Treasurer announced that the government would lower the cap on concessional super contributions and that it would reduce the superannuation co-contribution scheme. Let me deal with the second of those first. I know the member for Wentworth will know where I am going on this. At that time, it was said that the reduction in the super co-contribution would be temporary, because this was the time that temporary deficits entered the Australian language, more than four years ago. What turned out to be temporary was made less temporary the following year, then it was made permanent. That $1,500 co-contribution first reduced to $1,000. Then, finally, in the MYEFO of 2011, it went down to $500. It was a tax rise and a hit to the low-income workers that those opposite seek to preach about.
And then the concessional caps, the money that people could put into their superannuation, will go from between $100,000 and $50,000, depending on your age, down to $25,000.
Let us have a look at how those policies are impacting. In Labor's world they say they are attacking the rich. Everyone out there in the Australian public knows they are attacking everyday Australians. You could not get a clearer example than the super co-contribution—'not one jot, not one tiddle', from $1,500 down to $500, and the indexation removed to boot. Think of low-income workers trying to get ahead, making their contributions and getting a matching contribution. It was not anything that was criticised by those opposite during the Howard government but it was something they always had on their secret hit list. When it comes to the concessional caps, what about those in their 50s and 60s who might be in small business and want to save for their retirement? If they put in more than $25,000 a year, they get hit with the highest tax rate. This government is so ignorant it assumes they have an even income every year; it assumes their costs are the same every year. It is ignorant of the resources needed to build up a small business. They have been penalised and hit by this government. And what about a single mother who, in the years leading up to retirement, might want to put significant amounts of money into superannuation? That can no longer happen, because of this government.
Of course, it is only the beginning. We have seen in the last week Labor's determination to hunt around for even more taxes from superannuation. Last week we even had Labor figures warning against this attack on superannuation, and today we have had the news that private super is in the frame for a tax hit on self-funded retirees, those with self-managed funds. 'Not one jot, not one tiddle'? What we know is that, if this Labor government is ever re-elected, what they have done with superannuation in the last five years, to paraphrase Deborah Conway, will only be the beginning—because they have self-funded retirees in their sights just as they have those with private health insurance in their sights. All of this has come about, as I said at the outset, because of this government's monumental fiscal failure: 'Once we get in, we'll change it all.' And haven't they changed the budget in Australia! After saying reckless spending must stop when they had $45 billion in cash in the bank and a $20 billion surplus, they have now reached the point where they are scrambling around for more taxes to fill in the budget holes that they have dug as a result of their utter fiscal incompetence.
We have seen it on display right through this term and at the start of this final year of this term. You need only look at the Treasurer's failure on the mining tax as a subset of his failure on the budget—$126 million in half a year, when he is meant to be collecting $2 billion in the full year. I said the other day it was about $5.50 for every Australian. As someone pointed out afterwards, when you take into account the administration costs and the fact that that $126 million means company tax was not paid, I regret to say that I was exaggerating. It will work out something closer to a gold $2 coin—if someone can do the maths.
We can look at the temporary deficits that were announced back in 2008 and 2009, and at Treasurer Wayne Swan's accuracy. Look at last year's budget outcome. As I have said before in the House, back in December 2010 he said that the deficit would be $2 billion. By budget day 2011, he was saying no, it will be $22 billion. By the MYEFO in December 2011, he said it would actually be $37 billion. By budget day last year, it was $44 billion. Let us be generous and take out that first MYEFO after the 2010 election, and we have had a blow-out from $22 billion to $44 billion in one year.
I have said before in this House that, if Wayne Swan was competing in archery, the only safe place to be watching would be via your television. As I said the other day, the member for Bennelong also pointed out that it would be equally safe to watch standing directly in front of the target. Australian humour is a wonderful thing. We call people by nicknames. We call extremely tall people' Shorty' and we call short people 'Stretch'. I think we should call this Treasurer 'Bullseye' because of the number of targets he has missed. But the serious side is that it is the Australian people who are paying the price with higher debt and the $7 billion it costs just to keep that debt, not to pay a dollar off. And of course they are paying the price of the Treasurer's incompetence with higher taxes.
When they look back over the last five years and when, later on this year, they look back over the history of this Labor government, they will know that, for a re-elected Labor government, the history is the future. As far as superannuation goes, there is absolutely no doubt that this government will leave no stone unturned to jack up taxes.
We also know that every solemn guarantee is just a guarantee that they will break their word. 'Not one jot, not one tittle'—those solemn guarantees will be made again, only to be broken if Labor are re-elected.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (15:30): I am quite fascinated by this MPI, because superannuation is so important to the opposition that, in the opportunity of a 15-minute contribution, not only did the member for Casey finish early but he spoke about the minerals resource rent tax, the budget, MYEFO and debt. He made lots of jokes and talked about leadership. In fact, he talked about everything and he talked quite slowly, which is fine, but he spent less than five minutes actually talking about superannuation.
This matter of public importance is so urgent that it has to be discussed right now, because the opposition have something to say. It took them less than five minutes. You can take that opportunity anytime. But, if you are going to come in here and talk about superannuation, you should talk about superannuation. Tell us what your policies are, tell us what your thoughts are and tell us what you are going to do for the Australian people.
Everyone watching the clock would have said: where was the contribution to the debate on super? There was not a lot there. This MPI is absolutely absurd. It is not only factually incorrect; it is completely wrong and it has more to do with cheap political scaremongering. That is what we get from this mob opposite. Those opposite come in here knowing that, all the way back, when the universal super guarantee—universal superannuation for all Australians—was put into place, put into the Australian economy, they opposed it all the way. They can never resile from that. The measure was opposed all the way by the opposition. They said it would be the end of the economy, that it was a massive con job and that it would never work. How wrong were they then and how wrong are they today?
Superannuation in this country represents the underpinning of our economy—$1.5 trillion in superannuation savings. People talk about the GFC and how it was a Labor government that had to come in and deal with the global financial crisis. We never predicted there was going to be a GFC, but we had put the building blocks in place. That is what good governments do, 20 years ahead. You look to the future and you say: what are the things we need to do today for the future? The universal superannuation guarantee was one of those things and we did that. It was opposed by this mob. They hated the concept. They absolutely detest the concept of universal super for ordinary people—just like they hated Medicare and just like they hate anything that gives anything to anyone. Their view is: look after the top one per cent and then it will trickle down. The top one per cent will then just throw out little bits of leftovers to the rest of the 99 per cent of those people in the economy.
You might have noticed this quite beautiful little chocolate rose, a Valentine's Day rose, that those opposite all gave each other. You might have missed it before, but they gave each other one of these roses. There is a lot of love for each other on the other side, demonstrated by the giving of roses to each other. But where is the love for superannuation? Where is the love for working people, the 99 per cent of people who actually need the support of superannuation so that they can also have a decent retirement—not an extravagant retirement but just a decent retirement, something underpinned by some of their own savings and by the wages they gave up when the deal was done? Just so people know, part of the money, the wage restraint and the things that were put into place, meant that workers forwent a wage rise. Part of the money went to their super and part of the money went to employers to ensure that they could afford it as well.
That was a good deal, a great deal, a historic deal, done by a Labor government. The reason it was done by a Labor government is that we actually believe in it. You have to start from a position where you believe in super. You want to support super and you want to build it and make it stronger so that, today, you can have $1.5 trillion in superannuation savings in this country. We have positive plans for super in this country. It does not matter whether you are in a retail fund, an industry fund, a not-for-profit or a for-profit fund. It does not matter which one you are in; you get the benefits. It does not matter whether you are in an SMSF, a self-managed super fund, or whether you are a self-funded retiree; we believe in superannuation and decent retirement savings.
But let me tell you what the policies are of those on the other side. They had 15 minutes to speak and they took less than five minutes. That was their opportunity to tell us all what they are going to do. This is the only policy they have: black and white, one policy. They will rip away the super tax concessions for 3.6 million of some of the lowest-paid Australians in this country, of which 2.1 million are women. Those are the facts. There is no question about it. So, when they see that they have a $70 billion budget black hole, they go, 'We have to fill the black hole; where are we going to get the money from?' They do not look at any fancy policy for where they are going to get the money from. No savings, no cuts—just take it straight off 3.6 million of Australia's lowest-paid workers. Take it off them. Now, $500 may not be a lot to the people on the other side of the bench who love each other so much, but let me tell you that it is a lot of money if you are a cleaner or somebody on casual wages or somebody supporting a family through a second income. That is why we are making the changes—because we believe in giving people a hand up, not a handout. This is something for their future, something for their retirement, something that they can actually rely on.
What does the coalition's policy represent? The other day I was at a conference and there was an opportunity for me to say a few things and for the other side to say a few things. They did mention they might tinker around with a bit of regulation, they might do something on industry boards and look at a whole range of fluff around the edges, but there was nothing for working Australians, nothing for 3.6 million of the lowest-paid Australians in the country.
Those opposite are the ones who put forward this MPI. They are the ones that supposedly think this is so important, the ones who have so much to say on super. Think about how much there is to discuss when you talk about super. Their contribution was less than five minutes—if they had something more to say they would say it.
Let's make a bit of a comparison. If they take away from 3.6 million people their 15 per cent concession, who are they going to give more to? Just the top one per cent. If you are lucky enough to be earning more than $300,000 a year, good on you—you are lucky. You have worked hard and you deserve that money—no objection. But they are the only people that the Liberal opposition want to see get a go at super and get the concessions and all the benefits that come with it. Their concessions are worth more than $7,000 a year, while for people on low incomes they are worth about $2,000 a year. Our proposal gives a little bit more to the majority of people at the lower end so they get a better shot at retirement. It does not take away the $7,000, but it halves it—$3,500 is still generous for the top one per cent of income earners.
In these debates you get all this mixing of fruits and vegetables, all these analogies about things. But the reality is that, if you are on $300,000 a year, you have choices, you have options. Super is not your only investment vehicle. It is a really good one but it is not your only one. You can choose from property, shares, cash, bonds, gold and so on. You have plenty of choice. You can choose the absolute best for your retirement. Again, good on you. Build up your wealth and contribute to the national economy. All those things can be done together. But it should not be done in a manner that is so unfair that it means 3.6 million of the lowest-paid working Australians have to pay for it—why should they?—by getting slugged an extra $500 a year. It is just not on; it is not fair. That is why the other side had nothing to say. What are they going to talk about—the fact that they are trying to skew all the benefits in one direction? I think even the top one per cent, those on $300,000 or more, would probably scratch their heads and say: 'Actually, we don't need that much help. Thanks for the concessions anyway, but we can probably do without them. We've got plenty of choices.'
If we stop there, you might ask, 'Are we doing enough for the superannuation system in this country in the long term?' I always say you have to keep doing things, you have to keep moving. It is not change for change's sake. That is not what it is about. No-one changes something for change's sake—I hear that inane argument. Where do they get this stuff from? Why do we go through all the pain and effort of negotiating and consulting with different industry groups and bodies who all have opinions, views and capacity? We do it because it is necessary. If you want a system that works in this country it must be, first of all, sustainable. It has lasted this long—more than 20 years—because it is sustainable. But it is not going to stay sustainable if you keep it the same as it was two decades or a generation ago. You have to move with the times. So you make changes because it is necessary.
Then you hear platitudes and arguments from the other side like, 'We should only have positive change, not negative change.' I would say the only negative policy is the opposition's. The Liberals' negative policy is to slug people more through their superannuation. A positive change is to change, as required, things such as concessions and caps, as we have done. There is a clear choice. When it comes to superannuation there are a number of things that you can do.
Let's be clear. We have made a number of positive changes, not just today, not just this year and not just since coming to government in 2007 but since the creation of universal superannuation, the super guarantee. We created that because we believed in it. We believed that all Australians should have a fair go and the opportunity to have a bit of a nest egg. The only people who used to get superannuation were those on very high incomes, the top public servants and people in other top-end jobs. The majority of Australians missed out and were wholly and solely reliant on pensions.
That is something else we did when we came to government. I will not speak long about this because I actually want to talk about superannuation, but it is important that we tie this in because it is related. We made the single biggest improvement and increase to pensions in this country that has ever happened, and we did that coming to government because we had made a commitment to older Australians that we would lift their rate permanently, not with one-off bonuses. The Howard government used to love doling out a little bit of cash to people just before an election. It was their common theme: 'Who do we need to placate? Let's throw a few little rags of money and a few cheques around the place and hope that that's all okay and everyone's happy.' That is one way of doing it. We thought there was a better way: to make a permanent increase, build it in and pay for it forever. Pensioners needed it and they appreciated it, and I know they have not forgotten it. The record of those on the other side stands for itself. They always believed it was a con job, and I would love to have the time to be able to tell you some of the words that were used in this place by people like Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott. They were dragged kicking and screaming to do that. They hated it.
You have to think about this: where does this pathological hate come from? There is a lot of love on the other side but it is only for themselves. Where does it come from, this pathological hate of ordinary people—people who work, the backbone of the country, the people who dig things and make things, the manufacturers, welders, builders, concreters and cleaners? Where is a little bit of love for them? Where is a bit of love for farmers? Every day in here—I remember it really well; I always used to take note—you used to hear at least one of them say something about farming and agriculture. They have gone quiet. I have not heard those words for a long time. I will have to check with my colleagues, but I cannot remember the last time they spoke about a farmer. It seems they have moved on. They talk about the one per cent, the wealthiest. They talk about small business. But when it came to making it count, in here, they were quiet. When we moved legislation to reduce company tax for small business from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, guess who opposed it? You guessed it: they opposed it all the way. There was no way they were going to have a bar of reducing the burden on small business. The super guarantee sits at nine per cent—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr RIPOLL: So they admit they opposed it 'because, because, because—excuse, excuse, excuse'. The reality does not change; they still opposed it. You opposed it; it does not matter why you opposed it. Go and explain it to small business. You opposed a tax cut for small business. You opposed superannuation increases.
Let me remind you of something we did.
The super guarantee sits at nine per cent but it ought to be higher; as a minimum base it is just a little bit too low. So we have already put this into place, and it starts 1 July this year: a rise in the contribution from nine to 12 per cent. That is an incredibly good thing. It is a fantastic thing. Who opposed it? Yep, you've got it: the Liberal opposition. They will oppose tooth and nail everything that comes into this place that is good for ordinary people, working people, people who contribute to the economy, people who pay their taxes, whether they are in small business or not. They will talk about farmers, but they have not for a long time; they must have forgotten about farmers; somehow farmers have just faded away, although we almost heard something about farmers today when they started talking about dams. Of course they oppose dams, they are in favour of dams—they have no damn clue! That is really where it is all at.
So when we talk about the things that are being done and have been done, who believes in super? Who builds super? Who sustains super? Who makes it something for all Australians—the wealthy, the not so wealthy and some of the lowest income earners—to share? It is this Labor government. It has been Labor governments in the past, in history, who have done this. Who opposes it every step of the way? It is the Liberal Party and the Liberal opposition. (Time expired)
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (15:45): I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance which has been moved by my friend the member for Casey. It is on a very important issue, which is the ongoing negative impact of the government's superannuation tax rises. When you get out into the community, as I did last weekend, what you find is enormous concern about what the Labor Party are doing, yet again: shifting the goal posts on superannuation. And it is one of the commonest things that you hear from self-funded retirees and people who are approaching retirement: they just want some certainty and some stability in the area of superannuation.
Superannuation is a very important part of our retirement income framework. What we have is a system whereby you have an old age pension, which is targeted, income tested and asset tested; you have the compulsory superannuation; and you have additional savings on top of that. The old age pension is the ultimate safety net. But the important thing is that for most people it is going to be compulsory superannuation—but that will not be enough to retire on; what you need is incentives for voluntary contributions to super to ensure that as many as possible can look after their own retirement rather than rely on the pension.
When we were in government and we had intergenerational reports looking at this, they found that the Australian system—of a targeted pension, a compulsory system of super, and additional voluntary savings—was a good system and that we were unlikely to have the pressure on future budgets from increases in age pensions that a number of comparable countries like the United Kingdom and Canada were going to have.
There are estimated to be half a million self-funded retirees in Australia. In my electorate of Boothby almost 20 per cent of residents are aged over 65, and every one of these superannuants will be adversely affected by the government's constant tax hikes on super. Thirty-nine per cent of the electorate are over 50—that is more than 50,000 people—and all of them are putting money towards superannuation. What this government has done is to make it harder, not easier, for people to make a contribution to their retirement incomes.
The problem, really, is that, since the government has come in, we now have a budget which is in such disarray that they now look for easy targets to tax to pay for all of their spending. Private health insurance is just one. Medical research is another one which has been targeted. And now we read in the Australian, 'Private super in frame for tax hit'. Many people see superannuation as their nest egg. The Labor Party has always seen it as a golden egg which they need to repair their budgets.
People doing the right thing and saving for their own retirement so that they will not create an additional burden on taxpayers in the future need to be encouraged and supported, and instead the government always wants to punish them. Labor, as the previous speaker said, will say one thing before the election and do another thing after. When they came to power they were not going to change super; they were not going to touch super—not one jot; not one tittle.
It was Peter Costello, Australia's greatest treasurer, who summed it up perfectly, recently, when he said, 'Let us be clear—
Mr Lyons: He's the one who said Tony couldn't count!
Dr SOUTHCOTT: Well, he delivered 10 surplus budgets; I think that is a few more than you are going to deliver, brother. Peter Costello summed it up perfectly, recently:
… let us be clear. Labor's problem is not superannuation. It is spending.
And their problem is that their spending is out of control, and to repair their budget they now have to look at private health insurance and superannuation, and people who are doing the right thing, people who are showing some independence and self-reliance, are now getting hit. The government's budget is in chaos. There has been $155 billion in net government debt as at October last year. What the Labor government wants to do is punish hardworking Australians to pay for their own government mistakes and incompetence.
Ask yourself this question: would the Labor Party be attacking superannuation if they had not wasted billions of dollars on pink batts, school halls and GP superclinics which have never been built? As to their failed mining tax—we have not heard a lot about the mining tax; we did not hear a lot about the mining tax in the previous contribution—it has raised only $126 million. That is less than 10 per cent of what was projected.
So the Labor budget is in dire trouble and they are attacking retirees' super to dig themselves out of it. Even former Labor finance ministers are attacking their policies. Peter Walsh, the ALP finance minister from 1984 to 1990, was quoted recently as saying:
When you look at trying to get the budget into a better position, there are many savings and waste Labor could target to address that problem without redesigning super taxes.
In the later budgets of the Howard and Costello government, we were able to introduce a number of generous concessions for superannuation to allow self-funded retirees to continue in the workforce and address the poor workforce participation that we saw for workers over 45.
What we need the Labor Party to do is come clean on the super changes that they are planning to make. They need to be up-front about their increase in taxes on those who are saving for their superannuation; people need to know what they are likely to face. We have seen the government, in just 5½ short years, already impose more than $8 billion in additional taxes on the superannuation savings of Australians. Since they came to power in 2007, they have announced 23 major changes to superannuation rules. Not one jot, not one tittle.
We have heard a lot from the previous government speaker, the member for Oxley, about concern for workers and those on low incomes. I would just say one thing: what happened to the co-contribution? The co-contribution was there for workers on low incomes and, since the government has come in, it has cut $3.3 billion by reducing the government's superannuation co-contribution for lower income workers. It cut it from $1,500 under the Howard government to only $500. It has also reduced the concessional contribution caps from $50,000 and $100,000 down to $25,000, and this has been an effective increase in the taxes on voluntary super savings. This is particularly concerning to people who are approaching retirement, because they have suddenly found that it is almost impossible to make the contributions to superannuation to provide for an adequate income in retirement. What the government has done means that anyone making more than $25,000 in voluntary contributions now has to pay tax at the full marginal rate.
The coalition understands the need for stability in superannuation. The coalition finance team met with senior superannuation industry stakeholders and experts this week. The shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister for superannuation discussed the Labor threats to superannuation. But more importantly, they confirmed that the coalition will not make unexpected and detrimental changes to superannuation in government. We need to give people who are saving for their retirement the ability to plan in confidence. We have also confirmed that we will not rescind the increase in compulsory super from nine per cent to 12 per cent, we will not proceed with any other measures attached to the failed mining tax and we will release a policy before the election that encourages increased savings by Australians across all income brackets.
There is enormous concern in the community about what the Labor Party is planning for superannuation, and retirees and superannuants face a clear choice when it comes to the next election. (Time expired)
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (15:55): With respect to the member for Boothby and the member for Casey, who moved this motion: what a load of nonsense; what a load of rubbish we have just listened to! Indeed, what a load of humbug and cant. You can be sure that the only existing plans to increase superannuation tax is the Liberal-National coalition's plan to reintroduce a 15 per cent supertax on 3.6 million low-income earners, of which 2.1 million are women. They are going to slug the hard-working families in our country; that is the signature policy that they are going to take to the next election. I would like to take you back to 1995 when the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, said:
Compulsory superannuation is possibly the greatest confidence trick of the last decade.
That is what the current Leader of the Opposition said in 1995. It is in his DNA. He is the alternative Prime Minister and all that we have got from the opposition is just all this nonsense and rubbish because they know that the Australian Labor Party are the champions of superannuation. All that we have been listening to from the other side is just complete rubbish.
In fact, the coalition are just a collection of parties that have bad plans, plans they cannot even pay for except by slashing and burning and wreaking havoc on budgets, on families, on workers and looking after their rich mates. What about some explanation of the $70 billion black hole? No explanation from the Leader of the Opposition or any of his alternative economic team to explain that black hole. But I tell you what: they have sent a clear message to the people of Australia that the opposition are quite happy to look after their rich mates and give them a very, very rich tax cut—and I am talking about the likes of Gina Rinehart, Andrew Forrest, Clive Palmer, all of whom will benefit massively. They are the last people in Australia that we should be looking to give tax relief to, yet this opposition, as I said, wants to put a supertax on 3.6 million low-income-earning Australians—and I repeat—of which 2.1 million are women.
Labor is the party that is working hard to support families and to ensure a future for their children. Labor has been, and will continue to be, the champion for families and the superannuation. Labor is the champion of superannuation. It is the party that invented it. It increased it. The coalition has opposed it at every step of the way, and yet we have to listen to this lecture from that side of the parliament. It is absolutely breathtaking! It has obviously forgotten that it was Prime Minister Hawke and Prime Minister Keating who championed the cause of families and brought universal superannuation in over the screams of business, the rich and those whom those opposite support and give succour to. It is Labor who will continue to ensure that future generations will have a nest egg to assist them in their retirement phase of their life.
Superannuation needs to be sustainable and it needs to be fair; we, on this side of the House, will always ensure that superannuation remains fair and equitable. We will always act in the national interest and do what is right for the majority of Australian workers, not just for the privileged few in this country who are massively rich. That is what we have always done; we have looked after the workers in this country.
When we make changes to superannuation the majority of workers benefit, not the rich people in Australia. As many as 8.4 million people benefit today from the increase in super contributions from nine to 12 per cent that was initiated by our government. One in three low-paid workers, or 3.6 million, benefit from tax-free super contributions thanks to the Australian Labor Party and the Labor government. Australians contributed a record amount to superannuation over the past year and the outlook is strong, thanks to the Labor government's reforms. Australia's total superannuation savings are projected to be $500 billion higher by June 2037 as a result of the Labor government's superannuation policies.
We have removed the upper age limit on universal super contributions, which means Australians aged 70 plus can get universal super, and those opposite have opposed this. Our financial advice reforms have tidied up some of the worst practices in the industry and will give SMSF members greater confidence in advice. That is a good thing but it is opposed by the opposition. We have consistently provided draw-down relief to self-funded retirees. That is another good thing not supported by the opposition. In November last year we provided tax certainty for deceased estates by clarifying that we will amend the law to allow the pension earnings tax exemption to continue following the death of a pension recipient until the deceased member's benefits have been paid out of the fund. We will not make changes for change's sake. The Prime Minister has reiterated that the government will never remove tax-free superannuation payments for the over 60s. What is the Leader of the Opposition's commitment or lack thereof to superannuation, I ask?
The coalition never has and never will support superannuation. They will only attack our initiatives to help working families. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition has confirmed that he will raise taxes on 3.6 million Australians, including 2.1 million women earning up to $37,000. That is a national disgrace. The Leader of the Opposition has confirmed he will scrap the tax free low-income superannuation contribution. That is a national disgrace. This means nearly a third of workers will have their superannuation taxes increased by up to $500 a year under the opposition. God forbid if they get elected to this place on 14 September.
I restate that the Gillard government's rate of low-income superannuation contribution tax to zero for workers earning up to $37,000 puts the money into their super instead—not into the pockets of Gina Rinehart, not into the pockets of Andrew Forrest and not into the pockets of Clive Palmer. This will build the wealth of some of our lowest-paid workers by almost $1 billion a year, which will help take the pressure off the pension. Under the coalition, around one in three workers, or 3.6 million workers, would pay up to $500 a year more because of the coalition's plans. This is disgraceful. The coalition hates the idea of ordinary workers accumulating wealth. The only wealth they want to build is that of the billionaires I have referred to. The past few days have shown that the Leader of the Opposition is a dangerous policy lightweight, in my view, who has no vision for Australia's future prosperity and jobs in the Asian century.
A northern economic zone already cuts to shreds a network of dams that cannot be paid for except by attacking families. This is a coalition that simply does not care about the majority of Australians, a coalition that certainly does not care about superannuation, does not care about jobs and does not care about growth. I make no apologies for putting Australian jobs and growth first. I know that the Australian Labor government makes no apologies for championing jobs and growth in our country. Every decision that our government makes is about Aussie jobs and growth, not looking after the rich and privileged who do not need any further assistance from us to secure their prosperity.
To build on a combination of resilient economic fundamentals that are the envy of the world we have established solid growth, low debt, very healthy public finances, contained inflation, low interest rates and a gold plated AAA credit rated economy. That is what we have, yet every day we hear all this humbug from the other side attacking our economy when we are the envy of the world. And we are not done yet. We are investing in labour reforms for the future, the NDIS, Gonski and the NBN because we stand for an Australia where every child can get a quality education, where their parents can have a decent paid job and their grandparents can retire with a dignified income. Only a Labor government will ensure that.
I conclude by reminding this House that it is Labor who are the champions of superannuation. I do not believe for one minute that fair-minded Australians would think for one minute that the opposition is going to do anything to help them in terms of building their nest eggs. What they do know is that they are only going to look after the most privileged and richest people in our country, and that is a national disgrace.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (16:05): I have got to hand it to the member for Reid for the 10 minutes of non-contribution to a debate when we have seen over the past two weeks that the government's magnanimous support of the mining industry with its ill fated and ill constructed mining tax has left far more in the hands of the mining companies than we could have ever hoped to achieve on this side of the House. Whilst they want to give us a lecture about superannuation and revisit history, I think they need to take a bit of a reality check on their economic credentials and success over the past five years.
It is with great pleasure that I stand here today to speak on this MPI and to speak about the negative impact of the government's superannuation measures and tax rises. Since coming to power this Labor government has relentlessly attacked Australians planning for the future by hitting them square on the nose with over $8 billion in extra taxes and revenue from superannuation.
The only reason this has been necessary is because we stand here and look at a government that has spent too much and wants to spend even more, and super is where the money is. It is not just me or my colleagues on this side of the House who have grave concerns about the future of superannuation under this government. I would like to quote the chief executive of Australia's largest bank, Mr Ian Narev, who warned in the Australian Financial Review today:
It is absolutely critical that we have a long-term position and certainty in superannuation.
He went on to say that super should not be used as a political football.
I say to the government opposite and to the Treasurer: it is time to put the ball down. Does the Treasurer not realise that in 2010 he said, and I quote:
… we think certainty is absolutely paramount when it comes to the retirement income system, and we want people to have confidence that they can save in the way in which they have in the past.
As I said earlier, we all know that this government needs all the tax revenue that it can get its hands on. That is not because the people of Australia have done the wrong thing over the past five years; it is because we have a government whose profligate spending has created a situation where they need to find money from every piggy bank they can get their hands on.
Let's look at some of their past efforts in the superannuation space, namely—and I think this is one of the most regressive steps they took—to reduce the concessional contribution caps from $50 in $100,000 to $25,000 across the board. They also reduced the government's super co-contribution for low-income earners and doubled the super contribution tax for high-income earners. In addition, they changed the definition of income in their favour to draft more superannuation earnings into the tax net. To follow on from this, the government's sequel now threatens self-funded retirees through even more taxes.
Yet on this side of the House we have an alternative plan, and that is to encourage voluntary savings—the very thing that Labor plans to discourage. I would like to touch on a couple of facts around self-managed superannuation because I think they are worth bringing to the attention of the House, and maybe it is worth the edification of my colleagues opposite. This is straight from the ATO figures that they collect from the annual returns from self-managed super funds. Eighty-four per cent of the members in self-managed super funds are between the ages of 35 and 64. They are the very people that we want to accumulate as much as they can into superannuation over the remainder of their working life so that they, are self-funded in retirement as much as possible. Bearing in mind that the cut-off limit for the asset test is nearly a million dollars before they no longer have a call on a part age pension, at $25,000 a year as a contribution, less contributions tax, it is going to take 50 years to get to that asset test limit, so we have some work to do.
In addition, 73 per cent of the members in self-managed super funds earn less than $100,000 per annum—hardly the rich and powerful, I might suggest. Self-managed super fund balances that have more than $500,000 over the period from 2003-04 to now have decreased from about 71 per cent to about 47½ per cent. It has shown the value long term of self-managed superannuation funds and people deciding to take responsibility for the management of their own funds. Ultimately, it means the more we have in super the less call we are going to have on government resources.
Australians are doing the right thing by saving for retirement, but they deserve stability in the rules and tax arrangements around superannuation. In the long term, how is this government going to pay for the additional age pension impost that will arise as a result of their short-sighted and short-term desire to fix the budgetary problems that they have created through no fault of the people who have taken the time to save money into superannuation? What would happen to the government's finances if there were no self-managed retirees? Self-funded retirement is the ideal outcome for any retirement-income strategy. The more people who are fully or partially self-funded, the more funds there are available to assist those who do not have the capacity to fund their own retirement. This is the risk with the short-term nature of some of the decisions being made by this government to prop up its budget revenue, resulting from its profligate spending.
In 2007 the Treasurer promised no changes to superannuation, but what have we not seen promised from this government? Labor cannot be trusted when it comes to superannuation or people's retirement plans, no matter how much they love to recount the history of superannuation. Everyone in this House now accepts that superannuation is a vital part of the future of this country, providing for retirement and a financial foundation for our future prosperity.
The Prime Minister promised there would be no taxes on super payments for those over 60 under the government she leads. This does not include ruling out increasing taxes on super savings or super earnings. Australians who are doing the responsible thing and planning for their retirement, and who want to contribute more than $25,000 per year in pre-tax contributions, are being taxed on the excess of that at 46½ per cent. I hardly think they are getting an enormous tax benefit at the expense of lower-paid Australians.
On this side of the House, as a contrast, we take a longer-term view. We consider that having an ageing population and an ever-increasing call on government resources in a wide variety of areas is effaced by a government whose only inclination is to continue to tax people with the very capacity to provide wholly, or at least significantly, for themselves.
The cruel irony of this is that the very people we should assist and provide a hand up to lose out because the government does not have the financial resources to adequately do so.
This all came about because we have a government that creates hurdles and disincentives to saving via super for those who want to plan for a self-sufficient retirement. The government applies ridiculously low concessional limits to superannuation while at the same time increasing taxes on those who have already done the right thing by seeking to become self-funded in their retirement. I am pleased to say that there is another way: you do not have to destroy Australians' retirement plans if you stop the waste.
People across Australia saving for their retirement have a clear choice at the next election: on one hand the coalition, which offers stability and certainty in superannuation arrangements; on the other, a repeat of the high-taxing, chopping-and-changing nature of the government's current superannuation strategy, which does little to give anyone confidence in the superannuation system. (Time expired)
Mr LYONS (Bass) (16:15): I was interested to listen to the previous speaker. I suggest he look at the ratio of gross domestic product to taxation and see which was the highest taxing government in Australia's history.
I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding superannuation taxes. I would like to make it clear that the only existing plan to increase superannuation taxes is the coalition's plan to reintroduce a 15 per cent super tax on 3.6 million low-income earners, 2.1 million of whom are working women. Here in this House just a week ago, Prime Minister Julia Gillard made the point that it is only because of the Labor Party that superannuation is compulsory in this country. The coalition has opposed superannuation every step of the way.
Twenty years ago, under the Keating government, nine per cent superannuation was guaranteed to every Australian worker, a system that is today the envy of workers around the world. Labor acted to ensure that working people are taken care of in their retirement years, and we will continue to do that by increasing superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent.
As the party that commenced superannuation, Labor created national savings that became particularly important during difficult economic times, as we saw during the global financial crisis. In fact, despite the GFC, over the past 15 years the average growth fund in Australia has averaged 4.1 per cent above the rate of inflation. Those opposite are claiming that there are only negative impacts to be seen, but I know and the Australian people know that the Labor government has given them a distinct advantage with compulsory superannuation. Yes, it is correct that there is an additional tax on the superannuation of individuals earning $300,000 or more. Just 128,000 individuals were affected by this increase. However, the reforms to superannuation have only acted to benefit workers in this country; 8.4 million individuals will benefit from the increase from nine to 12 per cent super and one in three low-paid workers will benefit from tax-free super contributions.
This is in stark contrast to the Liberals, who have always acted to protect vested interests. The Leader of the Opposition has confirmed that a government he leads will scrap low-income super contributions. Our scheme cuts contributions tax to zero for workers earning up to $37,000 and puts the money into their super instead, building the wealth of some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. But the coalition is not interested in building the wealth of the average Australian worker, only that of billionaires. Without thinking twice, Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, will increase taxes on super for 3.6 million low-income Australians. This means that nearly one-third of workers will have their superannuation taxes increased by up to $500 a year under the opposition.
Of course, we should not be surprised by the disregard that the Leader of the Opposition is showing to Australian workers and their families. We know that he will scrap the schoolkids bonus and leave 1.3 million families worse off. We know he will rip $600 million from the Tasmanian economy through changes to the GST that he has promised in Western Australia. It seems ridiculous to trust a Liberal government with the retirement savings of a nation. They have never supported it and never believed in it. Their only plan for superannuation is to introduce a 15 per cent super tax on 3.6 million low-income workers. Indeed, in 1995 the Leader of the Opposition made the statement:
Compulsory superannuation is possibly the greatest confidence trick of the last decade.
I strongly disagree with this statement and I believe that Australian workers who benefit from compulsory and universal superannuation would disagree too.
Superannuation is a critical part of the Australian economy. It is the largest source of long-term savings in Australia and the second most significant source of wealth for many Australians after the family home. I am personally only too well aware of the poor economic management of the Liberals when it comes to superannuation. I was a manager at Beaconsfield hospital back in the eighties, when Robin Gray, then Liberal Premier, gave public servants a pay rise and proceeded to say that they could not have the pay rise; it had to go into superannuation. So I drew the cheques, as those responsible for those matters did at the time, and sent them off to the retirement benefits fund. The retirement benefits fund sent the cheques back to me, saying: 'This was only a notional pay rise. It was unfunded.' So the Liberal government gave public servants a pay rise but did not fund it. I am thankful to Robin Gray for that. I took out a private super scheme because I thought, 'The Tasmanian economy is going to be broke when I get to retirement.' That private super scheme allowed me to retire in March '09. I would not have been able to do that if I had not taken out that private scheme. I thank Robin Gray for the incentive. It just shows that the Libs have no concept of how to run a super scheme. They talk about the economy. When you are going into a worldwide recession, it is all a matter of timing. When you put the incentive in, you have to do it early and you have to do it right. I tell you what: the Australian economy is much better off from doing it right and providing incentive and jobs.
Today in this House we have heard much from those opposite about 'negative impacts'. What has not been mentioned are the negative impacts that will stem from their opposition to this increase in super contributions. They are risking the retirement years of millions of Australians and forcing Australians to pay more for the age pension.
Under the Labor government, the superannuation system is fair and sustainable. Reforms to superannuation will only serve to make the system fairer by ensuring that tax incentives for super are more even across the income ranges. There is nothing fair about the coalition's plan to slug 3.6 million low-income earners and part-time workers with a tax increase. There is nothing fair about scrapping the low-income superannuation contribution and increasing super tax for a third of Australian workers by $500 per year. Only under a Labor government will superannuation remain fair and sustainable. We will not make changes for changes sake. We will never remove the tax-free superannuation payments for over 60s.
What we will do, what is right, is that we will protect the pool of national savings created by superannuation and protect the retirement savings of hard working Australians and their families. Compulsory superannuation is in the nation's best interest and in the best interest of workers, ensuring that Australians build their own capacity to have lifetime income security. Labor will guarantee a superannuation system that is fiscally responsible, a system that ensures Australians will not have to work hard for their entire lives only to retire poor and a system that does not expect young Australian workers to support retirees.
This is a unique Labor goal and one that we cannot afford to entrust to the Liberal government. While they are talking about the economy and how they are such great managers, when I studied economics five per cent unemployment was full employment and still they talk about the negativity of the Australian economy. Really, we are the envy of the world. I know it is tough for some but this superannuation scheme is the best—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr LYONS: Talk about Tassie? When are you going to give us a promise in writing that you are going to protect the GST income of Tasmanians? When are you going to do that? Remember, we cannot trust his word, we have to get it in writing.
Mr Briggs: How are you polling lately?
Mr LYONS: Don't stand over there and talk to me, give it to us in writing. Protect the GST income of Tasmania.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be no interjections across the chamber. The member for Bass will not respond to the interjection across the chamber. Has the member for Bass concluded?
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:24): I am pleased to speak on today's MPI because, as we all know, this is a government that is living beyond its means. The Australian people do not deserve this government. They do not deserve a government that has increased taxes on superannuation by $8 billion. They do not deserve a government that has attacked the voluntary savings of low-income earners by drastically cutting the super co-contribution scheme. They do not deserve a government that continually ignores self-funded retirees, who are facing the prospect of their hard earned money being stripped away from them because this government cannot manage the economy.
If we look at what this Labor government has done since it got into power, what we see, despite protestations to the contrary, is attacks on superannuation funds. Since 2007, this Labor government has cut the government super co-contribution to low-income earners by more than $3.3 billion—from $1,500 under the Howard government to just $500. The Gillard Labor government has also increased taxes on voluntary savings by reducing concessional contributions from $100,000 under the Howard government to $50,000 and then to $25,000. If someone saves more than $25,000, including their compulsory and voluntary super contributions, they then have to pay the top marginal income tax rate of 46.5c in every dollar.
Labor's attacks on superannuation funds do not stop there. They are incapable of going through a single budget, or Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook process, without slugging super. During MYEFO last year the Treasurer announced the annual regulatory levy on self-managed super funds, regardless of the level of contributions or account balance, would increase by 36 per cent. This was supposed to raise an additional $320 million over four years. This tax change hurts more than 480,000 self-managed superannuation funds across the country.
But imposing $8 billion of increased taxes on superannuation was not enough for this government. They then decided to raise tax on every Australian by imposing the world's only economy-wide carbon tax. The people who got hurt the most were self-funded retirees, the very people who have worked all their life to make sure they had enough money with which to retire. Self-funded retirees did not receive a single cent in compensation when the carbon tax was imposed on them. This is just one example of self-funded retirees being ignored by this government.
These tax imposts have a necessary consequence of the government's gross mismanagement of the economy and failed projects such as a billion dollars wasted on pink batts and dodgy solar panel installations. On top of the accumulated deficit of $172 billion, the Labor government has $120 billion budget black hole as a result of promises they have made. Whether or not they say publicly they will not tax super further, the Australian public cannot trust them. We know how this Labor government works. They will promise and promise tax cuts and reductions and regulations before an election and then after do the opposite, as did the Prime Minister in 2010 when she promised there would be no carbon tax under a government she led.
The coalition is committed to the most efficient, transparent and competitive super system and that is what we will be working towards in government. This is a government without a plan. This is a government that determines the nation's future on the basis the streaker's defence, 'It seemed like a good idea at the time.' This is a government that has lost its way, frantically lurching from decision to decision, desperately trying to rebuild its tattered reputation and yet it cannot even govern itself. From court cases of fraud to ICAC in New South Wales, the ALP stumbles from crisis to crisis.
However, the losers in this comic opera are the people of Australia. Lost and forgotten by a government out of control, the people of Australia you know that you cannot spend if you do not have the money. They know a bad government when they see one. They also know that when you need to rebuild there is no better alternative than sane, sensible, and principled coalition government. That is what Australians need. That is what they deserve, not government by smoke and mirrors, not government that spends when it does not have the money, not a government that has lost its way. The coalition has a real plan and the coalition offers hope, reward, and opportunity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The discussion is now concluded.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (16:29): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report on the 2011-12 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (16:29): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Government Spending
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (16:30): I rise to continue along the lines of what my friend the member for Ryan was just pointing to in such an eloquent fashion, and that is the record of what is quickly becoming the worst government in Australian history. Probably the worst element of the worst government in Australian history is the waste and mismanagement, leading to the massive debt and the deficit that we now see in the Australian budget. This week we have seen the Treasurer lurch from crisis to crisis on a daily basis. His house-of-cards budget is falling apart. His predictions for the revenue from his mining tax are disappearing. His carbon tax revenue is disappearing. The structural deficit that he is building into this budget for years to come is becoming more and more obvious on a daily basis.
But what has been forgotten is that it is not all the Treasurer's fault. We have to give the Treasurer some peace of mind as he gets on that plane and heads off to Moscow—and we wish him a very safe trip to and a quick return from Russia. Waste and mismanagement has been part of this government from top to bottom from day one. The government that the member for Griffith led—before it lost its way and the current Prime Minister stabbed him in the back and took over the prime ministership—presided over the worst example of waste that we have learnt of, the Home Insulation Scheme, which put pink batts in people's roofs that burnt people's houses down. That cost $2.5 billion—$1 billion to put in and $1½ billion to undo the damage.
The BER program, through which overpriced school halls were built, saw at least $1.5 billion in waste. The Computers in Schools program had a blow-out of $1.4 billion. The changes to our border protection policies saw a $6.6 billion blow-out in that program. We learnt today that the government now estimates that it will have a saving in that program in two years time, with the new minister magically waving his wand and stopping the boats and blaming the former minister, Minister Bowen, for all the boats that have arrived. We have seen the blow-out in the NBN Co. plan of $3.2 billion. There has been carbon tax advertising and a market research blow-out—you name it.
We had it all in the Little book of big Labor waste, which we released late last year. When we released that, we thought that it would be a useful guide to just how bad this Labor government has been and to its inefficiencies and its wasteful ways leading into the election. We did not think that there would be much more to put into it. We were wrong. With the events of the last few weeks, we will have to revise it in the coming weeks and put out a new edition, because we have seen more waste, more inefficiency and more examples of just how hopeless this government is at implementing programs.
I will mention a couple of examples. We learnt in estimates this week that the Teach Next scheme—which was a $16 million program announced at the last election that was designed to get professionals into teaching—has recruited only 14 of the promised 450 people. That is some $1.1 million per recruit. Then there is the NBN. We love the NBN: it is a goldmine for waste. We have seen staff treated to 31 coffee machines worth more than $164,000. I know that the staff of the Leader of the Opposition have chipped in and gone out and bought themselves a coffee machine, which shows the difference between the Liberal Party attitude to money and the Labor Party attitude to money.
But my favourite—and I am glad that the Minister Macklin is here at the table—is the schoolkids bonus advertising. We are now sending pencil cases to kids to tell them that their parents can get free money from the government. That money is borrowed, of course, but that was meant to be paid for by the mining tax and that money is now not there. They have borrowed that money to send it out 'for free'. I wonder if the minister can answer this question: is there a bill in the pencil case to tell the children how much that they will have to pay back because of the wasteful spending on this advertising by this government? Have you heard anything more absurd than sending out pencil cases, so-called schoolkids kits, that have cost the Australian taxpayer some $87,000? That shows a complete lack of respect for the money of Australian taxpayers. It typifies this government. It will be on its tombstone when it finally goes and leaves the country with a massive debt, a massive deficit and a massive example of how you should not ever run a government. It cannot go too soon. (Time expired)
Angove Conservation Park
David, Mr Mitchell
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:35): Angove Conservation Park is a relatively small but important conservation park located in the midst of housing in St Agnes, in the Makin electorate. Similar to the nearby and larger Anstey Conservation Area, Angove Conservation Park has been preserved in its natural bushland state. It is home to many native birds, plants and animals. It conserves one of the last remaining stands of remnant drooping she-oak and southern cypress pine open woodlands within the Adelaide foothills. The park is listed as containing 142 native plant species and as providing specialised habitat for a small number of animals that require dense vegetation to survive. Several species of reptiles can also be found, along with mammals such as ringtail and brush-tailed possums, bats and 74 species of birds. As Chair of the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, the Environment and the Arts, which has only recently concluded an inquiry into biodiversity, I am well aware of the importance Angove serves in preserving biodiversity in the local urban landscape.
Angove Conservation Park is frequently visited for general recreation, education and management purposes. Visitors to the park and volunteers who generously give of their time to care for it have raised legitimate concerns about access to the park and the risk of bushfire arising from a general lack of maintenance. In the midst of the bushfire season, with bushfires raging out of control around the country, destroying lives, property, flora and fauna, locals of Angove Conservation Park want to see precautions taken to minimise the risks of fire and to protect lives and property should a bushfire occur. They have petitioned the Teatree Gully Council to install another gate at the junction of Angove Park Drive and Corella Place, located on the eastern perimeter of the park, to enable an additional fire exit from their neighbourhood if a fire emergency arises. The local residents have also called for more firebreaks and maintenance of inflammable undergrowth to minimise fire concerns. What is being sought is reasonable and sensible.
As Angove Conservation Park falls under the care and control of the state government, I have written to the state Minister for the Environment about the fire risks and management of the park and I understand that some maintenance work was carried out as a result.
With experiences of major fires in the nearby Anstey Hill Recreation Park in the past, the concerns of the local community relating to the risks to the park and to their properties from a bushfire are well founded. Should a fire occur and get out of control, the tree-lined streets of Angove Park Estate would enable the fire to very quickly spread throughout the housing estate, putting lives at risk and causing damage to properties.
In support of their petitions I have written to both the Tea Tree Gully council and the state government drawing their attention to the Natural Disaster Resilience Program which may be a source of funding to carry out the works and maintenance requested. The Angove Conservation Park is an asset to the region and I applaud the Tea Tree Gully council and the state government for preserving it, particularly as parts of it could easily have been sold off for housing.
As with all public areas, there is inevitably a need for ongoing maintenance. To date much of that maintenance has been carried out by dedicated volunteers who, like their fellow volunteers from the Friends of Anstey Hill Conservation Park, the Friends of Dry Creek and the Friends of Cobbler Creek, give so much of their time to preserve and maintain wonderful environmental sanctuaries in the midst of suburbia so that current and future generations can enjoy and benefit from them. These are assets which are so often referred to when highlighting the good things about the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide and which are, indeed, widely used for recreational purposes. The volunteers cannot and should not be expected to meet the direct financial costs of maintenance associated with their efforts. The financial outlays they seek pale into insignificance when assessed against the value of the community and environmental assets created and maintained. They are assets which would have been lost forever were it not for these volunteer groups and which will be even more appreciated in years to come.
Can I also take this opportunity in talking about volunteers to pay tribute and congratulate David Mitchell for his recent Order of Australia award. His award is for his service to conservation and the environment as a volunteer, and I particularly acknowledge his efforts with the organisation Trees For Life and his efforts with the Friends of Cobbler Creek, which is the one of the reserves I referred to.
Scleroderma
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:39): We can learn from our constituents much that we would never know if we did not find ourselves in the position as their local member. This week I have been made aware of a debilitating disease previously unknown to me and probably unknown to most in the House. Scleroderma has absolutely devastating consequences for those who suffer this unusual ailment. The word 'scleroderma' means hardening of the skin and its most common symptom is a thickening and hardening of the skin particularly in the hands and face. There is estimated to be over 5,000 people living with scleroderma in Australia, therefore, funding for scleroderma research is desperately needed. Scleroderma Australia's mission is to campaign for a world in which equal rights, treatment and care offered to people with scleroderma and where such diseases are not forgotten but afforded the consideration and attention of other more widely known diseases.
Having a disease that nobody has heard of is a very lonely business. As I said, I was completely unaware of this condition until I was approached by Mr Frank Leach who visited my office recently seeking support for this funding. At this stage a self-help organisation, Scleroderma Victoria, is working hard to build its membership in order to continue to fund a nurse operating out of two Melbourne hospitals. I would like to thank Mr Leach for bringing this to my attention and also congratulate the members of Scleroderma Victoria for their ongoing work.
Frank Leach is a determined activist who obviously has had direct contact in his life with the disease which has caused him and his family an enormous amount of distress. I believe he is suffering not only from the illness but from dealing with the illness. There are many people in our community that live a life of loneliness because of what their families are dealing with on a daily basis, which is sometimes unknown to us. I would like them to know that, when you bring these things to the attention of members of this House, those members are more than willing to bring them to the attention of the parliament and, therefore, the nation. Let us try together to end this loneliness, at least, for some in the world and in our community.
Australian Precision Technologies
Redlich, Mr Peter
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (16:42): I am very pleased this evening to be able to reflect on some of the practical ways in which the policies of this government, which go to support industries and workers right around the country, are being implemented in my seat of La Trobe. It is really only ever Labor that get the balance right in respect of these matters. We realise, of course, that the interests of industry and commercial ventures and the interests of workers are really not so very far apart.
I am very pleased to be able to reflect on my visit last week to APT, Australian Precision Technologies, a local business in Berwick in my electorate. It is a business that is operated by brothers and produces components for, amongst other things, the auto industry, the defence industry, the medical and aeronautical industries, and it is really doing very, very well. It is quite an inspiring story. It is a business that was built up over 20 years and it certainly supports the local workforce.
I was delighted to be able to advise them towards the end of last year about a grant of $650,000 which is supported by the Automotive New Markets Program. The grant has enabled them to purchase some new equipment to be used in their production line which will enable them to continue manufacturing and to continue producing components for industries, provide assistance and support to a workforce, contribute to the local economy, contribute to the national economy and, hopefully, expand their business and their opportunities as a result. The grant has facilitated, as I said, the purchase of a piece of equipment, and I was delighted to be able to meet a young apprentice who was operating that equipment last week, Luke Padovan, who has clearly been supported a great deal by the business and, clearly, is a very well regarded member of the team.
I am very pleased that we have been able to make such a practical contribution to APT, but I am also grateful for the very significant contribution they make to the local community and to our local economy. Initiatives like this support jobs in communities like mine and they are a focus of this government not only in communities like mine but in communities right around Australia. It is why, for example, we have expanded the Apprentice Kickstart Initiative, which provides financial incentives to local employers to take on engineering apprentices. It is appropriate, in the context of a discussion about a business like APT and the things that it does, that I applaud the minister for promoting the expansion of the Kickstart Initiative.
Engineering skills are an example of the kinds of skills that are critical to our economy. We are all about promoting high-skilled jobs, jobs that assist people to have an ongoing career and future prospects. They have been the focus of this government throughout its term. Since coming to office, we have assisted in the creation of around 850,000 jobs and we have invested in skills and training. We understand the needs of industry and workers.
On a separate note, but in some ways thematically linked, I would like to reflect this evening in the time left to me on the passing of a Labor stalwart who has also always very much understood the need to support workers and the need to simultaneously support the industries that they are employed in. Peter Redlich was a mentor and a supporter to and of many, including me. He was the man who established the law firm Holding Redlich, of which I am an alumnus. He certainly pursued the objectives of balancing the interests of workers and supporting the industries in which they were employed and he recognised that those interests were not always terribly far apart.
Peter’s contribution to the cause of Labor was lifelong. My best thoughts, and I suspect the best thoughts of many in this place, go to his family and friends and people who, in the next week I suspect, will be reflecting further on his life.
Electorate of Flynn
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (16:46): Many times I have stated in this place how important the electorate of Flynn has been to the prosperity of Australia. I want to take this opportunity to shift the focus to the future of Flynn and how I see its role in the future prosperity of this nation. We have seen a massive period of growth right across the Flynn electorate, from the development of coalmines in the central and western regions to the explosion of LNG developments in the Port of Gladstone, amounting to some $65 billion. This development has come with many growing pains and a great deal of debate over its impacts on the local environment. It is my belief that we have learned a great deal over recent years and with that knowledge we head into the future not being susceptible to making the same mistakes again.
There is a lot of existing industry in Gladstone. We have the aluminium industry, providing 6,000 jobs. We have a coal fired power station. We have a great port, responsible for over 10 per cent of Australian exports. We have chemical plants. We have abundant water supply in the Awoonga Dam. We have a strong mining, farming, grazing, cropping and citrus industries and we have sapphire and gold mines in the west. Potential future projects include QER shale oil just outside Gladstone, the Boulder steel plant, Arrow Energy LNG, Queensland Nickel and new mine developments out in the Baralaba and Springsure area of Emerald. There is also the possibility of a gas fired power station. In relation to future infrastructure beyond that, there is potential for a major rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane which we would like to see extended to Gladstone. The Iron Boomerang is a project for a railway line from the east coast to the west coast, with steel mills on either end of the line. Closer to home, we hope to see the Eden Bann Weir on the Fitzroy River heightened and a new weir at Riversleigh Crossing.
With respect to sustainable development at the Port of Gladstone, I believe the port should be developed to its fullest extent before anyone looks at developing other coal export terminals up and down the coast of Queensland. There is a lot of future development to be done in Gladstone. Places like Balaclava Island should be well and truly put on the back-burner until the Gladstone port is used to its fullest extent.
There is potential for further development of resource projects in the Bundaberg and Burnett regions, and that should be encouraged. Investment in road infrastructure and in health and education is very important in Flynn, just as it is in the rest of the nation. The development of tourism and environmental industries in the area would be of great benefit to us all.
The Assistant Treasurer has labelled some projects in Northern Australia and Central Queensland as white elephants. I do not know of any white elephants in my electorate of Flynn. All industries are producing in the best way they can and they are certainly very important to the Australian economy. Regional Australia has a role to play and Flynn is doing its very best. As the floods have demonstrated, it will be a great loss if we cannot get these projects up and going in Flynn in the future.
Deakin Electorate: National Volunteer Awards 2012
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (16:52): On 12 December last year it was my great pleasure to host the Deakin National Volunteer Awards 2012. This was a great opportunity to formally recognise the work of some of our community's greatest contributors across many different and varied community and volunteer services. There are so many people in our community who volunteer their time, energy and expertise to help others, and I am always amazed by the number of groups who provide these services. Volunteers operate in areas such as community welfare, sport, education, recreation, environment, emergency services and health; and, quite simply, without the services of volunteers our country would be a far harsher place for the people who live here.
The Deakin National Volunteer Awards are important because they give the community an opportunity to see what people do—and that is a great thing. The Deakin National Volunteer Awards 2012 were presented to the following volunteers. Jeanette Giles received the MP's Volunteer of the Year award for her outstanding long term volunteering service of over 30 years. In that time, Jeanette has volunteered for Donwood Day Care Centre, the Cancer Council of Victoria, Sing Australia, Heathmont Ladies Probus Club, Ringwood Calligraphy and Heathmont Uniting Church Community Living Centre and has tutored English to migrants at AMES, to name just a few of her many activities.
The Young Volunteer award, for the 18 to 25 years category, was presented to Catherine Pelling for her voluntary work in addressing climate change, including her attendance at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Doha as a delegate with Global Voices in 2012 and for her work in other volunteer services and her championing of human rights.
The Senior Volunteer award was shared. The first Senior Volunteer award was presented to Trevor Ryan for his service to Life Activities Whitehorse, Uniting Care Strathdon Community, the Stakeholders Advisory Group for the Healesville Freeway Reservation and the Mahoney's Reserve Pavilion Association. The second Senior Volunteer award was presented to Gary Brooks for his work at the Avenue Neighbourhood House @Eley tutoring students in the Refresh program that provides alternative learning options for disengaged youth, along with his work driving the bus and his organisation of fundraising efforts.
There were three recipients of the Volunteers Education award. Meagan Scotto received a Volunteers Education award for her work at the Heathmont Pre-School and Kindergarten as co-ordinator of the fundraising committee, with the kindergarten raising close to $100,000 in the last seven years. Michelle Arandall also received a Volunteers Education Award for her voluntary work at Whitehorse Primary School, where she supports all members of the school community and is a member of the school council and subcommittees. Michelle also provides tours of the school, organises sausage sizzles and volunteers in the school office every day of the week. The Uniform Shop team at Vermont Primary School, comprising Cris Battaglia, Amanda Berryman, Kylie King, Jess drew and Liz Blair-West, also received a Volunteers Education award for their sterling efforts in providing this much-needed service to the school community.
The Emergency Management Volunteer award was presented to the Fundraising and Transport Group at the Maroondah Unit of the Australian Red Cross, who provide patient transport to take people in need to medical appointments and organise local fundraising.
The Volunteers Environment award was presented to Peter Tatman for his contribution to the establishment and the protection of the Ronald E Gray Reserve in Nunawading, which is recognised for its remnant native vegetation and significant ecological values.
The Innovation in Volunteering award was also shared. The Falls Prevention and Wellbeing Volunteer program at the Peter James Centre received an Innovation in Volunteering award for their support of the clinical staff in caring for frail and elderly patients. The Marlborough Trail Blazers at Marlborough Primary School in Heathmont received an Innovation in Volunteering award for their work in promoting exercise to school students, educating students on preparing for exercise and supervising a before school running club along with organising healthy breakfasts after the run.
Two volunteers received a Long Term Commitment to Community Service award. Rhonda Davis received the award for her voluntary work in the kitchen garden and working with migrant and refugee students at Weeden Heights Primary School. Beryl Bloomcamp received the award for her service to the Mitcham Senior Citizens club. She joined in 1983 and has been serving as the club's secretary since 1990.
I congratulate each of the Deakin National Volunteer Awards 2012 recipients and thank them on behalf of our community for their outstanding efforts.
Casey Electorate: Country Fire Authority
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:57): The role that local CFAs play in our community is absolutely vital. I want to pay tribute to three of them in my electorate—Olinda, Kalorama-Mount Dandenong and Sassafras-Ferny Creek. I had the pleasure of attending, with my family, their Ridge Top Brigades Family Fun and Information Day on Sunday, 3 February. It was a great event that many hundreds of people attended to learn about better fire preparation for themselves and for the properties. I want to pay tribute to Elissa Jans, who did so much to organise the event. A lot of information was conveyed. All of the emergency services were there to give demonstrations and very practical advice on what each resident in the Dandenong Ranges in those areas that I mentioned can and should be doing to prepare in case of fire. It was also a fun day for many of the young children who turned up, including mine. They had lots of fire trucks—new ones, older ones and a few historic ones. There were fire truck rides and a bit of squirting of the hoses. It was great that they hosted this event, and I know that they do it annually. They do so much for the community. To all the volunteers in Olinda, Kalorama-Mount Dandenong and Sassafras-Ferny Creek, thank you for organising the event. More importantly, thank you for all of the time you give up and for your commitment on a daily and weekly basis in those communities in the Dandenong Ranges.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: Order! The House stands adjourned until 2 pm on Tuesday, 12 March 2013.
House adjourned at 16:59
NOTICES
The following notice were given:
Mr Bandt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 and the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992, and for related purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Windsor ) took the chair at 09:02.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (09:02): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013. When I was preparing my speech, I looked back at some of my previous speeches on appropriations—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr IRONS: I hear the interjection from the opposite side congratulating me on being here for so long! But it reminded me of when I did my first speech on appropriations, here in this very chamber back in 2008. The member for Oxley and the member for Melbourne Ports, after I had finished—they were 20-minute speeches at that stage—both derided me and said it was the worst appropriations speech they had ever heard from a new member. At that time, I was new and they were really getting stuck into me. I guess I will have to see what the decision is by the member for Chifley once I have finished today!
Anyway, these bills are another stark reminder of the fiscal waste, mismanagement and incompetence of this Labor government. This government does not know what state its books are in. It has billions of dollars in unfunded promises and a giant black hole caused by a shonky tax that cannot even raise money as a tax is supposed to. Projects around Australia, such as the Gateway, in my electorate of Swan, have been placed in jeopardy by this incompetent government. This is before we start to talk about the 'come hell or high water', 'no ifs or buts' surplus that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister promised us. These appropriations are just a hint of the extra money this government will call on to fund its election year promises.
The iconic Gateway project being conducted in my seat of Swan in WA provides a much-needed boost to infrastructure. Driven by the expected doubling of passenger air travel and road freight over the next decade, coupled with proposed consolidation of the Perth Airport terminals, this billion-dollar project involves a major upgrade to the road networks surrounding Perth Airport and the freight and industrial hubs of Kewdale and Forrestfield.
This is arguably WA's most important area of transport interchange and is central to the development, growth and continued economic expansion of the state and the nation. However, this is just one of the joint Commonwealth-state projects that have been thrown into turmoil by a thoroughly irresponsible government.
I recall that way back in 2011, when the minerals resource rent tax was being debated in this place, the reason for its necessity given by those opposite was needing the funds it would raise to pay for essential infrastructure projects such as the Gateway project in WA. In the lead-up to the 2010 election, I and the coalition, led by Tony Abbott, recognised that the Gateway WA project was essential to the development of Western Australia and Australia as a major infrastructure investment not only in the Perth area but in my seat of Swan. As such, the coalition pledged to fund the Gateway WA project without introducing a mining tax that would rip funds and wealth from WA. However, the Labor government used this infrastructure project to hold a gun to the heads of the people of Swan and Western Australia, where the mining tax was, is and always will be incredibly unpopular. The Treasurer, hiding behind a facade of fiscal responsibility, appeared on Perth ABC radio in 2011 and said:
Revenue from the MRRT does go to investment in infrastructure projects like the Gateway project in Western Australia around the airport. That is what it's all about, making the investments, particularly in these mining communities. If we don't have the revenue from the tax then we can't make the investments.
I repeat: he said, 'If we don't have the revenue from the tax then we can't make the investments.' I asked the Treasurer during question time on Wednesday how, given that the mining tax has raised less than 10 per cent of what was promised to help fund the Gateway WA project, the government would pay for the project given the Treasurer's strident insistence that without the tax investments could not be made. Unfortunately, the Treasurer seemed unable to answer this simple question, simply saying that the Gateway WA project is in the 2012-13 budget. Where the money will come from to fund this budget is another question entirely that the Treasurer seems incapable of answering. The Gateway WA project is at risk due to the Treasurer's and the Prime Minister's reliance on the MRRT, a tax based on a premise particularly insulting and damaging to WA that has barely raised any money.
The government has paraded its ministers around the Gateway project so many times they barely rate a headline. In fact, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was there a fortnight ago, on 1 February, to again primp the government's big spending initiative even though he knew the MRRT had not produced even one-third of the entire $680 million the government has pledged to provide the project with. I was at that particular event, and the minister for transport made sure I was in the photo. I am sure he will table it at some time in the next few weeks to show that I was there supporting the government and their project. During his speech at the event, more interesting was the omission of the phrases 'mining tax' and 'MRRT'; they were also omitted from his press releases relating to the funding of the Gateway WA project. It is essential that the minister and the Treasurer reaffirm their commitment to the Gateway WA project and address exactly where the funding will come from. Those opposite owe it to the Western Australian government—who are, together with the Commonwealth, funding this project—to be open, honest and up-front about whether or not the project will go ahead and be completed in time for the 2017 target Main Roads WA and the federal government have set.
I would like to reiterate once again my unwavering support for the Gateway WA project. During Wednesday's question time, the Treasurer stated that I did not support this incredibly important infrastructure development in my own electorate. This is quite simply untrue. It is essential that the Treasurer come forward and guarantee the completion of Gateway WA by informing the House and the people of Swan exactly where the money will come from to fund this project. Too often during this parliament we have seen important projects put off, cancelled or delayed indefinitely. Too often costs have blown out to astronomical proportions without any increase in quality or reduction in delivery time.
The town of Victoria Park was slated as one of the initial rollout sites for the government's ill-fated National Broadband Network. Construction for the NBN—wait and listen!—in WA first started 19 months ago. They started the NBN rollout in Western Australia 19 months ago, Mr Deputy Speaker! This week we heard in Senate estimates that not one—yes, not one—household in WA, South Australia or the Northern Territory has been connected to the NBN.
This is simply not good enough. I must confess that I am baffled as to how the NBN Co. can make such a mess of this project. NBN said that 12 months after construction commences, premises would be capable of being connected by fibre to the new broadband network. It is now 19 months on since construction began in some places in WA, and they have acknowledged that not one household is capable of being connected at this point.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr IRONS: Well, check the facts. They said it in Senate estimates. The member for Chifley is interjecting again, and I am just correcting him—check the Senate estimates. We still have no idea when Housing WA will have access to the NBN, and no idea if the NBN will actually be a cost-effective and viable option for the people of WA, who are struggling with increased costs of living brought on by this government's various tax hikes.
I have been contacted by various constituents in Teague Street, Victoria Park, in my electorate of Swan, who are fed up with the amount of time it has taken the NBN Co. and its contractors to complete work on their streets. I would like to read out one of the complaints I received on 3 December 2012 from a Teague Street constituent in relation to the drawn out and shambolic works being conducted:
Dear Steve Irons, I'd like to express my dislike of the NBN doing work down Teague Street right outside our home for weeks now with no progress seemingly to have been made. If it is taking that long down one street with no progress I think it is going to take years to do all of Victoria Park. I walk regularly each morning around Victoria Park and it looks like nothing is happening in any other street. They dug up and cemented outside our home and now the replacement cement has tyre marks in it so I have to look at that now forever. They did not finish it off you see and no one seems to want to do anything about it.
He then followed up with another email on 6 February, again in relation to the same situation in Teague Street:
This is with reference to the concrete with tyre marks in on Teague Street. We have a letter from Syntheo, prompted by Mr Irons, confirming they would, at the end of January, when they finish work on our small area of Teague Street, replace the defaced concrete which was not originally in that condition. After weeks of serious digging, two weeks ago, the work stopped and they left the street without honouring their original timeline.
Before the Christmas break they concreted certain areas only to dig at least three of them up again in the New Year. The piece we are asking to be replaced is only half the size of one of the sections they decided to dig up again.
The householders on the odd number side of our small section of the street would like to know if they are returning. Our neighbours have written asking the same questions. We would like to be able to ask questions of Syntheo as it is the tax payers who are funding this project.
Syntheo is circumspect in acknowledging our emails… We are saddened we have to pursue this but we feel that the NBN is being rolled out without adequate community consultation and blatant disregard for the anaesthetics to the surroundings.
Many nature strips once lovingly manicured are now piles of sand. This will look shocking if it is going to be undertaken in every suburb in Western Australia.
This situation is simply absurd. To top this mess off, residents in Victoria Park still cannot connect to the NBN. If this is the kind of incompetence and inefficiency that is typical of the NBN Co. and Syntheo I am not surprised we are experiencing constant delays with delivery and cost blowouts.
As the member for Wentworth and shadow minister for communications and broadband stated on 6PR radio in Perth yesterday, the coalition is not against the National Broadband Network. We will finish the National Broadband Network and ensure that all Australians have access to the very fast broadband. However, we will do it efficiently and cost effectively, and deliver a superior product at a fraction of the cost. The people of Swan are fed up with this government's inability to deliver on its promises.
Despite the complete disregard those opposite show for the expansion and growth of Western Australia and my electorate of Swan, I would like to close my speech by informing the House of the achievements of Rivervale resident, Alan Richardson OAM, who was awarded the Order of Australia medal as part of the 2013 Australia Day celebrations.
Mr Richardson has been a resident of Rivervale in the electorate of Swan for the past 55 years. Over this time he has contributed to his community in many significant ways, especially in the area of services to veterans, their families and the community of Belmont for which he was awarded the Order of Australia medal. Alan was president of the city of Belmont sub-branch and the Rivervale-Carlisle sub-branch of the Returned Services League and became a life member of Lions International in 1987. He served as a councillor for the city of Belmont from 1989 to 2004 as well as being the city of Belmont deputy mayor from 1996 to 1997 and again from 2003 to 2005. On top of this, Alan has been involved in volunteering for schools, kindergartens and sporting associations within the local community.
A father of five, Alan says his drive and enthusiasm in helping out the local community came from his nine years of service in the Australian Army. In an article in one of our local papers, Alan stated: 'I think that those who serve will continue to serve and that is my perception of the service. You get the comradeship, you serve in the army then you serve the community. I think as you get older you try to wean yourself off and bring other new people in and I know there are a lot there that will come forward and do exactly what I have done.' I was incredibly honoured to nominate Alan for this award and attend the Australia Day ceremony at the city of Belmont on Australia Day. Alan's humble community service is an example of an asset for everyone in the community.
I am proud of the community and the proud patriotic spirit that was displayed throughout my electorate on Australia Day. The overwhelming messages I receive when I am out in the community, though, are that small businesses are struggling under a mountain of red tape and families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Families of Swan want a government that delivers on policy not a government based solely on broad motherhood statements and aspirational goals, which are not backed up by funding or programs. A coalition government will deliver important reforms and get rid of taxes that are strangling development around Australia, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. In the short time I have left, I would also like to inform the House that we have been advised that the Great Eastern Highway project is going to be finished early which will be fantastic. The funding for the project was initially announced by John Howard during the 2007 election campaign and then followed up by the member for Griffith, who then became the Prime Minister four days later, with a commitment to that important infrastructure project in Western Australia. A lot of residents—
Ms Hall interjecting—
Mr IRONS: It is a joint venture with the state Liberal government—
Ms Hall interjecting—
Mr IRONS: Being overlooked by the state Liberal government. It was a commitment by both sides of politics to an important gateway to the city of Perth. The people of Perth will be extremely happy that it is going to be finished on time, if not before time.
Ms HALL (Shortland) (09:17): Firstly, I want to acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill passed through the House yesterday. Whilst I did not manage to speak in that debate, I would like to pledge my support for it and also my support for a referendum to have constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. Listening to the previous contribution in this debate, it really crystallised for me what it is all about. One side of this House opposes everything. It does not support the NDIS. It does not support the education legislation, Gonski—they are very dodgy on that. It does not support the NBN. It does not support the schoolkids bonus. It does not support the tax cuts to low-income earners. It does not support extra money for pensioners. It will not come clean on its position in relation to industrial relations.
On this side, we have a government that for the first time introduced legislation to make a real difference in the lives of people with disability; education reform—the first review of education in the last 40 years; delivery for aged care and pensioners; and workplace relations reform. This week we have seen legislation introduced that will increase flexibility in the workplace.
The government got rid of the Howard government Work Choices legislation that absolutely targeted workers that live in Shortland electorate and other electorates throughout Australia. It is an opposition that has no vision, whilst we have a government that has introduced groundbreaking legislation that will create a lasting reform within Australian society.
The NDIS: as a person who spent most of their working life working in disability, helping people live in the community or finding employment, I know the challenges that are faced by people with disability. I know that each and every day it is a challenge for them. I know that at the extreme end, where people have a very severe disability, it is a challenge for their parents and carers each and every day of their lives. I know that this legislation is welcomed by families and people with a disability. I urge those on the other side of this House to get behind this and work to deliver this to the Australian people.
Education: I looked on the computer this morning and I see $240 million extra for disadvantaged schools and quality teaching. I know from regularly visiting my schools and the most disadvantaged schools, how they have valued the extra money that has gone into them, particularly those low-SES schools, looking at literacy and numeracy. Big changes have taken place.
One of the schools in Shortland electorate has got the lowest SES in the whole of New South Wales. It is only a small Catholic school. There has been outstanding improvements because of the investment that has been put into that school and other schools that are disadvantaged within the Shortland electorate. I talk about the Shortland electorate but it is reflected nationwide, and those investments have made real differences in the lives of students. When they leave school and, as they progress through life, they will have many more choices than they previously had.
In my electorate, there has been massive investment in infrastructure in the schools. I have spoken about this a couple of times this week where there has been considerable money invested in schools through the BER program, through the computers in schools, through the national school partnership fund. There has also been nearly a $6 million investment in Floraville Public School with a capital works program. Every school has noticed a difference since this government came to power.
Members of the opposition talk about the BER in a very disparaging way. I can only say that within Shortland electorate it has been very welcome. More than one principal has said to me: 'This is once-in-a-generation investment in education.' You might ask why is infrastructure so important? Anyone who has looked at this issue will tell you that: if you have an environment that is conducive to learning, then students are going to thrive. So that is education.
We look at pensioners: they have had an increase of $172 per fortnight for a single; and a $182 for a pensioner couple per fortnight. Both single and couples' pensions have increased by over $4,000 since this government came to power.
The opposition, when they were in power, ignored the voice of pensioners. Pensioners said that they were doing it hard, they said that they could not manage, and the opposition chose to ignore them when they were in government. We listened and we said, 'Yes, pensioners are doing it hard, particularly single pensioners', so we delivered to them. Look at aged-care reform. We are poised to undertake the biggest change to the aged-care system that has been in place for a very long time—reform that will mean frail aged people will be able to access aged care within their home, reform that will mean that frail aged people will be able to have confidence in the aged care that they receive if they need to move into an aged-care facility, and the financial arrangements will be much better than they currently are. These are big reforms and reforms that are welcomed in the communities that I represent in this parliament.
Look at the Schoolkids Bonus. I have had so many emails from parents saying what a difference it made to them—how they are able to buy the shoes for their kids to go back to school, get the uniforms, get the books, get the rulers, the pencils all the things that schoolkids needs when they start a year—and how valuable it is to them. The fact that it is in two payments is something that they welcome. What is the opposition going to do? If they are elected they are going take away the Schoolkids Bonus. It is really not good enough. It is about delivering to families so that kids can go to school and have the equipment and the things that they need to succeed.
This government has delivered tax cuts to low-income earners. What is the opposition going to do? It is going to rip away those tax cuts. I am really worried about the impact that a coalition government would have on the communities that I represent in this parliament. I really think that you only have to look at their Paid Parental Leave scheme that is going to be delivering to mothers that are on incomes over $100,000 to see where this opposition is focused on. Look at their relationship with the mining companies and their commitment to support mining companies but at the same time making a commitment that they are going to take away the household assistance that has been delivered to pensioners. It is a very sad state of affairs when you have got one side of politics that is only interested in supporting those people that can afford to look after themselves as opposed to supporting the whole of the country—very disappointing.
I would like to turn quickly to health. Health has been an area where this government has invested over $20 billion extra and given money to the states to address the waiting times in hospital and issues in accident and emergency. I know that was money that was needed. I know from when I was on the Health and Ageing Committee and we delivered and tabled The blame game report. That report identified the need for extra money to go into primary healthcare. We have done that. There is the Medicare Locals and local hospital networks—all big reforms—as well as training more doctors and nurses. One of the areas where there has also been a massive improvement is in the area of bulk-billing. In my electorate it was under 60 per cent and now it is at somewhere up around the 80 per cent mark. That is really important when you represent an older electorate in parliament like I do.
There has also been investment in private practice through the Health Infrastructure Program and there has been a number of practices in the Shortland electorate that benefit from that. I will just mention two.
One practice at Jewells, the Jewells Medical Centre, received $500,000, which was the maximum grant. That centre has been transformed into a mini superclinic. It provides services across the board to the patients there and also caters for training of GPs. The other practice I would like to mention is the Windale Medical Centre. It received a smaller grant, but it is in a very disadvantaged area and it has upgraded the surgery so it can provide more services to that community, which is really welcomed.
Industrial relations is an area I would like to touch on very quickly. It is an area where there is a big difference between the government and the opposition. Yesterday the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations announced that there would be more flexibility so that new and expecting mums who wanted to work would receive better support. He also talked about increased entitlements for taking unpaid leave and allowing parents to choose when they would take that unpaid leave; protection for women at work by ensuring they can transfer to a safe job, where it is available; and ensuring that women who need to take unpaid special maternity leave prior to giving birth are not penalised. There are other flexibilities that have been introduced into the workforce that will not only benefit women but also older workers, encouraging them to remain in the workforce and, for that matter, recognising that families also from time to time need some flexibility.
That, along with removing Work Choices, is the government's record when it comes to industrial relations. The opposition's record is Work Choices and the refusal to say what they would do, whether or not they will reintroduce Work Choices. This week we had the Leader of the Opposition introducing legislation into this parliament that was not about providing better benefits and protections for workers but, rather, was about attacking unions. That side of the parliament is about attacking and saying no, whereas we on this side of the parliament are about delivering to people. We are about recognising that Australian communities look to government not only for ideas but for policies that will deliver, whilst those on the other side are all about saying no and failing to deliver to the Australian people.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (09:32): I am pleased to rise to speak on appropriations bills Nos 3 and 4. When we consider the appropriations bills we obviously consider questions of the general budgetary position and the government's budgetary strategy and performance. As we know, that performance has been dismal. There is no other word for the shameful string of deficits which this government has produced year after year—deficits which turn out to be vastly larger than originally projected. Of course, this year, 2012-13, was the year that we were boldly promised there would be a surplus of $1½ billion. That was what Treasurer Swan told the parliament and the nation in May last year, but before the end of last year he had to come out and admit that it could not be done.
The overall budgetary position is grim, reflecting mismanagement, lack of discipline and basic incompetence. But, even more troublingly, the true position is worse than that revealed in the budget numbers because of extra spending on entities like the National Broadband Network Company, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and others which is not included in the budget bottom line. In other words, the government's figures are based upon an accounting trick. They are spending this year, and for several years to come, billions of dollars more than is contained in the budget bottom line—the headline number that we all talk about.
But although that money is not included in the printed documents, the money is still to be spent and has to be paid for. How is it to be paid for? It is to be paid for through borrowing. The question therefore which presents itself is: what is the basis on which the government is engaging in this accounting trick? What is the basis on which the government is not including within what is colloquially called the budget bottom line or strictly the underlying cash balance significant spending, and is that accounting basis justified?
I want to make three points focusing particularly on the accounting trickery being used in relation to the government's equity investment in the National Broadband Network Company. The three areas I want to cover are: firstly, to review exactly how much is being spent on NBN; secondly, to look at what is Labor's stated excuse for not including that money in the budget bottom line in the underlying cash balance; and thirdly, to make the point that the evidence is increasingly clear that the accounting basis for not including that money in the underlying cash balance is threadbare indeed.
Let us start with the question of precisely how much money has been and is to be spent on the National Broadband Network. As at 30 June 2012, $2.832 billion had been spent and that was the cumulative injection of equity by the Commonwealth into NBN Co. That money had been spent over three years since 2009-10—in other words, on average over that three-year period almost $1 billion a year was being spent on the National Broadband Network, money which was not included in the published budget figures. Yet those are still dollars going out the door every day and still dollars that have to be repaid.
On just $1 billion a year so far, you might say: is that really a serious matter? Of course it is a serious matter, but the key point is it gets a lot more serious from here on in, because in 2012-13 the amount to be spent is $4.672 billion, in 2013-14 it is over $6 billion, in 2014-15 it is closer to $7 billion and in 2015-16 it is almost $5 billion. Beyond the forward estimates period there is another $5 billion which this government discloses it intends to spend. In the four years including this year, $20 billion will be spent on the National Broadband Network, but none of that money is included in the figures which Treasurer Swan has presented to the parliament and the people of Australia as he makes his claim as to the amount of deficit that the government will end up with at the end of the year.
Let us turn to the question of whether there is a good accounting basis for the approach that the government is taking to spending all this money but not including it in the published figures, not including it in the budget bottom line. What is Labor's excuse for not including this expenditure in the bottom line? Why is it that a major expenditure program like the National Broadband Network Company can be simply excluded from the budget? It is not just in the case of the National Broadband Network Company that we have seen this approach being taken—in fact, it is a technique that the Rudd-Gillard government are quite keen on. They have used it quite extensively and they have also done it with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which according to the government's press release will invest $10 billion in businesses seeking funds to get innovative clean energy proposals and technologies off the ground. Of course parenthetically we might note that the ripper business strategy here is to be a venture capital business investing in proposals that the private sector does not think will be viable investments. One can quite reasonably raise very serious doubts about the likelihood of very much of that money generating a positive return.
Nevertheless that has not troubled the government and they have used the same accounting treatment in relation to most of that $10 billion as they are using in respect of the money being pumped into the National Broadband Network. In 2011, officials of the Department of Finance and Deregulation told Senate estimates that most of that $10 billion will not be included in the budget bottom line. Following that estimates finance minister Wong put out a media release in which she quoted the words of one of the officials explaining the justification for not including that money in the budget bottom line:
So the extent to which the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is undertaking investments, and that's the Government's policy, then the majority of its activities will not impact upon the budget bottom line.
That of course is the same rationale that is being followed in the case of the National Broadband Network. The theory is that these are expenditures which are investments designed to secure a financial return. The theory is that this is money that is being invested into a business venture which is going to generate a positive return for the Commonwealth and in turn for the taxpayers of Australia.
A typical feature of this particular accounting strategy is that the money is allocated to a separate legal entity, typically as the acquisition of equity in that entity. That is what is being done with the National Broadband Network Co., that what is being done with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and a similar technique has been used with the Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd. If you are a government which is tempted to hide what ought to be ordinary annual expenditures, what ought to be moneys included in your budget as part of the routine expenditure and the spending of government, then the use of this particular accounting technique is obviously extremely attractive because it lets you pump a significant amount of money into ventures which are politically desirable, but you do not need to tell the Australian people that you are spending that money. Of course, the accounting treatment is one thing. What we need to do is look at the underlying economic substance and ask how valid it is to treat the payment of this money as an investment.
How valid is it to accept the assumption that every dollar the Commonwealth puts in in cash into one of these ventures such as the National Broadband Network Co. is being exchanged for a dollar of equity in the National Broadband Network Co. which has the same value. Or in fact, when we look at the substance of it, can we conclude that each dollar of equity is actually worth a whole lot less than a dollar because this is a dud investment, because the National Broadband Network Co. is performing very poorly and because we as taxpayers can have no confidence at all that the money which is being put into NBN Co. is eventually going to be returned? Let us be clear: that is the necessary requirement which must be established for this accounting treatment to be valid. Against that backdrop, let us ask the question: how good an investment is the National Broadband Network Co. turning out to be? The evidence is clear. It is a dud investment. It is an investment which is performing extremely badly and no objective observer could persuade themselves that it was likely to generate the requisite positive return based on the evidence we have seen today. Let us start with the financial track record.
In 2010-11, NBN Co. lost $323 million. In 2011-12, NBN Co. lost $504 million. Its cumulative loss by the time of the closing off of the books last year, 30 June 2012, was $923 million. To that point, taxpayers had put in $2.8 billion. What we have had is taxpayers putting in $2.8 billion and in three years roughly a third of that has vaporised, roughly a third of that has disappeared, roughly a third of that has gone. On the published accounts of NBN Co., $900 million just splashed up against the wall. You would have to be remarkably trusting, you would have to be remarkably credulous to believe that that $900 million is going to come back.
Then let us look at the operational track record of NBN Co. You might well say, 'Okay, it's losing money so far but it's performing so well operationally that we are confident that in due course it's all going to come good and the money is going to come back.' Let us remind ourselves that NBN Co. is supposed to pass 12.2 million premises.
As at December 2012 it had passed less than one per cent of the 12.2 million premises that it is supposed to pass. By the way, that is after 30 per cent of the time has elapsed between when it was announced and when it is supposed to finish at the end of 2020. Over 30 per cent of the time has elapsed, and less than one per cent of the premises that are supposed to be passed have actually been passed.
What about the number of people served on the fibre network? As at the end of December 2012 there were 10,400 premises with an active fibre connection to the NBN. That is a tiny number when this is a project that has been underway since 2009 and when we have already spent $2.8 billion plus the additional money that has been spent this year. By the end of this year, as we know, there will be another almost $5 billion that will have been pumped into it.
You might well say, 'The NBN Co. assures us that by June 2013 it is going to pass 341,000 premises, so they are starting to make a bit of progress.' Unfortunately, what we have seen from NBN Co. so far is a consistent record of overpromising and underdelivering. Remember: its first corporate plan, issued in December 2010, said that by 30 June 2012 it would pass 317,000 premises with fibre. The actual number was roughly one-eighth at 39,000. It is a consistent record of NBN Co. overprimising and underdelivering, and all the signs are that we are seeing that again. It is supposed to get to this 341,000 by June 2013, as I have mentioned. In estimates on Tuesday night the company admitted that there is a company called Syntheo, which was contracted to design and connect 66,000 premises in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory split into 25 fibre serving areas. Not one of these fibre serving areas has yet been switched on.
We might also look at how NBN Co. is going against its promised rate of progress. According to its corporate plan, the number of premises with an active fibre connection is going to increase from 3,500 as of 30 June 2012 to 54,000 by June 2013. As at December 2012 they had only reached 10,400. If you have to get from 3,500 to 54,000 in 12 months and halfway through that you have reached 10,400, you are not doing very well. In the telecommunications industry you monitor what are called run rates, and NBN Co. is well behind the run rate it requires to achieve its target.
The broader business plan that NBN Co. has is simply lacking in credibility. When we look at the financial position and the operational position, there is no good reason to be confident that NBN Co. is going to be an investment that delivers a return, and that means that the accounting treatment cannot be substantiated. Wayne Swan's budget bottom line is out by several billions of dollars this year because the money spent on the NBN is not being properly accounted for.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (09:48): I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013. No-one could imagine that I would be rising in this chamber just six short years since the coalition government ran successive budget surpluses, paid off $96 billion worth of debt and left this current government a $20 billion surplus, a $20 billion university fund and $20 billion cash in the Future Fund only to find we now face a situation where they have not only spent all that but have also spent almost $200 billion more. They have spent themselves into a huge hole. In doing that, they have spent Australia into a huge hole.
Were any of that spending being spent on lasting, economy-improving infrastructure that would actually boost our GDP, perhaps the alarm would not be quite as great as it is now. We have seen the Treasurer produce budget deficit after budget deficit. Of course. he has made promises that he will produce a surplus. The member for Longman, a young man—I think he is 22 years old—is still waiting for the first Labor surplus in his life. We need to see a government that can actually control its spending. This is not a government that can. It is a government that spends and spends and then introduces new taxes to try to make up for the enormous deficit that it has accrued.
It has completely wasted money. We just had the member for Bradfield talking about the NBN. I am a supporter of fast broadband. In fact, I already have fibre at my house. It is not operating at the moment. Perhaps it will again in the near future. But the reality is that in Toowoomba, where the broadband rollout is taking place, no-one is seeing it yet. There has been a lot of fanfare. There have been a lot of businesses saying how great that will be for them. But I am right in the middle of the quarter of Toowoomba that was going to get broadband a year ago. I doubt they even know where Kooroongah Street is. I have seen men and women in high-vis vests laying cable, but no-one is hooked up. Here we have again a situation where money is simply being wasted when there is a more-than-adequate alternative. For probably $30 billion less we could produce the same speeds for households, speeds of up to 100 megabytes, speeds which will allow movie streaming, downloading movies in a flash—not that some of us have time to do that, but our daughters are quite into that sort of stuff. We can do all of that far cheaper, far sooner and far more economically than the current proposal.
We have seen money wasted on pink batts—billions of dollars literally up in smoke. Unfortunately, lives were lost in the process. This is a government whose incompetence knows no bounds.
Look at what my electorate could do with just a small part of that $30 billion. The Deputy Speaker and I attended a seminar in Toowoomba last week. Toowoomba has reached the point where we have said we are not going to wait any longer for a second range crossing. We are not going to have 40,000 vehicles a day going through our main street. We are not going to see our roads in Toowoomba destroyed by heavy transport, the houses adjacent to those roads shaking. We are not going to see the risk to human life as mothers take their children to school and weave in amongst heavy transport and wide loads—all of which is great for Australia's economy. We support the development of, particularly, the Deputy Speaker's electorate, where we are seeing such phenomenal investment going on in the coal industry and the coal seam gas industry with a whole range of resource and primary industry projects. We just do not want the trucks in our main street. We want to be able to drive our cars down that street without being urinated on by cows in cattle trucks. I have had cattle. I know how that all works. I want to see them transported to market as much as anyone, but I do not want them in the centre of my city.
So the Deputy Speaker; the member for Toowoomba North, Trevor Watts; the member for Toowoomba South, John McVeigh; Mayor Paul Antonio of Toowoomba Regional Council; a range of civic leaders and I put on this day that is about closing the deal. We want a Toowoomba range crossing built now. We have been waiting and waiting. Had the coalition been elected in 2007, this range crossing already would have been started. Had we been elected in 2010, it would have been started. But what is the response from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport? The minister for transport just says no. He is not even vaguely interested in seeing the construction of this road—a road that will cost somewhere between $1.7 billion and $2 billion. If it is not in a capital city in a Labor seat, it is not going to be built by this government.
I make no apologies that we will be campaigning against the Labor government on a whole range of issues, including their absolutely atrocious financial mismanagement, with the aim of changing the government to a government which Australians trust, to a government which will do the things that Australians want it to do and a government that will do what it says it will do.
We will bring in place a government that will build the Toowoomba Range crossing. No other political party will guarantee that at the next election. We will. We have allocated $700 million. It will be $700 million well spent because the productivity gains out of the efficiencies in that infrastructure will be enormous. For a B-double truck travelling that route the savings in time will be almost half an hour. It will be perhaps even as much as three quarters of an hour for the larger loads. It is currently taking 80 minutes to travel from Withcott to Charlton on the western side of Toowoomba. That time will be cut to probably not much more than 20 to 25 minutes.
Apart from the social change that taking those transports out of town will have, the economic gain for Queensland and Australia will be enormous. So at the coming election we will be saying to the people in Toowoomba and on the Darling Downs and in Queensland, 'Do you want another government that continues to waste money, that builds school halls at highly inflated prices, that installs pink batts that have to be pulled out at the cost of billions of dollars, that sprays money away on an NBN that is not going to be able to do the sorts of things that people will want in the future? The people will want wireless, they will want to be remotely connected. They will not want to be tied to a wall. We will ask, 'Are you going to elect another government that will take us further and deeper into debt, that will not do what it promises it will do, or do you want a government that will actually deliver for the people of Australia, not just the people of inner Sydney and Melbourne but one that goes out into the regions?' That will be the choice for the people, not only in Groom and Maranoa but for people all across Australia. I sincerely hope that the people make the right choice because another three years of this government is another three years of the destruction of Australian small business and of business confidence generally.
We have seen, in the last 10 days, an extraordinary admission by the Treasurer, but we should not have been surprised. Those of us who understand business and how accounting and the taxation system works knew that when the Treasurer designed the RSPT and then quickly retreated. He assassinated the then Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, on the way through and then hastily did a deal where any outcome would have been fine—just tell me what you want and I will do it. So we had the negotiating genius and the economic genius of the member for Lilley and the Prime Minister going in and negotiating against three of the biggest mining companies in the world to produce a tax which, as we know, has produced no money.
Only the Labor Party could put in place a scheme to install pink batts in ceilings, then find it does not work and then have to pay $1 billion to get it out. That scheme pales into insignificance when you look at the incompetence of this government when it has put in place a tax that is supposed to raise $12 billion and it has raised less than $50 million in its first six months of operation.
How could you do that? Well, you go into a negotiation where you do not know what you are doing. You do not take the Treasury people with you because they might know what they are doing. You sit down and you negotiate with the likes of Marius Kloppers and David Peever and Mr Freyberg from Xstrata and you say, 'Okay, what do you want?' They say, 'Well, the first thing we want is all state royalties rebated. No cap.' That was the deal. Of course, that immediately opened it up for states to lift their royalties. What states do with their royalties is up to the states because the thing that is forgotten in all of this is that the resource actually belongs to the people of the state. It does not, as the Treasurer says, belong to the people of Australia. Each state, under the Constitution, owns its own assets, its own resources and therefore is able to set its own royalties—that is to value the value of those resources when they are extracted by companies.
That was the first major flaw and there was a little bit of logic in that. The second, though, was just beyond belief. Here we have a mining company with an asset that they may have built—and let us pick a number—for $400 million, $500 million, and let us say that it is an iron ore mine or a coalmine. Over the last year the value of that resource has probably trebled. In the case of coal, it may have even quadrupled, so the value on the day of that mine has obviously quadrupled as well. The company has already had the opportunity to depreciate the original asset under the taxation scheme so the three miners said, 'I'll tell you what, Mr Treasurer, why don't you allow us to depreciate it again, and not just at its original value but at today's market value?'
We know what has happened. The big mining companies that are particularly advantaged by this, who have got long-standing assets and large investments, just went snap, 'Thank you very much. If we are going to have a tax, we will take this one.' The rest is history. But what we are yet to see from this tax is when, even if commodity prices return, large companies are going to pay any tax. What they are doing at the moment is accruing credits and —again, another masterly deal by the Treasurer—these are not at CPI or the bond rate, but at the bond rate plus seven per cent. What a fantastic number! I would love to have money invested at those sorts of terms—bond rate plus seven per cent. So what we have seen already in the short six months, it is suggested, is that companies like BHP and Rio have already accrued billions of dollars of credits that they will be able to use against future MRRT liabilities.
There is only one solution to this economic chaos that we are suffering under with this current government and that is to get rid of it. If we want to turn Australia to a situation of stable economic management and surpluses, there is only one decision for Australia and that is at the election whenever it is between now and 14 September, we get rid of the current Treasurer and the current Prime Minister—and mind you, that may happen before 14 September, but I shall not digress into that—and install and Abbott-Hockey Prime Minister-Treasurership to ensure that Australia progresses. We must take away these random decisions that are made for political purposes and we must resume the steady economic management of this country. We must put Australia on a firm footing.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (10:02): At the outset I must thank the member for McPherson who has kindly agreed to the quick reorganisation of the speaking order, and my apologies that we did not actually communicate that to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that we are both here doing our respective House duty, it is a pleasure to be able to benefit from the cooperation and assistance of the member for McPherson.
I was not planning to speak but sometimes you hear things and you just cannot help yourself. I figure that it is important for us to be able to talk about a range of things that we are doing as the government for the benefit of the Australian people, but also at the same time put a skewer to some of the myths being peddled around during this debate. I think that it is important that people have the facts on the table and are able to make up their own minds about the state of affairs when it comes to the budget.
Coming from Western Sydney as I do, whenever you talk infrastructure it is a big deal, particularly in our region where there are nearly two million people, people with a range of different needs, infrastructure is very important whether it is alleviating transport congestion, improving the spread of economic development in our City of Sydney, improving health infrastructure or education, right through to communications infrastructure.
I am reminded of a really good piece that was written by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness Craig Emerson in the weekend's Australianwhere he contrasted the level of investment by this government in infrastructure compared to the level of infrastructure committed to by the Howard government.
He wrote about the fact, and remarks on the statistics, that this government is committed to about $36 billion in infrastructure, drawing off the economic conditions that we have compared to when the previous government had their share of the resources boom and what they took out of that resources boom for infrastructure. It was $7 billion under them; $36 billion under us. The other side of politics vacated the cities. By that I mean they got rid of the urban cities program where you would have seen us working with state governments to deal with the type of infrastructure issues that exist in urban areas, be they in what you would consider as the major cities or in what the member for Groom was talking about for his neck of the woods. He made reference, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your presence at various community functions and where you wanted to see improvements in your area.
The former government never committed to working with the states on those infrastructure issues that the Reserve Bank said would create the type of capacity constraints that would hold back the economy. The bank said there were two types of capacity constraints: either failure to invest in infrastructure or a failure to invest in people's skills and that those skill shortages would lead to inflationary pressures that would hold back the economy. That is what the Reserve Bank was saying early in the last part of the last decade. The former government failed to address it adequately, and I will come back to that point.
One of the best things we could do in this nation is to invest in telecommunications—information and communications technology—but in particular the infrastructure that supports it. The NBN is hands down great for our generation in terms of infrastructure investment, which will be transformed. If you look at the study done by Deloitte Access Economics on the type of economic wealth generated by having the internet and faster broadband speeds, it is estimated to be $50 billion today and will ramp up to $70 billion. It also depends on what report you refer to because IBM reckons it could go up $130 billion in due course. Either way, businesses being able to access high-speed broadband is critical.
The member for Groom used the line, 'We will do what we say we will do.'. The coalition said 19 times that they would fix broadband in this country and 19 times they failed. As the member for Groom said, 'We will do what we say we will do' but they could not even deliver broadband. I am so tired of hearing, and I am conscious of the Deputy Speaker's political affiliation, Liberal and National Party members come into this chamber and complain about poor communications in their area, yet, also in the same breath, complain about the NBN. Either they do not like it, bizarrely, or it is not coming out fast enough to their area. Or, it is in their area—as the member for Groom said, 'I've got cable in my area and we are not connected.'. Has he bothered to look at one of the 500 plans from retail service providers that allow you to connect to the NBN, give you the pricing for it and that have been shown to deliver the type of value that ADSL provides but with a faster download and upload speeds?
I would forgive the member for Groom because as he even said, he is not a technology guru; he leaves that to his daughters, as he said. But the plans are out there. They are much more efficient in the data download and they provide the faster speeds. Importantly for regional Australia—and this is why I love what we are doing with the NBN—it will not just be concentrated in the cities. The regions will get the benefit either through fibre or through wireless or through satellite. This ensures that regardless of where we live this nation can tap into modern telecommunications or broadband infrastructure to ensure that we all are able to see a benefit flow out of that.
The member for Bradfield and I are of different political views but have a deep regard for the ICT sector in this country and see the value of telecommunications to this nation. But he should not be entitled to get up in here and use terms like 'accounting trickery' when he refers to the NBN being off budget.
If you look at most government business enterprises, they are not on budget. This has been remarked upon by the minister for finance on a number of occasions. This is not accounting trickery. This is a form of practice to deal with this situation that was managed by the previous government and is also respected by this government, and it is not trickery. For them, they employ these type of devices to simply mislead the public, and it is not right that it is done and they need to be called out on it. Members of the coalition mislead, for example, on the pace of the rollout, yet ignore the fact that the ACCC made a critical decision on the points of interconnecting, increasing the number from 14 to 121 and that involves massive redesigns of the network, with the size of the network that it is, and it requires time. They ignore the fact that it involves one of the biggest corporate agreements signed in recent times, the Telstra NBN agreement, that will allow access to ducts and allow us to roll out the network. It will minimise the type of disruptive work that the member for Swan was talking about earlier in his neck of the woods, to ensure that we do not have, for instance, competing telecommunication networks or broadband infrastructure running down both sides of the street, but that we use and share the existing ducts where that is possible to do so. It takes a lot of remediation work. We have a Telstra network that has been, in part, upgraded, and in other parts it is basically running into grief. This takes time. It is not mentioned by them, because there is a political objective there.
When you look at that infrastructure spend there is a lot to be proud of. Look at our healthcare agreement. In our area, in Western Sydney, I am proud of the fact that in Mount Druitt Hospital we have invested over $2 million in new subacute beds. We invested in new equipment, in paediatric equipment and a new CT scanner for our hospital. I continue to press for an upgrade of that equipment as well, to see that we get an MRI machine in that part of Western Sydney where residents, whom I have been lobbying on behalf of, want to see improved equipment. We have invested, for example, in the Primary Care Infrastructure Grants process, whereby the Rooty Hill Medical and Dental Centre, as well as the Mount Druitt Medical Centre, are seeing investments in those practices that allow them to offer not only a wider range of hours but also a wider range of services to residents to ensure that we take the pressure off emergency departments. That is what we have invested in, and only two weeks ago the state government in New South Wales decided it would take out $20 million from the Western Sydney Local Health District.
We are making investments. We have put in an investment into a superclinic. We have put in an investment into the UWS clinical school at Blacktown Hospital. We are trying to do things to make it easier for people to get health care. The other side of politics at the state level has basically announced it is taking funds and jobs out.
We have invested in education. Sixty-seven schools in our electorates have benefited to the tune of $137 million through the course of the BER upgrades. I suspect that in all these other non-government held electorates where we have had these investments, I am sure those opposite are turning up for the openings. I am sure they are hearing from parents and teachers what a huge difference it makes. But we still keep hearing the mantra in here when they are away from their electorates that this has been a waste of money, but not when people can see what this has done in terms of transforming education environments. For example, in my area at Bidwell Public School 30 classrooms were totally renovated. These are the single biggest investments in those schools, in terms of transforming schools, since their opening years ago. Parents and teachers can take pride in the quality of their language rooms, their science labs and their new libraries, and their multipurpose halls that allow for community activity and are able to be a focal point for communities. These are great things that are being done.
We are investing in education. We have a national school improvement plan that will see an even further investment, particularly with a focus on teacher quality. On the other side of politics at the state level, they cut $3 billion without even saying at the previous state election that they would do it. We are investing, they are taking away.
We are providing jobs, they are taking away—no commitment, no offer, no promise, no advice, no warning that they would cut state Public Service jobs either in New South Wales or across the border in Queensland. Now we have no commitment from them to be able to provide the type of detail that the public deserve to have leading into an election. What we have is a federal coalition saying that they would do exactly what the Queensland government did when it assumed office: create a commission of audit and then go from there. That commission of audit, as we well know, led to massive job cuts in the home state of the member for McPherson and you have seen the type of dislocation that has occurred there. The exact same recipe is being promised at the federal level, where we have a shadow Treasurer who effectively endorsed what Campbell Newman did.
We are investing in communities, we are investing in neighbourhoods, we are seeing improved health and education outcomes, we are seeing an investment in infrastructure which contrasts with the previous government, which failed to invest in infrastructure. The previous government, for example, instead of investing in TAFEs decided to create a duplicated system through its Australian training colleges and there are huge legacy issues we are trying to deal with on that. The previous government failed to invest in health and underinvested to the tune of a billion dollars and we have put that investment in. There are no commitments from those opposite other than to criticise and there is no ability to demonstrate what they do. I think people should be aware of that.
Going back to the NBN, people keen to see the plan rolled out, if they have called for fibre to the home, should not be treated so shabbily. I note here that in delimiter.com.au the shadow communications minister referred to people who support the investment in the NBN as pro-NBN zealots who are encouraging tech savvy citizens to want the ultimate broadband. This is from the shadow communications minister, who is going around berating people because they want to get fibre to the home instead of the coalition policy, which is fibre to the node or what I like to call 'Why one-lane highways are a good idea', because effectively that is not finishing the job. We will see congestion impact on the network and we will ensure that we do not have proper investment in telecommunications technology.
We have a series of plans and a failure either on their own record previously to invest properly or a failure to demonstrate where they intend to. I am very proud of the things we have done, be it the Schoolkids Bonus, which they said they will get rid of, be it the superannuation support we have provided, where they are slugging low-income earners, be it the improvement in the tax-free threshold that they are going to get rid of—there is a whole host of things that benefit people that will be ripped away should those opposite gain government.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (10:18): I rise today to speak to Appropriation Bills (3) and (4) 2012-13. The bills before the House seek to appropriate a total of $1.27 billion for government departments and agencies, with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) seeking to appropriate $600.8 million and Appropriation Bill (No. 3) seeking to appropriate $666.36 million. Australians know for certain that this government's economic credibility is close to non-existent after it failed attempt to deliver a surplus this financial year. Despite having a debt of $147 billion in 2011-12 and spending $90 billion a year more than the Howard government did in its last year, the government is unable to face a fact that has spending and a forecasting problem. Rather, the government blames its problems on the fact that Australian families and businesses are not paying enough.
By the Treasurer simply doing the mea culpa on the surplus promise, a promise that was repeated almost 650 times by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and himself, he has now cleared the way for this government to continue with its wasteful spending regime without limitation.
Australians deserve better and they deserve a government that will respect the hard-earned money of taxpayers. But most importantly, they deserve a government that looks towards the future with optimism and a willingness to take hold of the opportunities that come its way.
I would like to speak specifically about this last point and to speak specifically about the opportunities facing the Gold Coast, and in particular the southern Gold Coast, which is the area that I represent. The Gold Coast is a continuously growing city, with estimates suggesting that the population will increase by 13,000 to 16,000 people per year, with a population of over 730,000 expected in the year 2026. With an increasing population, it is important that we consider what opportunities will come up for the Gold Coast and its citizens and what is the best way to harness those opportunities. Traditionally tourism has been the strongest industry on the Gold Coast; but it has very unfortunately suffered a downturn in recent years for a variety of reasons, which include the impact caused by natural disasters, the global financial crisis and the high Australian dollar.
Recent figures released by Tourism Queensland are encouraging for us, though, showing that the tourism industry is starting to recover. Domestic visitors to the Gold Coast stood at 3.457 million for the year ending September 2012, which was an increase of five per cent, and international visitor numbers for the same period rose by three per cent to 745,000. That is positive and good news for us on the Gold Coast, but the tourism market is very competitive. The Gold Coast cannot afford to rely on just its beaches and our theme parks to attract visitors, particularly if we want those visitors to stay for the much-needed extended stays. The Gold Coast must broaden its appeal, and to do that it needs to look at what is available that could be further expanded, and what could be developed to attract the tourists and to keep them coming back to visit us.
This is where I believe the southern Gold Coast has opportunities and where the Gold Coast City should be focusing in the future. The southern Gold Coast is already different to the central and the northern parts of the Gold Coast, and we really need to start capitalising on these differences. One opportunity for us is to develop a significant dive site. Ex-navy vessels were available last year, but the cost of scuttling a vessel was considered to be unaffordable at the time. However, it is still possible for us to establish an artificial reef off the coast. This would be, in the first instance, a more cost-effective option for us. We already know that dive sites generate significant tourism revenue. We have the evidence of that from the scuttling of the HMAS Brisbane. There was a comprehensive academic study conducted by Vikki Schaffer from the University of the Sunshine Coast in March 2011. What that showed was that it was estimated that the HMAS Brisbane Conservation Park hosted approximately 19,000 scuba divers in the four years after the scuttling in 2005. Only 13 per cent of the divers were local—residing in the Sunshine Coast region—and 18 per cent of the divers came from overseas. The direct expenditure associated with users of the conservation park averaged $4.32 million per year over the four years of August 2005 to June 2009. So it was a significant benefit to the Sunshine Coast region where that Navy vessel was scuttled. Clearly, a naval vessel would provide a much greater attraction than what an artificial reef would, so it would be expected that the economic benefit would be less with the artificial reef; but it would still be something that we could establish and, if it could be afforded at a later stage and if a vessel was available, we could certainly look at scuttling that vessel in the vicinity of where the artificial reef is already established. There is widespread support for that concept, particularly on the southern Gold Coast. It really is something that we need to take action on immediately and just make it happen, so that we can start to perhaps bring in a different kind of tourist into the Gold Coast who would perhaps stay for an extended period of time and continue to come back.
There are other options to boost tourist numbers and add to the total visitor experience. I guess that is what we are looking for in tourism now: we know that tourists do not necessarily come for just the one thing, they want the entire experience of a holiday when they go somewhere. We need to be able to provide a range of options for them on the Gold Coast to add to their experience.
Some of the things that we could be looking at would be the development of a world-class great walk through appropriate parts of our hinterland and a walk of fame in Kirra and Coolangatta recognising our surfing greats, but certainly not limited to just our surfing greats. Other options include an open air cinema being established. These are only a few of the options that are available to us on the Gold Coast, particularly on the southern Gold Coast. Great work is being done by the Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce led by the Chairman, Gail O'Neill, and by Connecting Southern Gold Coast with their new CEO Peter Doggett. and by their respective members and boards. Of course, on the Gold Coast there are many other tourism focused organisations that are working to build this vital part of the Gold Coast economy. I congratulate all of them on their work, because I know that they are doing the very best that they possibly can to promote tourism on the Gold Coast.
It is time for a coordinated approach to make sure that we make these ideas happen and that we do boost tourism on the Gold Coast. If we are to strengthen tourism on the Gold Coast—and we must do that—we must also strengthen our public transport system. The Gold Coast airport's projections are that over 16 million passengers will pass through that airport by 2031-32. Before then, we will see the 2018 Commonwealth Games being held on the Gold Coast, and, as I mentioned, the population is expected to surpass 700,000 people. In all of our discussions and debates about public transport on the Gold Coast and the needs of tourism, we must make sure that the needs of our residents are taken into account as well, and that we make sure that the public transport system is going to suit the needs of the residents and those who commute from the Gold Coast to Brisbane. It is not just the tourists that we need to look after on the Gold Coast. We must look after our residents and make sure that we have a viable public transport system to meet those three purposes when you include the commuters.
The Gold Coast City Council has recently closed its public submissions for its draft transport strategy in which they note that by 2031 there will be a light rail network from the north of the city to the Gold Coast airport. However, with regard to heavy rail, the draft transport strategy states:
We support extending the heavy rail line to Elanora and building new rail stations at Yatala, Ormeau North, Pimpama, Hope Island, Parkwood and Mirrimac. This would allow for the introduction of an all-stops suburban rail service between Beenleigh and Elanora to support the Brisbane to Gold Coast regional rail service. It is also important to preserve the heavy rail corridor to the Gold Coast Airport for construction beyond 2031.
That is a very long time before there are public transport options for the southern Gold Coast—it is 18 years. That is a very long time for us to wait, and we desperately need to do something with public transport. Our commuters have to rely, particularly in the section from Tugun to Varsity, on the M1, which is seriously congested. They can pick up the heavy rail further north at Varsity, but it is already quite loaded. We have got a long time to wait for the light rail to come through to the southern Gold Coast. I believe we need to look at a rapid bus system that could achieve the objectives of dealing with the public transport issues on the southern Gold Coast and act as an interim, but perhaps as a permanent measure, whilst we wait for the light rail to come to the southern end of the Gold Coast. I believe that it would be cost effective. I have spoken to a number of businesses; I have spoken to the council, and I think that it is something that we again need to turn into a reality to start addressing the public transport needs of the southern Gold Coast, and to make sure that we do not continue to be overlooked, that there is not a Southport-centric approach to public transport whilst the southern end of the Gold Coast continues to wait.
I would like to touch on an issue that is particularly important to many individuals and many families on the Gold Coast. That is difficulty in securing employment.
Unemployment on the Gold Coast was 5.7 per cent for the month of December with a 12-month moving average of 5.6 per cent, which is comparatively higher than the national average. There are new figures for the southern Gold Coast due out today, so I will be looking at those and analysing to see what we can possibly do with that. Hopefully we will start to see a change in the trend. The lowest unemployment rate for the Gold Coast in the last five years was 2.3 per cent back in January 2008, right off the back of the Howard government. Under Labor, the unemployment rate hit a high of eight per cent in March 2011 and has not gone back to the levels of 2.3 per cent even though granted it has come down.
Unemployment is a significant issue on the southern Gold Coast, but underemployment is certainly an issue that we need to be mindful of. It is an issue that is not recorded by the ABS and we have to rely on anecdotal evidence. But what I know from the people who have told me—often it is women raising the issue—is that they are available to work additional hours, be that on a part-time basis or on a casual basis, but they are unable to secure any employment to do that. They are a hidden statistic. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the underemployment rate on the Gold Coast—as it is in many parts of Australia—is quite high. What we need to do to address that is to increase the economic performance of the Gold Coast. I have touched on tourism and hopefully there will be some major infrastructure projects that would provide employment for us too.
The final issue that I can deal with, given the time remaining today, is the opportunities for the Gold Coast for fly-in fly-out into the mining sector. I am aware of the report that has come from the Housing Standing Committee on Regional Australia. I have looked at that. I put a submission into it and I am aware that there were submissions from other representatives on the Gold Coast too. It is an opportunity for us. I understand all of the issues that are happening with regional Australia. The reality is that if additional workers are needed and they are unable or unwilling to live in the local area, then we need to source them from other parts of Australia. The Gold Coast has a labour market that would be well suited, particularly to the construction phases of the mine sites. These workers are willing to attend. We have had expos on the Gold Coast. About 10,000 attended the last expo about 12 months ago. There are people who are ready, willing and able to work in the mining sector on a fly-in fly-out basis, and who may well be attracted to the mine sites and choose to live there at some stage in the future. What it does is provide an opportunity for employment for the Gold Coasters, who most desperately need it and would take the opportunity and welcome it with open hands. I would like to encourage our mining companies to look at the Gold Coast to recruit into the future.
Government members interjecting—
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (10:33): Deputy Speaker, you do have a lot to put up with. I rise to speak on the appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4. These bills seek to appropriate another $1.27 billion from consolidated revenue for additional expenditure requirements that have arisen since the May budget. They truly highlight the government's woeful economic performance. More money is being borrowed to pay for the failures of the Rudd and the Gillard governments. Labor has clocked up the four biggest budgets deficits in history with a cumulative total of $172 billion given they started with a $20 billion surplus, no net debt and $70 billion in net assets. Countries such as Germany, Chile, Korea and Norway have been able to achieve a budget surplus facing the same international economic environment as Australia, yet this government has failed to do the same, despite having far more resource income per capita and enjoying the highest terms of trade in 150 years while inheriting a budget surplus, no debt and money in the bank from the previous coalition government.
The list of failures from this government is a long one: border protection; pink batts; cheques to dead people; the carbon tax; the mining tax; and, of course, to the promised but it would seem not to be delivered budget surplus. It has been promised 650 times but it has not been delivered and recent times seem to show that the Treasurer has simply given up. How can the Australian public trust government when they continue to make promises and then break in each and every time? Is it incompetence? Is this dishonesty? I think we have to assume that it is both.
The government is spending money—and has always—before it has it. Take the mining tax. The original mining tax was meant to raise $12 billion in the first two years. It has raised $126 million so far. That is gross revenue. Once you deduct the $50 million the ATO had to spend on administering the MRRT and you add the $38 million that the government would have raised through company taxes anyway, it turns out that the mining tax has in fact raise less than two per cent of what was projected last May. We said at the time that it was a disaster for the mining industry and a disaster for Australia—and it has been. We have seen any amount proposed investment put on hold or abandoned—in part because of the threat of the mining tax. Each year that the government has revised downwards the revenue they expect, the bottom line is that the revenue has been falling.
What we have pointed out is that the government has committed and locked in expenditure against revenue that is simply not there. The government really does not have an economic plan; but it does have spending and forecasting problem. It constantly assumes unrealistically high levels of future revenues, spends at those levels and then cries, 'Woe is me!' when the forecasts do not come to fruition. One can only assume a total lack of ordinary business acumen—a total lack in government ranks of people who have actually dealt with small business, or big business if it comes to that, where you actually assume some caution in your business life. You actually assume some caution when you do your budget. You do not have to be an accountant, you do not have to be a world renowned economist to use caution rather than spend on an assumption that things will not change.
The most glaring thing in the current government is a lack of knowledge and experience within their ranks and an unwillingness to listen to business that seems to push them to levels of spending which are quite incomprehensible. It is as though debt does not really matter. Business will have to pay it back in the long run. Most things are paid for by the ordinary taxpayer who pays tax every week out of their wage. Those are the people the government pretends to be looking after. It is the highest spending government in Australia's history. They have announced 27 new or increased taxes since coming to power, and nobody has been hurt more by this than small business.
Small business in Calare or small business on the Gold Coast—we are all getting belted by it. NAB's quarterly business survey and the latest ABS retail trade data has highlighted that small businesses right across the country are doing it so tough, with families facing cost of living pressures and spending less because they have no confidence. I have never seen a government in my whole life which has had so much effect on the confidence of small business and the people to whom they look to as customers. People are not spending not because they are all out of work—most of them still have a job and the same level of income they had. But, by gosh, they are not spending it. There has been no growth in retail spending for the last five months of 2012. Consumers are tightening their belts and making sure they have enough money to pay for their ever-increasing electricity bills, which this government proudly can say they have had a big hand in making happen.
Recently a constituent from Bathurst in the Calare electorate brought his power bills for the past year into to the office. I was shocked: his latest bill was three times that for the previous quarter. That is astounding. Of course this bloke was very distressed and wondering how he could afford it. How can anyone afford increases like that to their cost of living? I have said all along that households in Calare simply cannot afford to pay for Labor's and Julia Gillard's carbon tax, which is driving up the cost of living like nothing else. They say it has been a soft landing; it has not been a soft landing if you live in Calare. I doubt it has been a soft landing in South Australia or on the Gold Coast either.
The latest data from the ABS shows that during 2012 the cost of electricity rose 17.7 per cent, and the cost of gas and other household bills rose 17.3 per cent. And now there is proof that the carbon tax is having a very significant effect on businesses through energy costs. In a report released by the AiG, the Australian Industry Group, a survey found that manufacturing businesses estimated an average rise of 14½ per cent in energy cost increases—this makes a little bit of a mess of the Gillard government's predictions of 10 per cent; Minister Combet must have tripped that morning when he came up with that figure—with many unable to pass on cost increases. In fact, I can assure you businesses, processors and growers are finding it impossible to pass on costs. In fact, the two big supermarkets refuse to accept them, the processors therefore cannot accept them, and so what happens? The producer gets less for his articles.
Manufacturing businesses in my electorate of Calare are all too familiar with the trend. One of the biggest manufacturing businesses in Orange, Electrolux, has been given six months to prove they can produce fridges as cheap as or cheaper than production lines in Thailand and other parts of the world, or face possible closure. I am talking about an historical employer in the region; it has been there since World War II. There are about 600 staff employed directly at the plant and, obviously, there are transport businesses and many other businesses associated with it in some way. The carbon tax has played a huge hand in this development. It was only five years ago when I met with the then manager of Electrolux in Orange. He was extraordinarily upbeat. Electrolux were producing not only big fridges, they were also producing smaller ones. They were doing it competitively and they were travelling extraordinarily well. But there was a difference five years ago. They were not paying a carbon tax on everything they used during production, on the use of electricity in their factory. It is an amazing thing. On 1 July, the current manager said to me: 'The increase of $20 per fridge is not a huge percentage of the cost of the fridge. But, by heaven, although we have an advantage over our biggest competitors, which are nearly all from Korea—Samsung and the like—because people know we are an Australian brand, they know it is made here and so we can handle the fact that we may be $40 or $50 dearer than the others, but when you add another $20, which the carbon tax does to our disadvantage, suddenly it is all too much. People say, "I can wear 40 bucks for an Australian fridge, but I can't wear 70."' And that is what has happened.
This government, time after time, may talk about the carbon tax as only adding two or three per cent on the cost, or 10 per cent or whatever it is. That is true of the total cost, the gross cost or the gross income, but it is a huge amount of a company's profits. I can go on a lot more about that. It is a huge amount of your profit—if you are making one. More than 27,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector since the announcement of the carbon tax. That is evident in Calare. As I said, we now have 600 jobs on the line unless this plant can be cheaper than Thailand in the next six months.
The carbon tax is a reverse tariff on Australian industry and its resulting in a significant loss of competitiveness for those that are trade exposed. I think this is an incredibly frightening example. It is going to be a stressful six months for us all.
Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, promised to fix three major policy failures of the Rudd era when she knifed the former prime minister in 2010: the mining tax, asylum seekers and climate change, which was not going to be an issue under the government she led. All three areas are now much bigger problems than when she started: Kevin started them and she has made them worse.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): The member for Calare is reminded to refer to members by their parliamentary titles.
Mr JOHN COBB: The former Prime Minister started them and the current Prime Minister has made them far worse. Debt levels continue to rise and the government continues to pull money out of consolidated revenue to pay for policy failures.
The coalition can be trusted to restore public finances and public confidence. We will do this by scrapping the carbon and mining taxes and we will do this by showing people that we can stop the boats—we stopped them once and we will stop them again. The last Labor government took 14 years to knock up $100 billion debt. It took us 10 years to pay that back and another two years to leave $70 billion for the next Labor government to get rid of and add another $170 billion in debt. We will do it again, but the sooner we do it the sooner we can restore this country to some confidence and some competence.
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (10:46): When one gets up in this place one never knows whether it will be the last time that one will speak, because we all know what is going on on the other side: the instability, the leadership problems and a lot of gossip and rumour going around the place. I know the member for Chifley, who is in this chamber, would know exactly what I am talking about. It is very interesting, because even though the Prime Minister got up and announced that we will be having an election on 14 September, I am very doubtful that we will wait that long for an election. The knives are out for the Prime Minister, and unfortunately this government is not doing the right job.
I have been in this place for nearly 15 years. During that time I have been in a lot of appropriation debates and they generally go along a set pattern with members of the opposition saying they are not happy with what money is being appropriated for their electorates. I can honestly say that myself this time, because I used to get record funding for roads. I used to get the highest amount of funding for aged care for my electorate, but not under this government. This government is doing things on the political side, not based on what is needed. One example is in the electorate of Canberra, where one of the infrastructure products was recommended in the top five in Australia, but there was no funding for it because Labor is taking Canberra for granted. These appropriation debates are marked by opposition members saying spending is not good enough, and government members getting up and saying how wonderful it is that the government is spending money in their electorates. Interestingly the Labor government has run out of speakers to say how wonderful things are in their electorates. Obviously they have given up the ghost.
Let us look at the NBN which is one of the so-called flagship policies of this Labor government.
We only have to look to see that since this government, the Rudd-Gillard government under the two leaders, came into office they have taken the budgetary position backwards at a rate of knots. The $150 million debt is a result of five years of profligacy and ill-discipline with not knowing how to manage money and, frankly, as I said earlier, it is a government too distracted by infighting and leadership manoeuvres with not enough attention being given to good administration and the business of governing.
That is really what the government in Canberra should be about, the business of governing and good administration. We have seen it already with the mining tax. You had the Treasurer and the mining minister go behind locked doors with the three big miners and make decisions without the benefit of public service members behind them who would be able to look at the figures and make the projections. And what have we ended up with? A joke, an extra mining tax, I might add, that is not doing anything as far as raising funds for this government to spend in the usual way they do, without due concern as to what is sensible.
It is a government too distracted by that infighting and leadership manoeuvres. In great contrast, the coalition is committed to paying back the debt, getting it all back on track. We have form on this. When we first came into government in 1996, we had $96 billion worth of debt and we had the $10.8 billion black hole in the budget. I think this is a very interesting story. If you look at the history of Australia since Federation, since 1901 we have actually had to build a new capital, we have had to build a defence force that was national and we have had to fight two world wars and be in a few other skirmishes. But in the 90 years from 1901 to 1991 this government accumulated just $16 billion worth of debt but from 1991 to 1996 the Labor government with Hawke and Keating replicated that $16 billion of debt, which took 90 years, every year for the next five years. They went from $16 billion to $96 billion in five years. We know how hard it is to pay off because it took us a number of years to pay off that debt, but we will do it again. We have done it before and we will do it again. As a result of that when we left government there was $40 billion in the bank and we were not paying $7 billion or $8 billion every year in interest—generally to overseas banks—and we were able to spend that on services to the people of Australia and, of course, on income tax cuts. So we are committed to paying back that debt and getting Australia back on track.
On hundreds of occasions the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have promised to bring the budget back to surplus and, of course, they have broken that promise. This is typical of the Labor Party: all talk and no results or, as the good Aussie saying says, all sizzle and no sausage. A prime example of Labor's waste and incompetence is the Labor government's $50 billion National Broadband Network white elephant. That is $50 billion of borrowed money—not on the budget but off budget—with no cost-benefit analysis. As Paul Kelly, one of the most respected journalists in Australia, said in November 2010:
There is no escape from the core conundrum: Labor boasts the NBN as the nation's greatest infrastructure project, yet denies the inquiry to test whether it is financially viable.
This is typical of Labor's approach. They just do not know how to manage money. Originally half a million households were forecast to be using the fibre network by mid-2013. We are nearly there but only one tenth of that number is now expected to be connected.
NBN Co. earned $2 million from selling broadband in 2011-12—its first revenue. Since 2009, NBN Co. has recorded losses of $923 million and the government has invested $2.8 billion. That is not a very good return—in fact it is no return at all, a negative return.
The coalition's consistent criticism of the NBN Co strategy is that it will cost far too much money and take far too much time to complete the broadband upgrade, but it is the coalition that is totally committed to ensuring that all Australians have access to very fast broadband. However, because we would take a more businesslike approach to the project we would deliver it sooner and at less cost to taxpayers and, therefore, more affordably to consumers than Labor's doomed process will.
NBN Co. has sought to create the impression that it is ahead of its targets when in fact it is not. They have invented this nonsense metric of premises where construction either has commenced or been completed. The only meaningful metric is the number of premises actively connected and the number of premises that are passed by the fibre network that can be connected at the customer's request in a very short time.
Whilst the government is keen to talk up the productivity benefits of the NBN, it fails to acknowledge that this is a snail's pace construction project. By its delays it is continuing to deny all of those benefits to millions of Australians who are waiting and waiting and waiting. In my home state of South Australia there are just nine fibre-serving area modules; construction began between June 2011 and March 2012 but not a single site is ready for service yet. So what is the government's response to the cost, the schedule blow-outs and the inability to deliver? Their response is an expensive advertising campaign. That will fix it. In the May estimates, the NBN claimed that its overall marketing spend for 2011-12 would be $8 million. Yet, in its latest annual report, NBN Co. listed communications and marketing campaigns as costing not $8 million but $11.2 million in 2011-12. That is 38 per cent more than was stated at estimates in May. In the 2012-13 MYEFO, the government announced that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy will spend $20 million on advertising for the NBN. Why would you spend $20 million in advertising a project unless you are trying to make the government look good—much better than it really is. That is on top of the $20 million spent by the department in 2011-12. The Department of Finance and Deregulation reported that the NBN campaign was the third most expensive across all agencies.
The coalition has a better way. We will conduct a fully transparent cost-benefit analysis to assess the quickest and most cost-effective means of upgrading fixed line broadband in all areas of Australia where services are currently substandard or unavailable. We will deliver superfast broadband using whichever technology is appropriate and cost-effective and make use of existing network structure whenever possible. This will ensure that fast broadband is delivered sooner and more affordably and will also ensure that competition is encouraged wherever possible to encourage innovation and put downward pressure on broadband and telephony prices. We will provide transparent subsidies to ensure high-quality services available in the cities are available at comparable prices in rural and regional areas where the market alone would not deliver this outcome. We have done it before and we will do it again. We will maintain strong support for independent, innovative and efficient national broadcasters that provide value for money, and we will ensure that Australia Post achieves world-class performance levels in postal services and regains a firm financial footing.
The Australian people are sick of this Labor government, of that there is no doubt. They want help with the cost of living. They want more job security. They want our borders under control. They want stability and certainty returned to decision making and they want leaders they can trust.
We will not be making knee-jerk reactions based on a television program, as the government did with live cattle experts. We understand that our decisions have real-life consequences. And the industry still has not recovered from the disastrous decision to halt live cattle exports to Indonesia. Whilst we are on that topic, it was not just the northern cattle industry that was affected. The southern cattle industry was affected because there was a huge increase in supply in the southern markets and that dropped the prices in a typical demand-supply reaction. Trust and reputation is something that is built up over a long period of time and can be tarnished in the blink of an eye and through sheer incompetence. This government has taken our live cattle export industry backwards and damaged the whole industry and the reputation of our country—all because of a TV program and few nervous nellies on the back bench in the Labor government.
The Tony Abbott led coalition has a plan to get Australia back on track. The carbon tax will be gone so power prices will fall. The mining tax will be gone so investment and jobs will increase. The boats will be stopped, because that is what has been done before, and can be done again. And the budget will be back in the black.
Government has the resources to deliver the services that are really needed. The coalition will build a powerhouse economy through lower taxes, more efficient government and more productive businesses. This will deliver more jobs, higher wages and better services for Australian families. With the right policies Australia can once again have a competitive manufacturing industry, a dynamic services sector, a growing knowledge economy, a strong resource sector and strong agriculture industries, which this government can never deliver.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (11:02): Firstly, to the ladies in the room, happy Valentine's Day. May your valentine find you! Or are you meant to find your valentine; I think that is actually the process.
This is an opportunity to take a step back and look at things more broadly. It seems the case, to my limited experience over the last nearly three years, that we are caught in day-to-day battle. We fight the issues of the day. Often politics is put in front of policies. This is compounded by a three-year election cycle and supercharged by a 24-hour news cycle. A desperate government often needs to take desperate actions to serve its masters—the masters of the media. Policies that have been tried and failed are not modified or fixed but spun to appease and gain the pleasure of the masters in the media.
During this last three years we have had, probably, three major areas of conflict. We have debated, endlessly, the state of the economy—the economy that was left if a very good state. Yes, there was a global financial crisis and there were any number of remedies. We have seen the debt escalate and we have seen the deficits, that we were promised would away, not go away, and a loss of trust and a loss of confidence. We have seen spending and waste. We have seen school halls built where they were not needed and, to compound that problem, we have seen an overspending on those school halls.
We have had the issue of asylum seekers and an endless stream of boats. The previous government had put in place a raft of policies that have been developed over a period of time, which had stopped the boats. And over a period of time, we had developed the experience to implement those policies to stop the boats. These policies were taken apart. Some of them were brought back but it is not unless you have the whole raft of policies and the experience to implement those policies that you can effectively stop the boats.
The economy was travelling well. The mining industry was thriving and, as in the fifties Australia was riding on the sheep's back, we were now riding on the back of a thriving mining industry. We have had the problems of the minerals resource rent tax, which has put all sorts of trauma through this mining industry. We have had promises of changing the climate and that a carbon tax will do that, but that alone will not change the climate. Central to these situations developing has been a loss of trust in this government. That loss of trust has come through a loss of truthfulness—the inability to rely on what is said—a loss of certainty and a loss of stability. With the loss of certainty and stability, we have had, for the first time, an allegation that Australia is a nation of sovereign risk. This sovereign risk has resulted from at least three different areas of endeavour that are very important to our economy and to our wellbeing.
In the area of health, the medicines industry entered into a memorandum of understanding that would see them forgo an amount of income—quite a sizable amount of income—in return for certainty. This is telling you what international businesses want: they want certainty. They want certainty that when a drug is approved by the PBAC it will be listed on the PBS. These drugs take up to 10 or 15 years in development and the cost is often over a billion dollars. The changing of rules during the playing of this game is devastating to this industry. This industry generates $4 billion of foreign income for us each year. They spend approximately $1 billion a year on research and development. For the first time, when this arrangement was reneged on, the reverberations throughout the pharmaceutical world were that Australia is now a nation of sovereign risk—an uncertain place to do business. That put in peril the research and development, the investment, the continuance and certainly the likelihood of pharmaceutical industry looking to locate in Australia.
We had a similar shock to our international reputation when, on the strength on an ABC Four Corners story about live exports and the inhumane treatment of our cattle that were going to Indonesia, policy was hastily put together overnight—putting politics in front of policy—to appease the press and to appease certain special interest groups. But what was achieved? The international standing of Indonesia was damaged and our relationship with Indonesia was damaged. An export industry that was generating $700 million of foreign income was reduced to close to $200 million. The biggest employer of Indigenous people in the northern part of Australia was put on its knees. There was collateral damage of enormous size. Had time been taken and better policies developed, surely there could have been a way found to assist Indonesia in upgrading the standards in their abattoirs, to protect our industry, to enhance our relationship with Indonesia and to elevate their standing in the international community.
Then we had the minerals resource rent tax, which put the same tremors through that industry that we are riding on so strongly—we are relying on it; it is the biggest source of foreign income—to the point that mining industries and businesses that might have committed to Australia would see that going to war torn Africa involved less risk than doing business in Australia under this government.
We have been accused time and again in this place of being the party with no ideas. At times, when we have represented our policies they say that there is nothing new. Many times that is correct, because we maintain our policies.
They have been well thought-through and they have been the result of experience of actually implementing policies in the past that have achieved the correct result—whether it was in the stopping of the boats or the raft of policies that were put in place and the experience gained in implementing the policies to stop them; whether it was in the policies that were involved that returned our country from a $96 billion debt to surplus and credit over the period of the Howard government.
It is interesting to note the alignment between the founder of the Republican Party in the US and our own Liberal Party, and the words that are attributed to Abraham Lincoln where he said: 'You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.' These words must be a warning to this government who have violated virtually every line of those great words, those words that are timeless and are enduring. It might be fashionable to go into debt but it does not have a great benefit over a long period.
We have the experience to manage the economy, to bring this economy back into prosperity. Through work in achieving the success, we can all share in this success, not share in $900 handouts. The question must come if you stand back far enough and look forward to the day that we are returning the budget to surplus and have paid back the debt: what do we then do? In an atmosphere where we battle each other, day after day, often with arguments that do not lend any dignity to this place, we lose the opportunity to dream and to look at the potential that this great country has. We are squandering our time and we are squandering these opportunities. But at the time when we have stopped the boats again, returned our budget from deficit and paid back the debt, when we have reduced taxes and business is thriving, when we have reduced red tape and small businesses is again thriving and able to employ people and not just generate wages but to make profits, what do we then do?
It was very interesting, a little over a week ago there was a leak of a vision paper that was clearly identified—'Vision 2030. Discussion paper. Draft'. I know very clearly that was what the paper said because I am on the committee that has been working on this vision. It was extraordinary that the party with no ideas and with no vision, came forth, albeit unwillingly at this time, with a vision paper to grow northern Australia with a vision paper that takes advice in regard to climate change. As the southern part of the climate becomes drier and less productive, as Asia grows from 500 million to 3.5 billion over the next 20 years, there is an opportunity to grow our agricultural resources in the northern part of our continent; to enter into infrastructure projects that will water this area; to look at the possibility of helping those through tropical medicine research; and yes, maybe using some of our foreign aid money in a more productive way that actually achieves real results.
Government members interjecting—
Mr ALEXANDER: This is a discussion paper and a vision paper as I clearly said and I hope you are listening. In coming forward with visions, and the willingness to discuss visions and work through and develop policy, that in the very moment when we are being accused of being negative and having no ideas, but when the vision is put forward, albeit unwillingly, it is clear that it is the government who is so negative. It was an extraordinary turn of events. It would be certainly a hope of this place in the future when the debt is paid back, when the boats have stopped and businesses are running well that the debate moves to what we can do with our opportunities and what we can do to fill our potential. What is the opportunity of a high-speed rail network?
Can we stop the debate about where a second airport should be for Sydney because that debate should not be had until you either rule in or rule out high-speed rail? What is the purpose of high-speed rail? Is it simply to get from Melbourne to Sydney quicker or cheaper or not have to wait at an airport for an hour or is it to take the pressure off our two cities that have so overgrown their infrastructure, that suffer some of the highest land prices and high levels of congestion in the world? Is it the infrastructure that is required to provide the pressure release valve for those cities?
Those cities need to be able to release land. Can you have endless urban sprawl that takes up more valuable farming area or could you with the development of the cities of Goulburn, Canberra, Yass, Queanbeyan, Gundagai, Albury-Wodonga and Shepparton have a land release that could serve our purposes not just for the next 20 or 40 years but 60 or 80 years? We often talk about a two-speed economy. Could we create another speed of economy that is built on housing prices that the next generation can afford, housing prices that are in the vicinity of $100,000 to $200,000, housing prices that would then allow lower wages and a greater opportunity for people to operate businesses? These are the debates that would dignify this place and lift the quality of debate that the public so often complain about to talk about real things that can be done to attract investment, to grow our country and to give the next generation the opportunity of work and home ownership and a quality of life that we expect for all Australians.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (11:16): I would like to thank all those members who have contributed to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013. The additional estimates appropriation bills seek authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget. The total additional appropriation being sought through these bills this year is just over $1.27 billion.
I would like to highlight certain appropriations relating to the delivery of the government's commitments. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013 proposes $133 million to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations including $85 million towards the support for the childcare system program. The government also proposes $48 million to support increased claims received before 5 December 2012 for assistance under the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme and $59 million is proposed for the Attorney-General's Department including $47 million in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse; for associated operating costs, financial and legal assistance and the Commonwealth's appearance at the royal commission. An amount of $56 million is proposed for the Department of Health and Ageing including $26 million to support Tasmania's health system which will address challenges caused by Tasmania's ageing population, high rates of chronic disease and constraints in the state health system, as well as to equip it to meet the future challenges. An amount of $19 million is proposed for the Australian Taxation Office in relation to targeted tax compliance activities and the transfer of lost superannuation member accounts to the Australian Taxation Office.
Turning now to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013, the government proposes $469 million for the Department of Defence as an equity injection to align the department's appropriations with its work program including operations. The additional amount will be offset mainly through a reduction in Defence's departmental appropriation through a separate process. An amount of $50 million is proposed for the Attorney-General's Department including $27 million for capital expenditure in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and $45 million is proposed for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to complete detailed engineering designs to construct a nuclear medicine manufacturing facility and a treatment plant that will produce a radiopharmaceutical material used in the treatment and diagnosis of heart diseases and cancers. An amount of $32 million is proposed for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in capital funding for expansions to the immigration detention network.
It is fitting, in a bill that deals with government appropriations, that we have heard contributions from those opposite—such as the member for Bennelong—that really do emphasise one of the fundamental differences between where the government and the opposition stand on the question of setting out plans for Australia's future that have some credible fiscal underpinning. We heard the member for Bennelong, who is from the party that has acknowledged that they have a $70 billion black hole, endorse a range of policy thought-bubbles that we have seen leaked to the Daily Telegraph over the last week. Cumulatively, these would more than double that $70 billion black hole.
The Australian people do want vision but they want a vision that is set out, properly costed and with a credible plan to fund it. What we have seen is a series of thought-bubbles in the order of billions of dollars. Those opposite talk about the importance of reducing debt yet theirs is a plan for more debt without any capacity to reduce government expenditure over time. This is something that the government will continue to try to emphasise. I am pleased to finally get confirmation from the opposition of one element of the plan leaked last week—that is, the attempt to divert somewhere in the order of $800 million of foreign aid funds towards infrastructure projects in Northern Australia. I am pleased to see, at last, a member of the opposition confirm that that is a policy commitment.
It will be very interesting to see if, particularly from those who might have their eye on matters further abroad, such as the member for Kooyong and the shadow foreign minister, they will have something to say in the broader debate about these plans to redirect close to a billion dollars of foreign aid to projects that, under nobody's definition, could ever be construed as being foreign aid.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member for Kooyong, with a very feeble interjection, demonstrates just how sensitive he is to this particular issue. I look forward to more detail but when those opposite ask how the government intends to pay for its plans, they should actually read the bills that they are debating, because this is one of them. This is what this is all about. This is what we have done in the past, what we will continue to do—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: While the member for Kooyong is at it, he might be able to answer a question that nobody seems to be able to answer, which is: if it is the case that the opposition is committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, perhaps they would also tell us how they intend to fund that? We will be very clear on how we intend to fund our commitments but he is going to have to do a lot better than the shadow Treasurer has indicated, by simply dumping out some costings in the last days of the election campaign.
I commend the bill and I hope that the member for Bennelong's commitment to having a forthright debate about the issues at least manifests itself in a commitment to release some costed policies from the opposition.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
Debate resumed.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (11:25): On indulgence: I rise to acknowledge the significant contribution of Pope Benedict XVI following his announcement that he will resign on 28 February this year. Pope Benedict is a learned man who has shown great leadership as the head of the Catholic Church and spiritual leader to more than one billion Catholics worldwide. His resignation has come as a shock to the world, representing as it does the first time the Pope has resigned since the mid-15th century. But the Pope's personal decision deserves our utmost respect as it reflects a desire to put the interests of the church before one's self. As the Pope said in his statement:
After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths due to an advanced age are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.
I, like so many Australians, have visited the Vatican and been struck by its beauty. I am in awe of this significant and historic institution.
In my own electorate of Kooyong I have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with many Catholic schools, churches and faith based organisations that do such good work promoting faith, learning and pastoral care in our community. I look at events like World Youth Day, held just a few years ago in Sydney, and see the important work the church leadership is doing to spread the message to the younger generations. I look at the celebrations that followed the canonisation of Mother Mary McKillop, Australia's first saint, as St Mary of the Cross and feel confident that the church's importance will only continue to grow.
In conclusion, among the many admirable qualities that Pope Benedict XVI brought to the role was his willingness to be a strong voice against racism around the world. His commitment and that of the church to interfaith dialogue not only builds on the significant legacy of John Paul II's papacy but augurs well for his chosen successor. On behalf of the people of Kooyong I join members on both sides of this House and thank Pope Benedict XVI for his visionary and inspirational leadership in taking the world towards greater peace and unity.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister for Small Business) (11:28): I rise to pay tribute to his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. To say that Pope Benedict took the world by surprise would be an understatement; surely it was a huge shock to everybody. What has become clear is that this was a very brave decision by the Pope, a decision that he clearly had been grappling with to put his church and his faith first. His Holiness has been dealing with the modernisation of what is almost by definition an inherently conservative organisation. By the manner of his departure he has perhaps taken the most spectacular and clear modernising action of them all, and clearly he will be well remembered for it.
You do not need to be a Catholic to respect and admire the Pope or to respect and admire the humility and courage of his decision. I know that parishioners of the Catholic churches in my electorate of McMahon would be pleased, if on their behalf, I paid my respects to his Holiness on his retirement in the House of Representatives.
Our Lady Queen of Peace at Greystanes; Holy Spirit, St Clair; Our Lady of the Rosary, Fairfield; Mary Immaculate, Bossley Park; and Our Lady of Victories, Horsley Park, are all very important parishes in the Catholic community, shared between the Archdiocese of Sydney and the diocese of Parramatta and very important and valued parts of our McMahon community. I know the member for Fowler, my neighbour, has similar views about the importance of the Catholic Church and the Catholic community in his electorate and it is appropriate that we pay our respects.
This pope will be warmly remembered in Australia for his visit and for the canonisation of Mary MacKillop, our first saint—particularly in my electorate again, an event celebrated at Mary MacKillop College in Wakeley, a college that my honourable friend and I share the school fence as the boundary between our two electorates. It does not get much more shared than that. It is a very important part of south-western Sydney community.
I think that Australians will appreciate that respect and honesty of Pope Benedict's motives in resigning. As I said before, he has put the interest of his church ahead of his own. It is a big decision. That he had the honesty to say that he could no longer lead as he believes he should the most important office that he holds and that he is part of something bigger, something more important, was a very moving thing for him to do and a very moving announcement. Our thoughts go to the Catholic Church as they deal with the matter of succession and the election of a new shepherd for the church.
In addition, I would like to put on record my respect and admiration for Pope Benedict's keen interest in pursuing peaceful and genuine dialogue between other great Abrahamic faiths, the people of the book, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—something that he has really taken a keen interest in and tried to progress.
I would also like to record that his particular concern, and one that I have expressed in the House and the member for Fowler has expressed in the House on many occasions, was the safety and wellbeing of Christian minorities of the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, Egypt and Syria—not exclusively of Catholic; some heavy Catholic representation in Iraq through the Chaldean branch of the Catholic Church but also Coptic Orthodox and Orthodox churches of the east and the Middle East and His Holiness did make representation of those very significant concerns a priority of his time in office.
He led the church into the digital age of Twitter. He registered for Twitter, and I think immediately in seconds had more followers than most people in the House could ever dream of accumulating as hard as we all try. I think that says a lot about his leadership and, as I said, his dealing with the shepherding through and dealing with issues of modernity in a respected and conservative organisation.
He has been vocal on the issue of climate change and introducing initiatives to make Vatican City State carbon neutral. He has also been vocal on the church's role in ensuring a sustainable environment.
This pope has very clearly been a well-respected theologian and a deep thinker as well as the leader of his church. He came to office with that reputation. Now we can all look back and see the tell-tale signs. He was asked about what his view would be of a pope who no longer felt that he had the energy or the health to continue. He said that the Pope could and should hand over office.
It was a hypothetical question at that point, but his response showed that he had brought great thought and consideration to the questions of his responsibility: whether his responsibility was to keep going as long as he possibly could or whether his responsibility was to take the action that he felt necessary to ensure that the papacy was occupied by one with the energy, the health and the ability to take the ministry of the Catholic Church around the world and to provide the leadership that one billion Catholics around the world so appreciate and treasure.
I join, I am sure, with every single member of the House, of all faiths and persuasions, in wishing all the very best to Cardinal Ratzinger, His Holiness the Pope, and in paying respect for his time as leader of the institution of the Catholic Church.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (11:35): The Catholic community has a long and proud history across the Northern Territory. On behalf of all its members, I rise to speak on this motion on the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. According to the Diocese of Darwin website, the first documented activity of the Catholic Church in the Northern Territory was on 15 July 1882 when it was reported in the Northern Territory Times that 'two Roman Catholic priests of the Order of the Sacred Heart came ashore and baptised some young children belonging to Catholic families'. I am a proud member of the Catholic community that makes up a very large part of my electorate. According to the 2011 census data, approximately 25 per cent of my electorate are Catholics. The parishes we have are the Holy Spirit, the Holy Family, St Pauls, Our Lady Help of Christians and St Mary, Star of the Sea. That is why it is important that I am here today to talk on this very important motion.
The resignation last week of Pope Benedict XVI came as a great shock, not only across my electorate but across the Catholic community throughout the world. If you asked anyone they would confirm that Pope Benedict XVI, the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, led with dignity and strength. Darwin Catholics were delighted that Pope Benedict XVI visited our beautiful city, albeit for a very short time, on his way to Sydney for World Youth Day in 2008.
The pontiff had dedicated his life to the church. His decision to resign as Pope due to ill health and failing strength reaffirms the self-sacrifice he has shown throughout his life. I am sure everyone will agree that to still be working such long hours and having such commitment at 85 years of age is truly extraordinary. To recognise that he would not be able to fulfil his obligations in his role due to his personal circumstances and decide to step down shows a truly courageous character.
This morning I spoke with the Northern Territory's bishop, Bishop Eugene Hurley, who said he was delighted to have been able to host the pontiff in Darwin when he was on his way to World Youth Day in 2008 and that he was privileged to travel with the pontiff to Sydney for that event. Bishop Hurley recalled subsequent meetings with the pontiff in Rome where the Darwin visit was discussed with great fondness. Bishop Hurley remarked that Pope Benedict made a significant contribution to world peace. He said Pope Benedict will be greatly missed by him personally and by the Catholic community in the Northern Territory.
On behalf of the people of Solomon, I would like to thank the pontiff for his commitment and contribution to the Catholic community and wish him the very, very best for his retirement. I wish those selecting our new pontiff the very best of luck, because we need to make sure we have a pontiff who is going to be able to take us into the 21st century and to follow on from the great work of Pope Benedict XVI, who, as we heard from members on the other side, led the way into the digital age with Twitter. Things are changing so much that the next pontiff will have some very extraordinary things to deal with, so I wish them all the very best in their deliberations.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:39): It is an honour to speak on this motion today, and I do so in honour of my late mother in-law who was very active in the Catholic community here in Canberra and was President of the Catholic Women's League, and also the tens of thousands of Catholics in my electorate.
Pope Benedict XVI is the first pope to resign in 600 years, and the pontiff was honest when he said that his age meant that he lacked strength to continue as head of the church. He told a rather stunned world audience that he was standing down for the good of the church. It is indeed an historic event, as that last papal resignation occurred way back in the Middle Ages—600 years ago, I understand. In his last public appearance, tens of thousands turned out in a fitting farewell to Pope Benedict, and his farewell words were to thank everyone for their love and their prayer. He said:
Keep praying for me, for the Church and for the future pope.
His final appearance was indeed moving, and I would like to share a description from Time magazine that beautifully describes the occasion:
The atmosphere was festive and warm, if somewhat bittersweet, as if the faithful were trying to persuade Benedict to stay with them for just a bit longer. A chorus of Italian schoolchildren serenaded him with one of his favorite hymns in German — a gesture that won over the pope, who thanked them for singing a piece “particularly dear to me.”
…
Looking tired but serene, Pope Benedict XVI told the thousands who gathered for his weekly audience that he was resigning for “the good of the church” — an extraordinary scene that unfolded in his first appearance since dropping the bombshell announcement.
The 85-year-old Benedict basked in more than a minute-long standing ovation when he entered the packed hall for his traditional Wednesday catechism lesson. He was interrupted repeatedly by applause, and many in the audience of thousands had tears in their eyes.
Pope Benedict officially ceases being Pope at 8 pm 28 February, and, fittingly, tributes and praises have flowed from all over the world and from world leaders. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who has been described as a church-going Christian, told the media:
We are proud of our countryman, the first for hundreds of years to take up the role of pope.
She added that the pope's decision should be respected in:
…an age where life expectancy is longer than ever, many people will understand that even the pope has to come to terms with the burdens of ageing.
That is a very fitting tribute from the German Chancellor.
As I mentioned before, we have a very large Catholic community here in Canberra; it comprises 25 per cent of the population. It is an interesting population in that a large proportion of the Catholics came here in the fifties to take up public service because, in the fifties, as a result of sectarianism that was still quite rife in Australia, it was very difficult for the professionals—lawyers and white collar workers—to get jobs in law firms and in white collar work. So they were drawn by a sense of duty to the country and by a sense to public service to working in the Australian Public Service.
It is interesting, because there are a number of government departments that are very well known as being Catholic. One of them is Customs and the others are the Australian Taxation Office and also the Attorney-Generals Department. It is because of that sectarianism that existed in the fifties, where it was difficult for Catholic lawyers to be employed in law firms throughout Australia. As I said, we have a very strong foundation of Catholics here. It is a very strong community, and they have also made a significant contribution to the community.
When I was researching this speech, I went to a piece that the Catholic Voice had written about those Catholics who had made a significant contribution to the Canberra community. One of them was Monsignor Patrick Haydon, who Haydon Drive in Bruce and also the Calvary Haydon Retirement Village are name after. There is also Sylvia Curley, whose house is in my electorate. It is a very basic house—a tin shed one could call it—and she played a very significant role, as did her family, in farming this area of Canberra and also playing an active role in the community. They are just two significant Canberrans, and there are many more that I could list.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to the incredibly strong Catholic school community here. We have 17,000 children enrolled in 30 Catholic schools across the ACT, and the ACT has the highest proportion of Catholic school enrolment in the country. I understand that my electorate of Canberra has that highest proportion in terms of between the electorate of Fraser and the electorate of Canberra. As I said, there are very, very strong Catholic roots and community here at the public service level, the private sector level and the school level.
I want to pay tribute to some of the schools in my electorate whom I spent a lot of time with and who are very proud Catholics and proudly engaged in their community. Those schools are: St John Vianney—my later mother-in-law was associated with the parish there—St Thomas the Apostle and St Francis of Assisi Holy Family. At the secondary level we have a very good relationship with St Mary MacKillop College and St Edmund's and St Clare's colleges. They are all great schools, all doing wonderful and all doing wonderful work in promoting Catholicism and public service here in Canberra. There is also St Benedict's in Narrabundah.
On behalf of the people of Canberra I pay tribute to Pope Benedict XVI for all the work he has done and the contribution he has made to Catholicism and the world community. We wish him well in his retirement and for his good health. Again, I would like to underscore the fact that this speech is in honour of my later mother-in-law.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:46): I rise to speak today with a sense of duty as a Catholic. I suggest that I owe an enormous amount to the Catholic church, which I will share with you later, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that. If my mum found out that I had not said some kind words about the Pope, she would have me. So, mum, I am here.
Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict XVI, is 85 years old. What a life this man has led. When reading his biography, who would have thought that this guy would end up being the Pope after being a deserter from the army and a member of Hitler's Nazi youth camps? It is phenomenal to understand the parallels of this man's life and his contribution later on to Christian values right across the world.
Pope Benedict XVI was born in Germany and grew up under the war conditions of a world war and the Nazi regime in power. In his early teens, he was briefly a member of Hitler youth, after membership became mandatory. That was in 1941. It was not of his own accord. He turned to theological studies after the war and helped to found and influence journals such as the Communique. He was elevated to the papacy in 2005.
He had a military background. In that era I do not think a lot of people had too many options. In 1943 he and fellow seminarians were drafted into an anti-aircraft corps. He said his unit was attacked by allied forces that year but he did not take part in any of the battles, because his finger was infected, which kept him from learning how to shoot. I am sure that there were ways and means that people protected these guys who were studying religion from being asked to go out and commit acts against their will.
After about nine years in the anti-aircraft unit, Ratzinger was drafted into the regular military. He told Time magazine in 1993 that, while stationed in Hungary, he saw Hungarian jews being sent to the death camps. Ratzinger was sent home but was later called up. He deserted in late April 1945. He was captured by American soldiers and held as a prisoner of war for several months. Ratzinger returned to the seminary at the University of Munich in the fall of 1945 and was ordained a priest in 1951.
He had a rapid promotion through the church and at the Second Vatican Council, from 1962 to 1965, Ratzinger served as the chief theological expert to Cardinal Josef Frings, also from Germany. Frings was viewed as a reformer during his time. In 1972, Ratzinger helped found the theological journal Communio, which became one of the most important journals of Catholic thought. In May 1977, he was named Archbishop of Munich and, three months later, was named Cardinal by Pope John Paul II.
In 1981, Pope John Paul named Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In 1998, he became Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals and was elected dean in 2002. Ratzinger defended and reaffirmed Catholic doctrine, including teachings on topics such as birth control, homosexuality and interreligious dialogue. Later on, he attended and spoke at a three-day seminar for Catholics and for Muslims. Ratzinger was elevated to the papacy on 19 April 2005. Upon the death of Pope John Paul II, he was elevated to Pope and, five days later, celebrated his inaugural mass.
Known for his rigid views on Catholicism, Pope Benedict sought a more inclusive image as pope. On his recent resignation this month, at the age of 85, he said that he would be calling it quits because of his age and ailing health. According to several media reports, Pope Benedict's discussions centred on his old age and physical and mental weakness. In one statement, the Pope explained:
I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.
He went on to state:
However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.
For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of bishop of Rome, successor of Saint Peter,
What a brave and respected decision this guy has made in breaking with tradition. If you understand the Catholic Church you know that it is cloaked in, and enshrined by, centuries and centuries of tradition. One can only try to understand the deliberations of this man as he pondered making this decision. It would not have been made lightly. He has my ultimate respect for the decision he has made.
Close to home, the work of the Catholic Church is evident not only throughout the world but also in my electorate of Wright, with investment in schools and hospitals. Its Christian values underpins our nation. My linkage to the Catholic Church started at a very young age. I lost my father when I was eight years old. I am one of four kids. Mum was a devout Catholic; she was devoted. As a result of her commitment to the church, we would be dragged to every mass, every novena, every benediction, every stations of the cross—for everything that was going in the church, we were there. It was great.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr BUCHHOLZ: That is it. I was educated at the local convent. My whole education was supplied and provided by the Catholic system. I went to Christian Brothers College and then on to St Brendan's College at Yeppoon. It is only when you have your own children and you start getting the $35,000 and $45,000 a year school fees that you start to think. I asked: 'How did you ever as a mother pay for our school fees, get us through and educate us?' She said, 'Darling, I could never afford to pay for your and your brothers' and sisters' school fees so I used to work at the church. I would polish the brass. That is why I used to work at the tuckshop. It was my way of trying to give back because the church provided a blanket of security for our family.'
Later on in life, in an understanding that we had a successful transport business, the boarding school I went to used to have an annual fundraiser; it was the St Brendan's Rodeo. We were the major sponsor of that event and it was a privilege and honour to be involved in that, both from a college perspective as an old boy, and to be able to reconnect financially. We sponsored that for about 10 years, and my marketing department would come to me every year and say: 'Boss, we have really got to revisit the money we are spending at St Brendan. We get absolutely no return, and we have had no business out of it.' Without going on and sharing the whole story with them, my comments were that, as long as I am writing the cheques, we will continue to pay my debt back to that college, which helped get me to where I am today, without doubt. By no stretch of the imagination was I a model student.
I still hold the generosity and values that were shared with me as a man, and in addition not only to me, to my entire family. I think that is the ethos of Christianity. One can be a practising Catholic, or a practising Christian by attending mass, but I think it is how you live your life. How are you judged in the eyes of your god if you attend mass and then fail to live the rest of the week with less of a Christian value? For example, driving past the guy on the side of the road who may have a flat tyre and you know who is struggling. I suggest living by one's deeds is also meritorious.
The Catholic church's tentacles throughout our communities have helped shape us as a nation. I pray that the remainder of our Pope's life is healthy. His illusion to his illness and his frailty will be something that he will have to suffer with and I hope that he lives the rest of his life in comfort. For our next Pope—it will be soon made known to the world who this person is—there are some enormous challenges that face the Christian values here in Australia with reference to a royal commission. I trust that Cardinal Pell—the leader of our Church here—assists in that process so that the healing of those people who have been affected during that process—and who will give evidence during that—will find comfort in the process ahead.
Mum, when you are reading this speech, I have done my duty to the priests of my electorate to whom I will send a copy of this speech. Thank you for the work that you do. To the administrators, to the high schools, to the teachers of the Catholic faith: thank you so much for what you do. To the volunteers that work within the parishes across the whole electorate of Wright—there are many parishes, too numerous to mention—thank you for the contribution you make to our community, as without you our community would be poorer.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:58): I am happy to follow my friend and I would hate for him to get in trouble from his mother. As a fellow Catholic, I would also like to express my personal feelings on the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. We have already heard that in Australia there are about five million Catholics, according to the last census. If they all attended mass and contributed to the collection, I am sure that the church and its activities would be even better off. In terms of Catholicism there are 1.2 billion Catholics around the world. I do not know how it affected anybody else, but when I woke up at six o'clock the other day and heard the news on the ABC, and this was the lead item, it certainly woke me out of my slumber. It was something that took me by complete surprise.
When you think of the papacy you tend to look at it very much in the way that we regard royalty, and you see very few kings and queens abdicate because of age or infirmity and they are normally replaced subsequent to death. That has been the case in the Catholic Church, and I must admit that, until I heard the reports, I was not aware that the last resignation that had occurred was some 600 years ago. That was Pope Gregory XII and that was about a schism in the Catholic Church at that time. So that shows that I was not that attentive when I was studying religious history at De La Salle College Revesby and looking at the origins and development of our modern church.
As I say, it did take me surprise and cause me to actually think deeply about it. Cardinal Ratzinger has had the papacy for eight years but, when he became Pope, he was an old man. I think the view amongst most Catholics was that they were putting in a person who might be regarded as a safe pair of hands to continue on for a short period of time until further changes were made.
When you look at what Pope Benedict was able to achieve in those eight years—which is not a long period of time in terms of the general papacy—he has made a remarkable contribution both in an academic and spiritual way through his writings and in continuing the work of the very much loved Pope John Paul II. He has made a remarkable contribution to the life of Catholics around the world and non-Catholics alike. He has taken the papacy in a direction that has looked at some of the issues facing the contemporary world—looking at issues in the Middle East; addressing the issue of terrorism; addressing the issue which, unfortunately, exists in a modern society—the dichotomy between the privilege and poverty not only within society but between nations; and now more recently, of course, addressing, as the church should do, the issue of child sex abuse.
I had the opportunity to talk to a good friend of mine, Bishop Terry Brady, who lives in Liverpool. We were reflecting on the challenges for the modern day church. He said that, clearly, there are many challenges that must be addressed, but you have to remember that, with the Catholic Church, it was not just the spiritual needs of a community on a Sunday that the church attended to. If you look at education in Australia, it was the Irish Catholic base of the church that spearheaded education, well before public education.
The church is also involved in looking after the poor, through organisations such as St Vincent de Paul and there are other areas of society served by CatholicCare. They administer to people on family related matters, including domestic violence. There are a number of things that these organisations get out and do within the community. There is also Caritas, which pursues the worldwide mission, not simply to promote the Catholic faith but also to provide for people in need. I recall vividly the tsunamis in Indonesia. Father Chris Riley and Catholic based organisations went over and built the Islamic school in the western part of Indonesia. These are things that the Catholic Church members, governed by their faith, feel compelled to do.
When I look at the reign of Pope Benedict, it seems to me that he has not only continued the work set out particularly by Pope John Paul II but done so with great vigour within the church. I suppose one of the special things for us here in Australia that he was the pope that canonised Mary MacKillop in 2010, which has been an event celebrated by all Australians. Mary MacKillop founded the Josephite Order, which is one pretty close to my family as we have had relatives in the Josephites for some period of time. In particular, my wife's Aunty Gladys was one of the nuns and we got to spend a lot of time with them and, in particular, back in the old days when nuns wore habits my wife actually made habits for the nuns. It was very interesting hearing from the older nuns—and I hate calling them old nuns but anyway they were old nuns at the time. They would talk about their mission in life and why they committed themselves to go out and do what they did given the hardships they worked through during the Depression—all to deliver upon what they saw as their calling within the Catholic faith.
I attended, along with many thousands of people, World Youth Day in 2008 in Sydney. I saw the pope there and I thought it was an opportunity not to simply showcase in any theatrical style the contemporary Catholic church but a good opportunity to showcase what the church was actually doing in today's community. You could see the amount of young people that came to World Youth Day from across the globe, bringing their hopes and ambitions as to where they saw themselves going and where they would like communities to develop. Again, I think it is something that will continue after the pope gave such inspiration to those at World Youth Day. It was something that we will treasure for a long period of time.
Many of those close to the pope speak of his love for Australia. It has come through in many of his writings. I think he sees us as a people of a new continent, a continent which is very multicultural, a continent which has brought people from all over the globe with a view to developing ourselves as Australians by utilising the skills of people broadly from all quarters of this earth. That is something that has come through if you look at some of the words that the Pope has put down since his visiting Australia.
I have to say that, whilst his resignation for some is going to be a time of grieving, for me it is a remarkable decision. As I said at the start, I always thought the papacy was something like you would equate with royalty, that ordinarily a person would die in office—or that is generally how it has traditionally been the case. I was not aware of the precedents in terms of resignation. Given the fact that people are living longer, I think the pope has made a very courageous decision. I think if he has decided that his frailties are such that he cannot give his all to his calling, it is a very brave thing that he has done, putting the church and its people—its 1.2 billion followers around the world—ahead of the traditional view of the papacy. It is not so much the pope's own view but probably the traditional view of Catholics about the papacy. So I think that is courageous and something that has got to admired in the person. It is something that we have not seen before and I think it shows that the pope as the helm of the Catholic Church certainly does put the wellbeing of his worldwide congregation far above what might be his own personal interests.
The Pope celebrated his final mass on Ash Wednesday, as we enter into Lent, which was attended by many, many thousands of people. Appropriately, he celebrated mass in St Peter's Basilica, the most fantastic basilica in the world and a place of great spiritual importance to all Catholics. The final day in his papacy will be 28 February and from there on a secret conclave will be held in the Sistine Chapel to elect his successor. I pray and wish that the conclave will do well in their decision, as what they decide will have a huge impact on the world not simply for Catholics but for all peoples as the Catholic church takes a significant position of responsibility in helping address the wellbeing of all peoples.
To my Catholic parishes of the Sacred Heart at Cabramatta, Our Lady of Mount Carmel at Mt Pritchard, All Saints at Liverpool, St Theresa's at Cartwright and John the Baptist at Bonnyrigg, I join with them in praying for the wisdom of all those who sit in the conclave to determine the appropriate person to lead our church into the future. We also pray for the wellbeing of Pope Benedict in his retirement years. I think that he has very much demonstrated a humble spirit. He plans to serve the remainder of his life in quiet contemplation—reading, writing and praying—in a small monastery in the Vatican. I think that we all learn much from his life and are all very much inspired by his eight years of leading the Catholic faith.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:12): Born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger in the Bavarian region of Germany on 16 April 1927, Pope Benedict XVI will have served as the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church from 19 April 2005 until his forthcoming resignation, due to age and declining health, on 28 February 2013. Elected to the papacy three days after his 78th birthday, Pope Benedict was one of the oldest to have been elected to lead the church. He was ordained a priest in 1951—what a long time as one of the Lord's shepherds. Before he was elected to the papacy, he had hoped to retire peacefully. Instead, at the time he said:
At a certain point, I prayed to God, 'please don't do this to me'. Evidently, this time He didn't listen to me.
Of course, God works in many strange and mysterious ways. I believe that He certainly has a path for us all to follow. For Pope Benedict, that path was to the Holy See, to the papacy and to lead the world's 1.2 billion Catholics and what a fine, prayerful, spiritual and faith-filled job Pope Benedict XVI has done in that mission.
For Australians, Pope Benedict's years in the Vatican will be remembered for the canonisation of our very own Saint Mary of the Cross—or Mary MacKillop—on 17 October 2010. In canonising Saint Mary of the Cross, Australia's first Roman Catholic saint, Pope Benedict highlighted the affection he shared for the Australian nation. As the former Australian ambassador to the Holy See, former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, noted, the Pope gave many thoughts and prayers to Australian people, particularly in times of crisis and times of natural disasters—such as Black Saturday and our recent devastating flood events. In 2008, Pope Benedict visited Australia as part of World Youth Day in Sydney, which my daughter Georgina attended with a group from Mater Dei Catholic College and other high schools within the Catholic diocese of Wagga Wagga. I share the view of the Prime Minister regarding the captivation the crowds had with Pope Benedict XVI during his visit here.
It is important to note during this motion that the Pope made some progress in acknowledging what he called, in 2005, the 'filth' within the church, which must be recognised. It is my sincere hope for whomever succeeds Pope Benedict XVI that further progress can be made in acknowledging the shameful past unfortunately perpetrated by some—only some—within the church as far as sexual abuse, especially against children, is concerned. In addition, Benedict has done much to reach out to the world's poor and most-disadvantaged people in Africa and South America. He has set a shining example for the church's social justice obligations, which is something the Bishop of Wagga Wagga, Gerard Hanna, praised. Bishop Hanna, who met the Pope in both Sydney and Rome, told me:
He is a man who has written widely on ecumenism and renewing the impetus towards unity. He has opened inter-religious dialogue, and this is noteworthy. His Papacy, while relatively short, has been marked by his willingness to travel overseas to reach out to the world's 1.2 billion Catholics.
Bishop Hanna said that the Pope's decision to resign—the first since Pope Gregory XII way back in 1415, some 598 years ago—was 'bold and courageous'. 'His difficult decision to step aside due to ill health shows his remarkable leadership.' Bishop Hanna said:
He has re-established that in future Popes can follow suit, doing their best in the role until such a time as their health prevents them from continuing, and then allowing another Pope to be elected in their place. In future it will not be such an extraordinary measure to do this.
Further to this, Pope Benedict XVI also played a significant geopolitical role in encouraging negotiations towards an agreement on the use of cluster bombs, following in the footsteps of the geopolitical role his predecessor, John Paul II, played at the end of the Cold War. But for Catholics in Australia, Pope Benedict's resignation highlights the changing tradition in the papacy. When Joseph Ratzinger was first elected to the papacy, he pledged to be a 'simple and humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord', and his custodianship of the church will be remembered for the attempts he made to reach out to the areas of the world where the church is growing, such as Africa and South America.
On behalf of the people of the Riverina electorate, the many Catholics in my electorate, I join other members in thanking Pope Benedict XVI for his exemplary, faith-filled, prayerful and strong leadership of the Roman Catholic Church since 2005 and wish him all the very best for the future.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (12:17): I am pleased to be able to make some comments in this place on the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. As a Catholic with an interest in theology as well as liturgy, I am very aware of the significant influence the Pope has had both in his contributions in his role as Cardinal Ratzinger and latterly in his role as Pope of the Holy Roman Church.
As the Prime Minister noted, the Pope's announcement marks a genuinely historic moment which many Australian Catholics will greet with great emotion. Many Australians saw Pope Benedict during his visit here during the church's World Youth Day in 2008. I am sure many members remember the scenes and the crowds on that visit. I was in attendance that day, and it was a great thing to see the gathering of so many people at Randwick Racecourse. I recalled the last time I was there for such an enormous gathering—I have visited a couple of the race meetings in between—was for the beatification of Mother Mary MacKillop, who, in the term of our current pope, has reached the next stage of canonisation. I know, as the Prime Minister indicated the other day, that many, many Australians took the opportunity to go to Rome and to acknowledge and celebrate on behalf of our nation the declaration of Mother Mary MacKillop as our nation's first saint.
Many people of the Catholic faith across this country will certainly miss the cardinal and hold him in fond affection. Like the member for Fowler, I want to articulate the emotion in response to this announcement from members of my own community. I acknowledge the deanery's role in our local community and our faith community, and I am sure that they were taken by surprise just as the rest of us were and will be very interested to see how things emerge over the next few weeks and who will be the new leader of our faith on Earth.
The communities of St John the Baptist at Woy Woy, Our Lady Star of the Sea at Terrigal, St Patrick's at Gosford and Our Lady of the Rosary at Wyoming will perhaps be—a lot like my own community of Holy Cross at Kincumber—a little stunned and perhaps even, for some people, in shock. Yet I guess it is the hope and the promise of a new Pope and a strong sense that God's hand is in the midst of this unexpected development that fills us as Catholics with hope for renewal at a time when—we have to be frank—the church faces very significant challenges. Change is needed, and we can only hope that this opportunity for renewal in the church that has been provided by the resignation of this Pope will bring God's will to birth here in our community.
In closing, I also contacted Bishop David Walker, who is the bishop for the Diocese of Broken Bay. I think that he articulated what I have heard the member for Fowler and the member for Riverina say here, which is that there is a degree of wisdom in coming to understand that you are enabled and able to take on a role—and I think that in accepting the role of the Pope in 2005 Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI, showed that the challenge of leadership was something that he was ready for. Equally now, I think it is very enlightened of him—having been 78 when he took on that role and being at this age now—to accept that perhaps in his state of health it is time for renewal. I put Bishop Walker's comments on the record today:
I believe it is an enlightened decision. We all need to recognise when the time is right to hand over our responsibilities.
There is great service being done by many older people in our community in many, many ways, but renewal is also an enabling part of any organisation.
In closing, I would like to wish the soon to be former Pope all the best in his retirement. In this season of Lent, as we as Catholics and Christians across the world look forward to the hope of the Resurrection, I expect that the journey over the resurrection of new leadership in the church will be one that we will watch with interest. I thank the chamber for their attention.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:22): With a name like O'Dwyer, it probably does not surprise too many people that I would rise to speak on the recent announcement of Pope Benedict XVI's retirement.
It is true that most people do not get the opportunity to retire on their own terms. People in this House should know this better than most. Yet today we speak about a man who has made his own decision to retire on his own terms, putting his congregation of 1.2 billion Catholics throughout the world and his Roman Catholic faith before his personal gratification or aggrandisement.
Born in rural Germany into a modest family, Joseph Ratzinger continued that sense of humility throughout his entire life. Growing up during the Nazi era, the young Joseph was witness to some of the worst crimes against humanity ever committed. He would often see his local parish priest beaten by Nazi troops. Despite this, Joseph still managed to complete his studies in philosophy and theology in the Higher School of Philosophy and Theology of Freising and the University of Munich.
Upon graduation in 1951, he received his priestly ordination, at which point he commenced teaching at the higher school of Freising. In 1953 he obtained his doctorate in theology with a thesis entitled The People and House of God in St Augustine's Doctrine of the Church. He continued his academic career with a dissertation entitled The Theology of History in St Bonaventure, thus becoming accredited to teach at university. Throughout his teaching career he lectured at the Higher School of Philosophy and Theology of Freising, at Bonn, at Munster and at Tubingen. At the culmination of his teaching, he held the chair of dogmatics and history of dogma at the University of Regensburg, where he was also vice-president of the university.
On 25 March 1977, Pope Paul VI named him Archbishop of Munich and Freising.
On 28 May of the same year he received episcopal ordination. His career progressed on 24 June of the same year when Paul VI made him a cardinal under the priestly title of 'Santa Maria Consolatrice al Tiburtino'. In 1978 he was made a member of the conclave that elected John Paul I, at which point he was named special envoy to the Third International Mariological Congress.
Most people know of his progression in the later years when he was, on 6 November 1998, approved by the Holy Father as Cardinal Ratzinger as Vice Dean of the College of Cardinals and was submitted as one of the Cardinals of the Order of Bishops. He was approved as Dean, elected in November 2002, and together with this office he was entrusted with Suburbicarian See of Ostia.
Who can forget that on 19 April 2005 he was elected Pope, to be known as Pope Benedict XVI. He chose the name in respect to Pope Benedict XV who he referred to as a 'courageous prophet of peace'. Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his papacy to the teachings of the church in an attempt to bring people back into the arms of religion. In his address to the Catholic Academy of Bavaria entitled 'Why I am still in the church' he famously said:
… one can only be a Christian in the Church, not beside the Church.
In Australia we hold a very special regard for Pope Benedict as it was he who canonised Mary MacKillop, Australia's only saint. We also feel a special connection with him because he visited us in 2008 when he presided over World Youth Day.
In a statement released by the Pope, he said:
In today's world subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to steer the boat of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.
We can, however, in this place celebrate his grand contribution to his faith and to the many Catholics and non-Catholics around the world. I know that in my electorate of Higgins the Catholic Church has been involved in many good works, whether it is in aged care, in educating our young, in caring for our sick in the hospitals that they have set up or in helping the poor.
I know that there are many good Catholics in my local community who volunteer tirelessly each and every week to help hand out food for the homeless and to help provide accommodation for those people. I pay tribute to their good work and I highlight the inspiration Pope Benedict has provided to so many.
As so many have also said in this place, we also stand against sexual abuse, particularly child sexual abuse. I know that the Pope himself has been incredibly concerned about some of the shameful history in the Catholic Church by some who have committed such atrocities. It is important that this be dealt with expeditiously and treated very seriously as we know it will be.
We wish Pope Benedict all the very best in his retirement. We wish him health and happiness in his future years. It is his dedication to his faith and putting the needs of others above his own that have made him such a popular leader of the Roman Catholic faith. We pray for him in his retirement and wish him well.
Natural Disasters
Debate resumed.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (12:29): I thank the House for the opportunity to make a few short remarks about the natural disasters not just in my home state of Queensland but right across the country. Once again over the recent summer months, Australia has felt the full impact of natural disasters, from flooding rains to storms and cyclones, fires and—believe it or not—droughts in some parts of the country. We have seen those bushfires in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales, and we have also seen flooding up and down the coast of Queensland and New South Wales, particularly around Bundaberg. We should all spare a thought for the people of Bundaberg, who have been very hard hit by the devastation and flooding associated with ex-tropical cyclone Oswald. Tragically, along with the loss of property and possessions, people lost their lives, and this is something that we can never forget. We ought to work as hard as possible to try to mitigate these natural disasters as best as we can.
My electorate of Oxley was very badly effected in 2011, and I spoke in this House about the extent of that devastation, as did other people. Homes and businesses from Goodna and Gailes to River Hills, Westlake and Jindalee in the west of Brisbane were also heavily affected. No-one in the western corridor went without being touched in some particular way by what took place in 2011.
But what we saw come out of that was this fantastic and unique thing we call the Aussie spirit. It shone through with the immediate clean-up in the aftermath and the much talked about mud army that we now so lovingly know. Something that I also think is uniquely Australian is the way that, without needing to be corralled, Australians just seem to gravitate together to help their neighbour and to help their friends. It is curious that in my electorate, where there are a lot of migrants and people from overseas, they were just so motivated to help others, but they said that in their own country no-one would come out and help. So it is this unique Australian thing, and all of these people from overseas were saying that here in Australia they too felt like they were part of this and part of this Aussie spirit. It was a wonderful thing to see.
Even so, rebuilding was slow. It sometimes is a very slow process, but we are all in there—the federal government, the state governments and local councils of every colour and creed—rebuilding people's lives, their businesses and their homes. So it was with a lot of anxiousness that over this summer in 2013 we again watched natural disasters, flooding rains, extreme winds and mini tornados come to our state and to our country. Of course, every flood is different, and this one in 2013 was different from the one in 2011. We were better prepared this time, and I want to pay tribute to and record my gratitude for all of those volunteers: the SES, the firemen, the emergency services personnel, the police, the council officers and workers, state government bureaucrats and Commonwealth government officers who all pitched in being much more prepared and much more ready to make a contribution because we did learn the lessons from not so long ago. It was fantastic to see that happen. We were very fortunate in the western corridor in and around Ipswich. The river came up a long way, but very fortunately, due to a whole range of reasons—as I said, every flood is different—we managed to escape the worst and almost no homes were touched in Ipswich. A few businesses did suffer some minor damage but were well prepared for it. That is fantastic news, and again, that amazing Aussie spirit shone through.
I want to congratulate all of the volunteers in my electorate who, through just a simple tweet or Facebook message, were out in droves turning up with trailers, trucks and utes saying: 'Where do you need us? Where can we go and help?' It was really fantastic for that to happen. We also saw, at places like the Centenary Rowing Club, Centenary Meals on Wheels and Jindalee Bowls Club, that they were very scared and very shaken by what was happening, but very lucky this time around. I also want to highlight the mental anguish and some of the difficulties people have had rebuilding their own state of mind and capacity to absorb these sorts of disasters from the last flood. We do thank God that it did not happen to them a second time—I am just not sure how they would have coped.
We also saw this time around people losing power for extended periods not because of the floods directly but because they became isolated and winds tore down power poles, cutting them off from the rest of society either through losing their home phone—lucky we all have mobiles—or losing power to the house as well. I just want to thank all the people who helped, all of those emergency service workers. Hopefully we do not need that Aussie spirit again too soon, but it is comforting to know that it is there and that we will always all pitch in together. Thank you.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:35): The Riverina, as with so many regions, during a particularly testing summer, found itself at the mercy of natural disasters. Bushfires in early January brought national attention to the plight of affected Riverina people as they fought valiantly to protect themselves, livestock, homes and farms. But for the exceptional efforts of professional fire-fighters, ably assisted by hundreds of enthusiastic and efficient volunteers as well as those who pitched in to save their own properties, the damage could have been far more extensive. As it was, more than 3,305 hectares of prime agricultural land was razed, including about 38 kilometres of fencing, 924 head of sheep, hundreds of bales of hay, some sheds and machinery. Mercifully, there was only one reported injury, with a volunteer hospitalised with serious but not life-threatening injuries after an excavator overturned while building a firebreak.
These Riverina fires could well have been deadly. Weather conditions, described officially as catastrophic, had the potential to exact a dreadful toll on lives and livelihoods. In such situations, things are never helped by senseless idiots who deliberately light fires. On 19 January it was reported in Wagga Wagga that there had been 18 suspicious scrub fires lit and seven trees set alight locally in the previous 18 days. No punishment presently legislated by states is ever severe enough for arsonists. This is not a debate for this place, but I am in favour of firebugs being made to assist clean-up operation. Further, the view that arsonists should be forced to watch as burnt but alive animals are euthanised has merit. It sounds harsh, perhaps a little old-school, but let us not mess around with people who show such flagrant disregard for others in their communities and an inhumane indifference to animals which suffer from their actions. In truth, they ought to have their noses rubbed in the ashes. The time for namby-pamby, kid-gloves treatment of arsonists—no matter what age—is over, and state parliaments must ensure penalties fit the crimes. The community expects and demands nothing less.
A coalition government from 14 September would end the nanny state mentality federally. State governments need to do the same, and soon. There were many hotspots across the Riverina, including, but not limited to, Alfredtown, Big Springs, Corby Hill Road north of Narrandera, Mates Gully Road, Oura, Tarcutta, Tumbarumba and Yenda. The importance of regular, controlled burn-offs in national parks and the like must be re-examined. We must reduce the fuel load to avoid the sorts of tragedies in regions most at risk. We cannot simply shut the gate on protected forest and leave them to become a tinderbox overrun by pests and weeds, as some conservationists would want.
Further, with widespread flooding again devastating parts of Australia, particularly south-east Queensland during January—and certainly in your area of the electorate of Maranoa, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—I again raise my concerns about the lack of commitment to the construction of more dams. More and better embankments and levees to protect urban areas are also a must. I know the frustration, inconvenience and panic caused when Wagga Wagga's entire central business district was evacuated on the night of 5 March last year. Even though the city did not go under, it was a sensible move by Murrumbidgee State Emergency Service controller, James McTavish, for, as it turned out, a few more centimetres of river level and much of Wagga Wagga would have been washed away. Despite criticism from some who should have been wiser and more cautious with their words, it was far better to be safe than sorry. I was pleased to see Mr McTavish deservedly acknowledged with an Emergency Services Medal in this year's Australia Day honours. Wagga Wagga City Council and the state government are presently grappling with the financial burden of flood-proofing by way of strengthening, lengthening and heightening the levee bank.
Work on the main levee safeguarding Wagga Wagga began in 1960 and was completed in 1962, giving protection for a one-in-one-hundred-year event.
Australia is a country of droughts, fires and flooding rains but we are smart people and we should be doing more to help ourselves from natural disasters which have occurred since ancient times, not as a result of impending climate doom as some would have people believe.
Ungarie was also hard hit, again, unfortunately by the devastating forces of during January. This poor village cannot take a trick. On the afternoon of the 21st, a wild storm ripped through the town, unroofing buildings and causing millions of dollars of damage. I immediately wrote to the then federal Minister for Emergency Management, Nicola Roxon, and have since resent the letter to her successor, Mark Dreyfus, to bring Ungarie's plight to the federal government's attention should a request for help come from the New South Wales government.
As many members in this House would be aware, Ungarie was devastated by the awful widespread flooding which occurred in south-west New South Wales in March 2012. Ms Roxon was very supportive of the people in that community last year by providing special financial assistance for which Ungarie residents and I were most appreciative.
Rural Fire Service Bland-Temora's Superintendent Steve Holden said the lightning strikes from the recent storm front started five fires in the Bland-Temora area but firefighters were quick to respond. Again, I praise the quick response of our emergency service personnel.
As opposition leader Tony Abbott himself, a volunteer firefighter, said just last Tuesday—a week ago:
… the worst of Mother Nature tends to bring out the best of human nature right around our country, as tens of thousands of Australians rise to the challenges of the natural environment they face.
One such local champion sacrificed his own property to save that of his neighbour. Adjungbilly farmer Tony Engel did not even know the name of neighbour who allowed the Rural Fire Service to burn 180 hectares to contain the Cobbler Road fire burning west of Yass. This particular blaze, which began on 8 January, burnt almost 14,000 hectares with thousands of stock perishing in the flames and the smoke, leaving little behind.
With any natural disaster, lessons must be learnt to protect lives and properties for the future, but Mr Engel was just so thankful that his unknown neighbour came to his help. Mr Engel is a retired Commonwealth Bank executive and he has owned his property, Cascade, for eight years but moved there permanently only last year. He joined the Adjungbilly Rural Fire Service brigade and was greatly impressed by the work of firefighters. He said:
I am absolutely stunned by the co-operation and generous spirit of country folk and the RFS in actively working together against bushfires.
This community, as all rural communities have, have fought fires for many years and have a wealth of on-the-ground experience—especially the fire captain of the Adjungbilly brigade, Bill Kingwell, whose quiet resolve during this fire was very reassuring to my wife and I.
That sort of comment resonated throughout Australia, whether it was the fires in Tasmania, Victoria or New South Wales; or the floods in my friend the member for Parkes's electorate, or indeed south-east Queensland.
As I said, we need to learn the lessons of these absolute disasters. When these disasters occur, we need to be ready and prepared much better the next time. Insurance companies have an important role to play. Rural, regional and remote communities benefited from the former coalition government's commitment to ensure access to modern telecommunications services with targeted and strategic assistance as part of its communications fund.
A total of $2 billion was invested in this fund and this generated $300 million over three years interest—money which was of enormous assistance to those in the bush. Sadly, under Labor, this fund and this money is all gone—wasted, along with all the other millions upon millions of dollars poured down the drain by the Rudd-Gillard governments since 2007.
The trouble is now there is no connectivity when the system goes down. Poor mobile telephone reception in many country areas means people in zones of risk do not receive important emergency text messages in times of disaster, in times of crisis. Landlines go down. Homes and businesses lose power and, in many cases, television, radio coverage and mobile service is simply inadequate, leaving affected regional residents exposed to the fury of nature and the madness of arsonists. This is a problem and it must be fixed. If Labor can roll out a national broadband network costing somewhere in the order of $50 billion, surely it can help mobile black spots to ensure people's safety and wellbeing in times of crisis.
The need for better mobile coverage was no better highlighted that in my local newspaper, the Daily Advertiser, in its edition on Wednesday, 16 January, this year. We see there a photograph of Ralph Billing standing on his International tractor hoping, in vain, to get mobile telephone coverage. The newspaper report says:
The need for strong mobile phone reception in rural communities was driven home after bushfires tore through the region last week.
While the need for towers has been discussed in recent months, some farmers yesterday said the lack of communication could become life threatening.
They are not exaggerating—this is very real. The member for Parkes would acknowledge that and I am sure you would acknowledge that, Deputy Speaker Scott. This is a huge problem.
The newspaper reported that Mr Billing, who lives north of Marrar, said:
"We had no mobile phone coverage and no landline, which caused a lot of stress."
Mr Billing said landholders kept watch for fires while remaining out of phone contact with the rest of the world.
It is simply not good enough in this day and age. The report said:
Winchendon Vale farmer Bob McCormack—
yes, he is a relative—
resorted to climbing on a cattle ramp on his property in a vain attempt to get just one bar of reception.
And we all know that one bar is not going to get you much coverage at all. The report went on:
NSW emergency services can send voice messages to landlines based on location, and mobiles based on billing address, to warn of impending disasters.
But it is no good if you do not have a landline; it is hopeless if you do not have any mobile reception. The report also said:
At this stage only Telstra provides location-based services and even its coverage in Mr Billing and Mr McCormack's areas is limited or non-existent.
"The issues are that Telstra has to put a business plan together and when they do that … then we'll work from there," Mr McCormack said.
It is a hopeless situation. As I said, we are a very smart technological country and we must get our budget in order so we can put these sorts of programs in place to help these people most in need, so that when future disasters strike—whether they be bushfires or floods or whatever—they have proper mobile coverage, they can get the alerts in time and they can take the necessary precautions to save their lives and their properties.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (12:47): I too rise here this afternoon to speak about the natural disasters that happen around Australia, particularly the ones in my electorate of Parkes. To show the diversity of Australia but particularly of my electorate, I was dealing with floods and bushfires at the same time. Indeed, as I speak, areas around Mungindi are still dealing with floodwater that has come down the Weir River from Central Queensland as result of the tropical cyclone that did such a lot of damage a couple of weeks ago. It caught the residents of the Boomi-Mungindi area somewhat unawares and there have been stock losses through that area.
I would like to focus my comments today on Coonabarabran. The town of Coonabarabran had a couple of fires, but the major one started in the Warrumbungle National Park. It took several days to contain it, but the majority of the damage was done in the first six or seven hours from the time it got going in the park. That was part of a couple of days of intense weather, with electrical and wind storms that did a lot of damage right through the area. There were fires in the Warialda area and at Collarenebri and they were contained, but the one at Coonabarabran was a problem. The final count was 53 homes lost at Coonabarabran, hundreds of kilometres of fencing and large amounts of livestock, as well as quite a lot of our native flora and fauna from the Warrumbungle National Park.
To highlight the ongoing effects of this fire, the Lill family at Coonabarabran lost several thousand acres of grass and one of their homesteads, and the wind generated by the fire did not actually burn the woolshed but blew it apart.
They have lost—I think this was the final count—something like a couple of hundred stud cows. At the moment the Lills are hand-feeding 30 or 40 poddy calves because the mothers have perished in the fire or are so badly burnt that they cannot nurture their calves.
They have an artificial breeding centre on this farm and they own a stud bull that has semen straws and offspring right through South America and around the world. It is one of the leading red Brangus sires in Australia. They found him sheltering the next day in the dry river bed of the Castlereagh River with burns to 40 per cent of his body. I have seen the photos that Stephen Lill has sent of this great bull. Stephen tells me that the bull has a will to live and is eating but whether he will have any future as a stud sire is yet to be seen.
So the immediate loss, above insurance, for the Lill family is in excess of half a million dollars but the ongoing costs would be in excess of a couple of million dollars because in 2015 they will not have any bulls to sell because their mothers and those calves perished. The photographs of these stud cows and calves, burnt and dead, indicated the ferocity of the fire, because they were not crowded into a corner or panicked. They died as they stood where they were grazing. Cows and calves, side by side, were spread around. That is a sight I have never seen before.
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for her visit; the people of Coonabarabran appreciated very much the fact that the Prime Minister of our land spent some time with them. The irony of that was that nearly exactly 12 months before, the Prime Minister was in my electorate looking at flood damage at Moree. When we inspected the area around Coonabarabran with the Prime Minister you could see trees that had been vaporised. At Bob Fenwick's house, which many people saw on TV—Bob was the volunteer fire-fighter who was away protecting other property while his own place burnt down—there was a green mown lawn which had had water under it because the water tanks melted in the fire. The fire burnt across the lawn.
My comments on that day were that the losses were tragic but that what was saved was incredible. Because of the ferocity of the fire the helicopters and the planes were unable to do anything about it. I think in four hours it travelled 40 kilometres in an easterly direction until a wind change headed it north. Then there were real problems because the front was 40 kilometres wide and heading north. What saved many of the houses was that as the fire front blew over, the helicopters and the planes dumped retardant on top of these houses that were smouldering. We saw that everything else was gone—the car shed, the cars, the machinery, livestock and fences. Just the houses were sitting there because of the work of the fire-fighters.
Indeed, the crew that were up at Siding Springs Observatory, which is Australia's iconic sight for space studies, managed to save the observatory and some of the buildings, although they lost some of the buildings. As the crew followed the fire back into town they put out quite a few of the houses. If the crew had not been there those houses would have burnt because there was no-one there to tend them.
The fire has had a devastating effect. I have spoken of the Lill family, but they are just one of many who have had incredible losses. I was speaking to Steve Bradshaw, the ex-assistant commissioner of police who has been sent to Coonabarabran to coordinate the recovery effort. He thinks there are a few people who will move on; it is just all too hard for them and they will not rebuild.
I will continue a little longer on the fire. The amount of effort and the change in the way fires are fought in the last few years was very evident.
There were hundreds of firefighters there. There were mobile command centres. The airport up there had helicopters and fixed wing planes. They had semitrailers that were there to mix fire retardant. This method of firefighting is quite effective but it is not without some conflicts. I hope there is a debriefing because a lot of the work that saved homesteads and pasture was actually done by landholders. Take a landholder like my good friend Warwick Knight. The fire got within 100 metres of his boundary. He and his neighbours, who did suffer loss, back on to some quite rough country and they spent days up there with knapsacks and McLeod tools putting in breaks up over cliff faces and all sorts of things to save it all. So I hope there is a debriefing because, as is always the case when outside forces come into a local area, there is a lack of communication, a little bit of rivalry. It has always got to be remembered that with all the technology in the world local knowledge is still a wonderful tool in fighting a fire. I hope that in the wash-up of this there is some consideration of that.
There has also been a mix of criticism and praise for the national parks people, praise for the effort that they put in in fighting the fire but criticism not individually of those people but of Parks as they have been somewhat reluctant to back-burn in cool times and the fuel load in that park was incredible, as was the fuel load on private land. After 12 months of an exceptionally wet season, with huge bodies of feed, and then a very, very dry spring and early summer, this was always going to be a possibility. That is another thing that needs to be followed up from the wash-up of this fire, how public land is managed and also how private land is managed and some of the restrictions on land clearing and tree clearing when people are wanting to put in adequate breaks, so that also needs to be looked at.
As with all disasters, there are great stories of mateship and of people coming to help. With the mayor's appeal I was at Coonabarabran on Saturday at a fundraiser as the local jockey club had a race day to raise funds for the people that were affected by the fire. Before that race day the mayor's fund was up over $430,000 thanks to the people that had donated to it and I am sure they had a successful day with, I am guessing, about 3,000 people at Coonabarabran on Saturday to show support. So people have come in and BlazeAid have been remarkable and now the Coonabarabran showground is a little camping ground to which people have come from all over Australia, volunteering their time to help reconstruct fences. Take the Men's Shed groups. I know that in a couple of weeks the Wellington Men's Shed are sending 28 or 30 of their members up for a week to help reconstruct fences. It takes a while because these people that have lost so much have got to gather their thoughts, they have got to have access to some funds to purchase materials, they have got to know what has to be done and put everything in place. You cannot just have a working bee turn up without the planning that goes into it. So that is happening at the moment.
I am a little disappointed, unless something has happened in the last day that I have not been aware of, that the category C announcement is still being worked out between the state and federal governments. I certainly hope that announcement is made because that would enable the $15,000 grants to come though—and they would not cover it but they would go some of the way towards the purchase of fencing material for those people that need to do it.
I would like to congratulate the community. When she was there the Prime Minister saw for herself the scene. Children as young as five and six up to teenagers and our more senior residents were there for days, making sandwiches, putting lunch packs together along with the local volunteer firefighters as well and everyone that came together. I would like to make a special mention of the mayor, Peter Shinton. Peter did a wonderful job. He understood his role completely and he was the conduit between Coonabarabran and the outside world. He informed the outside world of what was happening, he motivated the local people and, indeed, I was in regular contact with him. I think that at times of disaster quite often those of us that are local members are better off to stay at a distance and let the experts get on with the job, and certainly Peter was very good with that.
The member for Riverina spoke about telephone services, and there is an issue. Part of the area was covered by an Optus tower. It seems that the arrangement for the emergency call-out is a Telstra arrangement. I will certainly be following through on that to make sure that Optus is included in that, because the people who were at the northern end of the fire—up around Baradine way and Bugaldie—had no phone coverage. As the member for Riverina said, communications is a big issue. In the initial stages when that call went out I spoke to a firefighter from another fire down near Wellington. Because he had no phone service he missed the call-out to the fire. We do need to fix telecommunications in the bush—and, in times of disaster, there is even more of a need to do so.
I will mention just one of the tragedies that occurred. Rob McNaught is a scientist. He has a comet named after him—the McNaught Comet. He works up at Siding Spring. For the last 10 years Rob has been working—partly funded, I might say, by NASA—searching the night skies for asteroids that are coming towards Earth that might eventually pose a problem by colliding with Earth. Being able to identify asteroids 50 or so years out would provide invaluable information. Rob had a lovely mud brick home and, unfortunately, it was destroyed in the fire. A little bit of irony: over the last five years as I have been knocking on doors in this place trying to seek funding for the Siding Spring Observatory, it was not high on everyone's radar but, as it was nearly lost in this fire, I think there is an awareness now that it is an iconic institution. It is Australia's premier observatory. We are very grateful that it has been saved but we should also ensure that it is adequately funded into the future.
In closing, I acknowledge that Coonabarabran has had a big blow. It is going to take many, many years for the people of Coonabarabran and the economy of that town to recover. The upside is that it has brought that community closer together—to realise that they are stronger than they thought they were and to realise that they have more friends than they thought they had. As a community they are in great heart to take on what next comes their way.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (13:02): In recent weeks we have seen a series of disasters around the country. There have been bushfires, floods, cyclonic conditions and tornadoes. When you see such extreme weather it illustrates all too clearly the frailty of man-made structures compared to the power of nature. Massive fires, record rainfall events and record flood events have been occurring across the continent. The hearts of the nation go out to those who have lost everything in these events, and the gratitude of the nation goes out to the emergency services personnel who put themselves in harm's way to protect and rescue others. Our gratitude goes to those many Australians who pitched in to lend a hand and help with the clean-up.
In my contribution today I would like to bring the attention of the House to the impact of the recent flood events on the people of the North Coast of New South Wales. On the North Coast we have been fortunate that the major population centres were largely spared. In Coffs Harbour the intensity of the rain was such that the inundation of low-lying areas by Coffs Creek was narrowly avoided. In the Clarence Valley we saw record flood levels, with the river rising rapidly. With the flood height reaching within two centimetres from the top of the levy in Grafton, disaster was very narrowly avoided. Downstream at Ulmarra, whilst the levy was breached and water flowed into the village, most houses and shops were spared from serious damage. At Maclean the levy banks managed to protect the town.
Most of the damage in the Lower Clarence occurred in rural areas and smaller villages not protected by a levy system. Canegrowers have been particularly hard hit. The sugar industry has seen the loss of three crops in recent years as a result of summer floods. Floods at this time are particularly devastating as they destroy young crops. Many cane farmers borrowed to plant and to now lose the third crop will be a devastating blow. Many have also lost soybean crops which are being grown in rotation with cane. It is not just the canegrowers; dairy farmers and graziers have also been adversely affected, as well as banana growers, who, whilst out of flood reach, have been impacted by the strong winds that accompanied the rain.
I wrote to the Prime Minister advising her of the situation in my electorate and requesting assistance. Primary producers are keen to see the provision of re-establishment grants to assist with the cost of replanting and to assist with the cost of flood damage.
A category C assessment is underway and I am hopeful that we will get a satisfactory conclusion in this matter. It is important that those small businesses and farms that have lost so much in these floods are given some assistance to re-establish.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the work of our emergency services: the SES, the Rural Fire Service, police, fire and ambulance did an outstanding job, as well as the staff at the disaster recovery centre. I would particularly like to commend the work of volunteers who selflessly gave up their time to serve their communities. We as a community can take comfort in the knowledge that we have highly trained emergency service organisations who are able to respond to disasters when and where they may occur.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (13:08): It is with a great deal of pride in my home state of Queensland that I rise to speak on the Prime Minister's statement on the recent natural disasters which have plagued our country once again. We have seen the people of Queensland come together once again in the worst of circumstances to lend a hand and to lift each other up from the wreckage brought upon our great state. As Leader of the Opposition said a little earlier, 'the worst of mother nature brings out the best in human nature'. I can say from my experience in the 2011 floods in my own community that is exactly what we saw across our country and across Queensland.
I particularly want to acknowledge that the member for Hinkler, Mr Paul Neville, lives in an electorate around Bundaberg that was particularly hit by the recent floods, the worst floods on record. The stories that he shared with his colleagues in parliament are ones that will not easily be forgotten. He told a story in the coalition party room of when he visited the house of a lady in her nineties who had no family to speak of to assist her. She had lost absolutely everything. He said she had about 10 per cent of her possessions left. Mr Neville, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Barnaby Joyce, pitched in for a day to help this lady clean out her house and organise her belongings. It did not fix any of her problems, but it was a step in the right direction. They were there to give her some support in an incredibly difficult time.
As someone who lost a family home to fire when I was growing up, I know how devastating that experience can be, both psychologically and mentally. With floods you do not know how much you have lost or your path to recovery, because when a house burns down you lose all your possessions and you grow to accept that. You realise you have to rebuild and move on, but with floods you do not know whether the house can be rebuilt or you can live in the same house when it has been cleaned up. The psychological trauma extends for a very long time, and to see that across our communities is devastating. But to see the human spirit come through and individuals come together is something we should be proud of. I am proud to call myself a Queenslander and an Australian.
I turn to my own community. We were not as badly affected as we were in the 2011 floods, but there was a great deal of uncertainty and some minor damage across my electorate. I want to pay particular tribute to the state member for Pumicestone, Lisa France, the member for Morayfield, Darren Grimwade and the councillor for Division 1 in the Moreton Bay Regional Council, Gary Parsons. We were helping people when the floods and particularly the storms in my electorate were occurring with devastating winds. We were talking to locals and helping where we could. We went to the SES depot on Bribie Island where there was pouring rain and winds were gusting at 140 kilometres an hour. We asked the SES volunteers where they needed help and resources. They said they simply needed people to fill sandbags. We said we could do that, and they said they needed more people than the three of us. I said I could help out with the and I really want to thank my community because I put out some messages on Facebook and on Twitter through my office and very quickly we had a very large number of volunteers, more volunteers than could feed the sand-bagging machine out there to help in our communities.
So the three of us and a great deal of very compassionate locals filled hundreds of sandbags in very difficult conditions that afternoon. When I got home late that night, after having been out everywhere and with the wind still blowing, there was an SES volunteer across the road from me on the roof of the local pub in incredibly dangerous circumstances putting a tarp on the roof. I thought: to be doing that after the day that we have just had really shows their commitment and their service to our community. I am incredibly proud to say that I have people like that in my local community.
I will quickly touch on the residents of Dale Street in Burpengary. In 2011 Dale Street was very badly damaged by flooding. It is an area very close to a river bank that consistently floods. After the 2011 floods I spoke to the mayor, made a submission with a range of recommendations to the commission of inquiry that was established in Queensland, one of the most important recommendations being a flood buy-back scheme similar to that of the Brisbane City Council. If properties are consistently flooded the residents of that area obviously struggle to obtain insurance or else pay incredibly high premiums. They cannot sell their property and they are trapped in a cycle of misfortune.
Unfortunately, the progression to develop a flood buy-back scheme for the Moreton Bay Regional Council has not got to the point I would like it to. While I acknowledge that the council, the mayor and the councillors have made some progress in developing this scheme, I call on them to progress it as far as they can, to use this as an opportunity to put a new emphasis on developing a flood buy-back scheme for the Moreton Bay Regional Council. It is something that will fundamentally change the lives of people who are in a very difficult, effectively inescapable, circumstance. I would say to them, 'We are here to support. I know my state colleagues are here to support. We really do need to see this program developed in the Moreton Bay Regional Council, and there is already a scheme well and truly established in the Brisbane City Council.'
I spoke to the member for Ryan, Jane Prentice, during the floods that we have just had and she said her frustration was that locals did not want to sell their properties to the council. I said that my frustration was that the council did not want to buy those properties. There is a version that already exists and is something that we can easily adopt. We need to ensure that people can have a safe and happy existence in our local community.
I will conclude by saying that even though we were not as badly affected as we were previously, in my community I saw once again incredible generosity from locals who supported not only local relief efforts but especially those in Bundaberg. I saw friends helping complete strangers, neighbours helping neighbours and I am incredibly proud to represent such a generous community. As Tony Abbott said, the worst of Mother Nature really does bring out the best in human nature. I am very proud to call myself a Queenslander today.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:13): I thank my colleagues on both sides of the chamber for their valuable contributions on this matter of natural disasters. Firstly, I wish to comment on the natural disaster that we witnessed over the last month, then, to address two important issues that arise from that disaster and which require urgent attention from all levels of government. These are important issues to raise now while the images and impacts of this natural disaster, particularly in Queensland, are fresh in our mind so that issues arising from future disasters might be avoided or, at least, their impact is minimised. I will provide a more Queensland perspective on the disaster as it affected my electorate of Dawson.
Our nation's history and our culture is embroidered with heroic battles against Mother Nature. We have always been a sunburnt country, both relieved and challenged by flooding rains, and in the months just gone obviously Mother Nature has challenged our continent with fires throughout the south and flooding rains in the north.
Our hearts go out to the residents who are faced with the task of rebuilding their lives in the embers and ashes of Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and, more recently, Western Australia. Our thoughts and prayers also go out from my electorate in north Queensland to the people and their neighbours—in central, southern and western Queensland—who could not hold back the tide that was sadly delivered by ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald. We have the strength of our nation and culture, the determination and resolve forged through centuries of heroic battles by Australians with mother nature, and the bonds of mateship and of lending a hand in the time of need.
Thankfully, north Queensland was spared from the worst of ex-tropical Cyclone Oswald. Having lived through Cyclone Yasi and Cyclone Ului, and the devastating 2008 flood in Mackay, we offer understanding to those in need today and we are also there to lend a helping hand. Just as the helping hands arrived in north Queensland during our time of need, I note that the favour was returned. Certainly, SES crews and volunteers from right around north Queensland were on the ground in some of the worst-hit areas of our state. I note that Mackay Regional Council staff members were working in flood-prone areas—particularly around the Bundaberg region and the Burnett region—along with a team of SES volunteers from local SES units in Mackay, Calen, Midge Point and Sarina.
I would also note that groups like the Mackay Church Of the Nazarene, led by Pastor Robyn Geiger, made up and donated community care packages, which are very good for people who go through these disasters. When something horrendous like this happens in your life, you forget the small things. The packets were made up of toothbrushes, soap, shampoo—just small things like that to help people out. That was done by that church and sent on down to north Bundaberg.
My electorate did not escape entirely unscathed, as was evidenced by the boats—there was no damage to human life or serious damage to homes—which were smashed against the rocks and destroyed in the Whitsundays. I happened to be down there giving a certificate to a volunteer at the VMR at Airlie Beach when the storm system was passing overhead. It was a frightening thing to see the size of the waves that were pounding those boats. We actually watched and could do nothing as one of them was smashed right up against the rocks; it was basically split in two in front of our eyes.
Turning from that to the issues of what we can do in the future, there are two significant concerns that I have in the aftermath of these disasters. One is the breakdown of the telecommunications network that basically happened everywhere above Bundaberg, although it was a natural disaster and these things do happen. Somewhere above north Bundaberg there was a bridge that came down and took out the fibre-optic cable there, which was the main service line for all telecommunications in central and north Queensland. Then, unfortunately, the backup system to that was taken out by a landslide in Kingaroy. We had the main line and the backup line destroyed, and there were no Telstra telecommunications services.
But the serious issue arising from that was the breakdown of the 000 emergency service from all Telstra phone lines, including mobiles. That was out for about 20 hours, which was extremely, extremely concerning. I was very distressed not only by that event but to read a few days later in my local newspaper—the Daily Mercury—that there was actually an emergency that occurred in Proserpine during the time that those emergency numbers were offline. Fay Craigie—a 75-year-old woman with a serious lung condition—collapsed in her home and she was there for probably more than 12 hours on the floor, trying to get help by hitting her personal emergency alarm button. These things route through to a nominated person and then another nominated person, but when they do not get to those people they go through to 000—and 000 was down.
So this poor woman lay on the floor for 12 hours. When help arrived it was in the form of her daughter, Anne-Marie Rankmore, who found her and took her to the hospital but, three days later, Fay Craigie passed away from that ordeal and the complications that she already had.
Another situation happened in Mackay around the same time. An 81-year-old gentleman by the name of Colin Gray had a heart attack, he hit his personal alarm button and he was eventually found by, I understand, his daughter. Unfortunately, he passed away as a result of the heart attack but also because of the lengthy delay in getting medical treatment that should have happened. So I am quite alarmed that the triple-0 actually went out. I understand that there are measures, when the phone system went down, for the triple-0 services to remain active. While I am told that there was another emergency number that people could contact, the fact is that not even I know what it is. When people who probably have more information than most in the community do not know this phone number, how are people in the general community to know it? They said it was being sent out via mobile phone text, but the mobile phone system was not working. How on earth are people to get this number? It is quite serious.
I am having a meeting tomorrow afternoon with the daughters of both of the people who sadly passed away. We are going to get a petition together that will come to this place and hopefully put some pressure on the government and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Minister for Emergency Management to liaise with Telstra and the other telcos about ensuring that this does not happen again. There has to be a way that we can have surety of service with that triple-0 number. I have already written to both of those ministers about that. No-one is blaming Telstra for that incident, but the fact that these people could not get through to triple 0 at that time of need, and the fact that the personal alarm system went down as a result of that, is quite distressing.
The second issue is the Don River, which is a river that flows to the side of Bowen. Due to years of erosion from the hills upstream, there are large sand deposits in that riverbed. One deposit is right near the mouth of the river, and it is so big that locals actually call it 'the island' now. It effectively provides a blockage to water as it flows out the mouth and into the sea. A five-metre flood in that river used to cause some problems, but I have got to tell you that a 4.5-metre flood or less now causes flooding issues particularly in the rural part of that community. In the event of a five-metre, six-metre or higher flow coming through that river, I believe we would actually see homes wiped out in the Queens Beach area, which is a sizeable suburb. I note that the Whitsunday Regional Council has recently received $104,000 in a grant from the Queensland government through their floods response subsidy to develop a floodplain risk and management study for the Don River. That is good; that needs to happen before any work can take place to ensure that, if they are going to remove this bit of sand, it will not cause a problem in another part and cause more damage to homes. That study will supply options for flood mitigation works in the Don River, but I am concerned that the study probably will take some months. We need to get going straight after that. If we leave the works that are recommended by the study to languish, if we leave them beyond the next wet season, we could get a flood through that river which could change the hydrology and the sand movements, and then we would be back to square one and we would have to do a sub-study or something like that to find out what is going on.
The Queensland government provides funding through its Floodplain Security Scheme—part of its Royalties for the Regions program—for flood mitigation works like this. But there is actually no federal equivalent. I know they are liaising with the federal government at the moment to try to get some funding to help in these sorts of instances, but it is not there right now. The people of Bowen do expect that all levels of government—council, state and, indeed federal—where we do not have any bucket of money for this type of project, to assist. We want them to assist in preventing a natural disaster that could be caused by the Don River breaking out and flooding homes.
So, in the spirit of prevention being better than the cure, I say to the government: invest in the flood prevention works so we can fix the Don River before it is a problem.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:25): It is fair to say that in Australia we live in a land of extremes where, on the one hand, our environment can be very kind and very giving but, on the other hand, it can be very harsh and very violent and cause massive destruction to property and to people's lives. Unfortunately, over the last couple of months, we have seen the harsher parts of our environment. We have witnessed the extremes of bushfires burning across our country whilst parts of Queensland and New South Wales were flooding.
My parliamentary colleague, the member for Hinkler, has already spoken about the devastation of Bundaberg and the destruction of property and loss of life in his electorate. My friend and colleague the member for Flynn has spoken about the ferocity of the floodwater as it tore through properties, tearing up fencing and pipes. Basically, it tore down many of the things that were in its path and caused extreme hardship for the people in his electorate. With regard to some of the areas we have visited, including Gayndah, his stories about the damage that has been caused in rural areas is really quite heartbreaking. My sympathy goes out to people and families in those areas who have been affected. For many people in Australia it is hard to imagine what went on in some of these areas. We get some glimpses through the media of the level of destruction, and our hearts go out to the people in these as they start the massive task of rebuilding.
Turning to the Gold Coast, the electorate of McPherson that I represent was also affected by Cyclone Oswald over the Australia Day long weekend. Whilst I am not suggesting for a minute that the impact on the Gold Coast of the floods and the extreme weather was on the same extreme scale as what was experienced in other parts of Queensland, we certainly were affected on the Gold Coast. One of the images that we saw regularly played on television was of the waves crashing through Meesh's Restaurant at Burleigh Heads, which is in my electorate, and the ferocity of the waves as they broke through the glass, going straight into the windows of the restaurant, basically wiping out that part of the restaurant. That is probably an image that will live with many Australians for quite some time. There were other businesses and homes within my electorate that were seriously affected. They had damage to their roofing structures and their building structures as well. Across the Gold Coast there were about 50,000 homes that lost power, in some cases for several days.
Whilst, clearly, there was a direct impact on many of our families, it was also our small businesses that were affected by this as well, because a lot of people have potentially lost their livelihood for a considerable period of time. I think we need to be mindful of what happens to small businesses when we do have these severe environmental circumstances, because for our small businesses that are already struggling this is yet another hit to them that makes it so much harder for them to get back onto their feet. We are doing whatever we can in my local community to make sure that we get those small businesses as well as our residents back on track. We had emergency services locally on the ground on the Gold Coast, as they have always been and I am sure will continue to be in the future. They provided enormous support to the community at the time.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all the emergency services workers, all the volunteers from around Australia who did what they do best, which was to lend a hand in a time of crisis. I thank them for all that they have done.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) (13:29): I thank Deputy Speaker Livermore, the member for Capricornia for assisting me in the chair today. First of all, Dorothea Mackellar that endures today reminds us of the summer of natural disasters that we just had.
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!
We have seen it all this last summer, I have seen it for the last three summers, such has been the weather events that have occurred in my electorate, and of course in many parts of Australia. But we have to add to that the fires that have been so devastating in so many areas as well.
Whether fires and floods, those early alerts that go out are vitally important in saving lives. It also highlights that we have deficits in relation to the communication networks in Australia that we must address. I would hope that as a result of this summer of natural disasters we can look at this collectively across the political divide because we are talking saving lives and property. It was through those communication networks, particularly mobile communications, that people were alerted to get out of the way of a fire or to a flood that was coming their way in very short order. A photograph that ran in newspapers that will endure for me was one of that family in Tasmania who were hiding under a little jetty that was out over the water trying to get away from the fire. That photograph said a great deal to me and to all of us that having an alert and being able to get away at short notice has saved lives in many cases.
Fires in parts of the far west of my electorate have been burning for weeks and weeks, burning out pastoral land. It is probably a fact of nature that that happens every so often. The councils have been in touch with me very concerned about their council workers, who are mainly who we have out there as well as some SES workers. They are way out behind the fires with very limited communications. We have to look at how we can build better and more comprehensive networks, including back-haul. The town of Jundah south of Longreach had a tornado that pulled the town apart. All their communications networks went down and they were isolated completely, power went out. The single channel radio networks, microwave networks and battery backups that last eight or 10 hours went out. To me that says that we have to extend optic fibre cable in many of the areas to complete that back-haul, which is far more reliable in times of emergency and is not affected by structures that stand above the ground that can be destroyed by tornadoes and severe weather events.
I want to pay tribute to the councils as well: Wayne Kratzmann at South Burnett Regional Council, Peter Blundell at Southern Downs, Ray Brown at the Western Downs and others in my constituency in the west who have played an important role in bringing together the community and being a conduit to where emergency services might be working. Their council areas and their council workers, the SES workers, the Emergency Management Queensland and the volunteers who so often step forward are just remarkable. Some days I think that if we did not have volunteers this country would not run. I pay tribute to all those people. I know that the mayor in Goondiwindi, Graeme Scheu, has only in the last 10 to 12 days been able to get out and assess the damage. Some of the applications for category C and, in some cases, category D natural disaster relief and assistance have only just been assessed. I have some photographs here which I shown to some of my colleagues which show the sorts of things that underpin these applications. I was showing them to the Attorney-General. They include one with cattle stranded in a sea of water—there was no hope for those cattle—and ones showing railways and houses totally surrounded but also quite isolated, the other point I make. These councillors and mayors have been unable to get out there until only very recently.
I also thank the government in Queensland, the Premier's department and the Department of Primary Industries, local government and the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General in the Commonwealth. They acted as quickly as they could to assess these applications for whatever categories these communities fitted into.
Whether it is $1,000 per family plus $400 for each child or whatever, it is all important. We are a lucky country and we are a wealthy country—no matter what we think—in comparison to many others. And we have to make sure that in times of disasters—as we have seen in the last summer—we are out there to help and make sure that people are able to be given a hand up, because that is what so often keeps their morale up and helps them cope with the emergency, the devastation and the loss that surrounds them.
When you see photographs of what happened in North Bundaberg, you realise just how fierce Mother Nature can be. We know how kind she can be, but we also know how fierce Mother Nature can be. When you see the loss of property and the lives that could easily have been lost, it underpins what I said earlier about the need for communication, particularly an extension of mobile phones and backhaul communications networks. That is what saves lives. You cannot always save property but we must make sure that we save lives.
In conclusion can I just say that the councils and emergency services people, wherever they were, they were always there for their own communities and always there to help their fellow Australians. I thank them; I thank the departmental people who work silently and never seek recognition; I thank the department people down here; and I thank the Prime Minister's office and the Attorney-General's office too because they acted quickly when that information arrived. That has been very important. I also thank my colleagues for helping me to get some words on the record, recognising this summer of natural disasters, and putting on paper some of the things that I think we must look at urgently as a federal parliament to make sure that, in the future when these things happen—as they will inevitably happen—we are prepared as best we can be.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (13:36): Firstly, I would like to reflect briefly on the member for Maranoa's comments. Having a seat that is semi-rural, with World Heritage bushland and a valley that is a floodplain all within my electorate, we are familiar with disasters and we have many SES, RFS and other emergency service community volunteers who do tremendous work. I particularly acknowledge the member for Maranoa's comments with regard to communications. I recently held a forum in my electorate, which is in a bushfire prone area. There are areas around and throughout the seat of Macquarie where people do not have access to mobile phone coverage and, in some instances, it is a challenge for them to have ongoing access to landline. It is important for us to enhance and improve these kinds of communications wherever possible, particularly in areas such as my electorate and other parts of Australia that experience natural disasters.
The extremes of nature are not foreign to our ancient and beautiful land, and the people of Macquarie are familiar with the devastating effects of flood and fire. Queenslanders have been dealing with a flooding crisis and, while it may not necessarily be on the front page of the newspaper or on TV today, the full human and economic impact cannot yet be fully measured and they are in the process of recovery. Earlier this month Northern Australians faced the powerful remnants of Cyclone Oswald, the effects of which were felt in many communities. Further south, fires have devastated large areas in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. Many homes and businesses have been destroyed—and we have heard many stories told by my colleagues. Similar threats faced Western Australians earlier this year in Esperance, Boddington, Northam and other regions. Our thoughts are with the people on the ground as they endeavour to pull their lives together. On behalf of the people of my electorate of Macquarie and my family, I would like to extend my deepest condolences, particularly to those who lost loved ones as a result of these disasters. My thoughts and prayers are also with those who suffered extreme loss and damage.
It is important when reflecting upon these events to also acknowledge the men and women who stand up and put their lives and wellbeing on the line to assist their fellow Australians. One should probably start with the Mud Army of Bundaberg. The spirit of these volunteers embodies so much of the best of Australia and the Australian character—willing to drop everything to help their neighbours, friends and strangers. To them I say a huge thank you.
The emergency services, community organisations and defence community within the electorate of Macquarie have a long and honourable history of providing assistance far from home. This summer they have demonstrated that again—the tremendous capacity of locally based resources and organisations in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains to extend their help to their fellow Australians. Most recently during the flooding crisis crews, equipment and craft journeyed from RAAF Richmond in my electorate. Many aircraft, including C130J Hercules assisted and are continuing to assist flood affected areas. These crews assisted in the evacuation and medivac of many patients, including those being treated at Bundaberg. A medical team of 20 personnel from the RAAF Richmond are providing help to impacted regions. I am told that their contributions have been extremely valuable.
The Blue Mountains has many well established, highly effective RFS brigades, the members of which are brave individuals, always willing to put themselves on the line. During the recent fires in the Shoalhaven, RFS brigades from Bullaburra, Hazelbrook, Winmalee, Wentworth Falls, Valley Heights, Medlow Bath and Mount Wilson and the Blue Mountains Group Support Unit were all on hand. These men and women assisted and fought at the Dean's Gap fire, being of great and vital assistance in protecting lives and property. To them, I say thank you.
The fires that ravaged our iconic Warrumbungle National Park in mid-January were extremely confronting for all Australians. Once again, the RFS brigades of the Blue Mountains rose to the challenge and journeyed to join brigades from across New South Wales in fighting the fires as they burned. I would like to acknowledge the brigades of Blaxland, Glenbrook-Lapstone, Linden, Warrimoo, Woodford, South Katoomba, Wentworth Falls, Winmalee and again the Blue Mountains Group Support for their tremendous efforts.
Blue Mountains brigades also provided invaluable muscle, assistance and expertise to the efforts undertaken to bring the Wambelong fire near Coonabarabran and Yarrabin fires under control. I wish to thank the brigades of Linden, Medlow Bath, Blackheath-Mount Victoria, Mount Wilson, Warrimoo, Woodford, Bullaburra and the Blue Mountains Group officers and staff for their selfless efforts.
Also in my electorate we are fortunate to live alongside two areas of great natural and rugged beauty. These regions breed and foster men and women of the Blue Mountains I have already mentioned, but I would now like to acknowledge the wonderful work of the Hawkesbury RFS. The Hawkesbury RFS also formed part of the cohort tackling the Wambelong-Coonabarabran fire. I wish to extend my deepest thanks and express my gratitude for the efforts of the Grose Vale, Grose Wold, Kurrajong and Oakville brigades. I also acknowledge and commend the selfless and invaluable work undertaken by the Hawkesbury district staff and Hawkesbury headquarters officers.
Finally, I wish to again express the tremendous pride of all Australians in the men and women who serve in our civil, defence forces and organisations. We are deeply proud of them, their selflessness and their extraordinary work. Thank you for the outstanding examples of leadership and service that you grant to us all.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:44
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australian Passports
(Question No. 1193)
Mr Simpkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 September 2012:
In respect of Australian passports containing the names of Macedonian villages, towns and regions as the 'place of birth', that have since become Hellenised and are no longer recognised by Greece;
(a) what representations has the Australian Government made to the Greek Government to ensure that Australian passports containing such places of birth are honoured by Greece, and
(b) what action has the Minister taken on behalf of Australian citizens of Macedonian descent who have been denied access to Greece because their place of birth is no longer recognised as it appears on their Australian passport, and will their passports showing that they have been denied access to Greece affect their ability to enter other European Union member countries; if so, how, and what action is the Minister taking to resolve this problem.
Dr Emerson: The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the honourable member's question:
(a) On 6 September 2012, the Australian Embassy in Athens made representations to the Greek Ministry for Foreign Affairs about three separate cases of Australian citizens who were denied entry into Greece. These representations were made on the basis that the Australians were allegedly carrying "invalid" passports. The Greek government has advised that these individuals were denied entry because Greece does not accept official documents from third countries which contain "inaccurate denominations" of Greek geographical places. This measure is applied by the Greek government to the passports of all foreign nationals.
(b) As it is for Australia, it is the discretion of the Greek government to decide whom it allows to enter its territory. The smartraveller website maintained by the Australian Government cautions individuals in its travel advice for Greece that they may encounter problems entering Greece on travel documents that use place names not officially recognised by Greece. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is unaware of any cases where individuals were denied entry to other European Union countries on the basis of denied access to Greece.
Greek Consulates
(Question No. 1194)
Mr Simpkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 September 2012:
Is the Minister aware of allegations that some Australian citizens have been passing information to the Greek Government via Greek consulates and the embassy, about the lawful protest and activist activities of Australian citizens of Macedonian descent, to assist in creating a black list which is then used to decline their entry to Greece on the basis of them being a threat to public policy or internal security, under the provisions of an I Category Refusal of Entry at the Border form; if so, what measures is the Minister taking to resolve this problem.
Dr Emerson: The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the honourable member's question:
The Minister is not aware of such allegations. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is aware that the Greek government maintains a National Record of Undesirable Foreigners. As it is for Australia, it is the discretion of the Greek government to decide whom it allows to enter its territory.
Safarov, Mr Ramil
(Question No. 1228)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 September 2012:
In respect of Mr Ramil Safarov, an Azeri soldier serving a life sentence in Hungary for murdering his Armenian counterpart during a NATO Partnership for Peace program in Budapest in 2004, is the Minister aware that despite assurances by Azerbaijan authorities, President Ilham Aliyev pardoned Mr Safarov upon his extradition (under the Strasbourg Convention) to Baku, and glorified his crime; if so, has the Australian Government publicly added its voice to the international condemnation; if not, why not.
Dr Emerson: The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the honourable member's question:
The Australian Government is aware of the events concerning Mr Safarov. In response to inquiries on the issue, the Government has conveyed its disappointment at the decision to pardon Ramil Safarov, given it occurred against the backdrop of the broader tensions in Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Australia strongly encourages Azerbaijan and Armenia to remain engaged in mediation efforts led by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe to improve relations between the two neighbours.
Commonwealth Grants
(Question No. 1251 and 1258)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, in writing, on 18 September 2012:
(1) For (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, how many Commonwealth grants were approved by the Minister's department, and at what total cost.
(2) For 2012-13 (to date), how many Commonwealth grants were approved by the Minister's department and at what total cost, and of these, how many have (a) signed funding agreements, and at what total cost, and (b) been paid to the approved recipients, and at what total cost .
Dr Emerson: The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself, to the honourable member's question:
(1) (a) to (d). A list of approved grants for 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 is publicly available on the department's website which includes details of the total cost.
(2) A list of approved grants for 2012-13 to date is publicly available on the department's website which includes details of the total cost.
(a) All approved grants have signed funding agreements.
(b) The timing of grant payments varies with the terms of the funding agreement. However, payment is generally made in full when the funding agreement takes effect. To review payment terms for every grant issued this year to date would entail significant diversion of resources and in these circumstances I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minor Program
(Question No. 1298)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 26 November 2012:
In respect of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) in the UHM Program, would the Minister provide (a) the total number of UHMs in the program, and (b) the number of UHMs in the program broken down by state and territory, for the financial years (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09, (iii) 2009-10, (iv) 2010-11, (v) 2011-12, and (vi) 2012-13 (to date).
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) As at 31 October 2012, there were 977 clients in the Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minor (UHM) Program.
(b) The table below details the number of UHMs in the Program as at 30 June of the respective year (wards and non‑wards) broken down by state and territory. Figures for each year are higher than for the number of new entrants to the program for that year, as some UHMs are in the program for more than one year.
Financial Year (as at 30 June) |
ACT |
NSW |
NT |
QLD |
SA |
TAS |
VIC |
WA |
TOTAL |
2007-08 |
1 |
28 |
0 |
142 |
92 |
0 |
266 |
8 |
537 |
2008-09 |
2 |
22 |
3 |
140 |
113 |
0 |
273 |
13 |
566 |
2009-10 |
3 |
42 |
3 |
161 |
119 |
0 |
376 |
40 |
744 |
2010-11 |
3 |
38 |
0 |
205 |
111 |
1 |
386 |
57 |
801 |
2011-12 |
2 |
49 |
0 |
221 |
102 |
1 |
356 |
80 |
811 |
2012-13* |
2 |
70 |
0 |
264 |
139 |
1 |
413 |
88 |
977 |
* As at 31 October 2012
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1299)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 26 November 2012:
By way of monthly breakdown, in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, (d) 2010-11, (e) 2011-12, and (f) 2012-13 (to date), how many Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) in the UHM Program arrived in Australia as (i) Irregular Maritime Arrivals, (ii) Irregular Maritime Arrivals that have been granted a Protection (subclass 866) Visa, and (iii) on an offshore humanitarian visa (i.e. Class XB visa - subclass 200, 201, 202, 203 or 204).
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
Please note, the figures provided under 1299 capture arrivals only and is not a reflection of the overall numbers in the UHM program.
(a) (i), (ii) and (iii) The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) is unable to provide data for the 2007-08 financial year.
(b) (i) and (ii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived as IMAs and were granted a Protection (subclass 866) visa for the 2008-09 financial year, from January 2009. The Department is unable to provide data for the period July – December 2008.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jan-09 |
10 |
Feb-09 |
1 |
Mar-09 |
14 |
Apr-09 |
4 |
May-09 |
4 |
Jun-09 |
17 |
Total |
50 |
(b) (iii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived on an offshore humanitarian visa for the 2008-09 financial year, from January 2009. The Department is unable to provide data for the period July ‑ December 2008.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jan-09 |
8 |
Feb-09 |
11 |
Mar-09 |
3 |
Apr-09 |
24 |
May-09 |
17 |
Jun-09 |
7 |
Total |
70 |
(c) (i) and (ii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived as IMAs and were granted a Protection (subclass 866) visa for the 2009-10 financial year.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-09 |
10 |
Aug-09 |
3 |
Sep-09 |
54 |
Oct-09 |
4 |
Nov-09 |
24 |
Dec-09 |
15 |
Jan-10 |
14 |
Feb-10 |
17 |
Mar-10 |
45 |
Apr-10 |
25 |
May-10 |
2 |
Jun-10 |
7 |
Total |
220 |
(c) (iii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived on an offshore humanitarian visa for the 2009-10 financial year.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-09 |
19 |
Aug-09 |
21 |
Sep-09 |
23 |
Oct-09 |
29 |
Nov-09 |
16 |
Dec-09 |
10 |
Jan-10 |
0 |
Feb-10 |
5 |
Mar-10 |
1 |
Apr-10 |
13 |
May-10 |
10 |
Jun-10 |
14 |
Total |
161 |
(d) (i) and (ii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived as IMAs and were granted a Protection (subclass 866) visa for the 2010-11 financial year.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-10 |
5 |
Aug-10 |
27 |
Sep-10 |
14 |
Oct-10 |
8 |
Nov-10 |
14 |
Dec-10 |
9 |
Jan-11 |
18 |
Feb-11 |
23 |
Mar-11 |
14 |
Apr-11 |
39 |
May-11 |
50 |
Jun-11 |
34 |
Total |
255 |
(d) (iii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived on an offshore humanitarian visa for the 2010-11 financial year.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-10 |
1 |
Aug-10 |
17 |
Sep-10 |
16 |
Oct-10 |
13 |
Nov-10 |
13 |
Dec-10 |
14 |
Jan-11 |
4 |
Feb-11 |
0 |
Mar-11 |
4 |
Apr-11 |
2 |
May-11 |
1 |
Jun-11 |
3 |
Total |
88 |
(e) (i) and (ii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived as IMAs and were granted a Protection (subclass 866) visa for the 2011-12 financial year.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-11 |
25 |
Aug-11 |
46 |
Sep-11 |
18 |
Oct-11 |
31 |
Nov-11 |
18 |
Dec-11 |
14 |
Jan-12 |
31 |
Feb-12 |
34 |
Mar-12 |
32 |
Apr-12 |
32 |
May-12 |
40 |
Jun-12 |
39 |
Total |
360 |
(e) (iii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived on an offshore humanitarian visa for the 2011-12 financial year.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-11 |
10 |
Aug-11 |
8 |
Sep-11 |
6 |
Oct-11 |
8 |
Nov-11 |
12 |
Dec-11 |
3 |
Jan-12 |
2 |
Feb-12 |
6 |
Mar-12 |
0 |
Apr-12 |
4 |
May-12 |
6 |
Jun-12 |
4 |
Total |
69 |
(f) (i) and (ii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived as IMAs and have been granted a Protection (subclass 866) visa for the 2012-13 financial year, to 31 October 2012.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-12 |
34 |
Aug-12 |
41 |
Sep-12 |
37 |
Oct-12 |
54 |
Total |
166 |
(f) (iii) The table below provides a monthly breakdown of the number of UHMs who arrived on an offshore humanitarian visa for the 2012-13 financial year, to 31 October 2012.
Month |
Number of new entrants to program |
Jul-12 |
2 |
Aug-12 |
2 |
Sep-12 |
0 |
Oct-12 |
1 |
Total |
5 |
Custodianship Arrangements
(Question No. 1300)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 26 November 2012:
In respect of changes to custodianship arrangements, by way of monthly breakdown since July 2012, how many persons by (a) age, and (b) state and territory, have been appointed as custodians.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
The Department is aware of the appointment of four individual custodians since July 2012 (details of organisations appointed as custodians are noted in the response to question 1301). Two custodians are resident in South Australia, one in Queensland and one in Tasmania.
The Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (IGOC Act) requires the Minister or his delegate to be satisfied that an individual is willing and suitable to be a custodian. While the IGOC Act does not impose any age requirements for the appointment of custodians, a proposed custodian's age may be considered as part of an assessment of suitability as a matter of policy. State and territory welfare agencies are currently implementing custodianship provisions.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1301)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 26 November 2012:
In respect of the arrangement where Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors are in the care of a service provider, since the beginning of this custodian arrangement would the Minister provide the (a) name of each service provider that have been appointed custodians, (b) total number of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors for which each service provider has been appointed custodian (i) by year, and (ii) month, and (c) details of how frequently the department will review and audit these custodian arrangements.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
Custodian Appointments by Month (2012) * |
Service Provider |
|||
Life Without Barriers |
Centre for Multicultural Youth |
Multicultural Development Association |
Multicultural Youth, South Australia |
|
July |
6 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
August |
23 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
September |
22 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
October |
32 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Total |
83 |
14 |
6 |
5 |
*These figures relate to the appointment of custodians for new entrants to the UHM Program since July 2012. The appointment of the above service providers as custodians in relation to UHMs placed in their care prior to the commencement of the custodianship arrangements in July 2012 was progressively completed by October 2012.
(c) The Department will continue to regularly monitor these custodian arrangements as part of standard business reporting and engagement.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1302)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 27 November 2012:
In respect of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors being cared for by Life Without Barriers, (a) by way of monthly breakdown since 1 July 2011 through to 26 November 2012, how many Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors are being cared for in (i) Queensland, and (ii) Western Australia, and (b) what has been the contracted cost to the department of having Life Without Barriers provide these services during this timeframe.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) (i) The table below details the number of UHMs, by monthly breakdown, in the care of Life Without Barriers in Queensland as at the specified date. Statistics to 26 November 2012 were not available at the time of compilation.
As at |
Number |
31-Jul-11 |
86 |
31-Aug-11 |
109 |
30-Sep-11 |
107 |
31-Oct-11 |
113 |
30-Nov-11 |
107 |
31-Dec-11 |
72 |
31-Jan-12 |
77 |
29-Feb-12 |
81 |
31-Mar-12 |
85 |
30-Apr-12 |
87 |
31-May-12 |
87 |
30-Jun-12 |
96 |
31-Jul-12 |
96 |
31-Aug-12 |
106 |
30-Sep-12 |
108 |
31-Oct-12 |
115 |
(ii) The table below details the number of UHMs, by monthly breakdown, in the care of Life Without Barriers in Western Australia as at the specified date. Statistics to 26 November 2012 were not available at the time of compilation.
As at |
Number |
31-Jul-11 |
36 |
31-Aug-11 |
31 |
30-Sep-11 |
34 |
31-Oct-11 |
39 |
30-Nov-11 |
39 |
31-Dec-11 |
36 |
31-Jan-12 |
32 |
29-Feb-12 |
32 |
31-Mar-12 |
31 |
30-Apr-12 |
32 |
31-May-12 |
41 |
30-Jun-12 |
49 |
31-Jul-12 |
54 |
31-Aug-12 |
63 |
30-Sep-12 |
64 |
31-Oct-12 |
60 |
(b) The total cost of services provided by Life Without Barriers in Queensland and Western Australia from July 2011 to 30 September 2012 is $12.227 million. Invoices to 31 October 2012 have not yet been finalised at the time of compilation.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1303)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 27 November 2012:
(1) In respect of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) carers, since 1 December 2007, by way of monthly breakdown, (a) what is the total number of carers, (b) how many have been required to undergo police checks, and (c) how many carer applications have been refused as a result of the police checks.
(2) In respect of UHMs carers' assessment applications, (a) what is the timeframe for an application to be completed, and (b) what is the current backlog of outstanding carer assessment applications.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(1) (a) While the Department keeps records of the carers of individual clients, statistical information on carers is not maintained. At any one time, a carer may provide support to more than one UHM. Providing the statistics would require manual examination of hundreds of individual files and records and would be an unreasonable diversion of resouces.
(b) As part of the carer assessment process, all non-relative carers must undergo a police check. All adults residing in the carer's property must also undergo police checks.
(c) Carer applications are assessed by state welfare agencies. The Department is not aware of any carer applications refused as a result of a police check.
(2) (a) While timeframes differ between state welfare agencies, most carer assessments are completed within six to eight weeks.
(b) Most carer applications are assessed within six to eight weeks. As at 21 December 2012, there were 45 carer applications outstanding nationally.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1304)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 27 November 2012:
In the financial years (a) 2011-12, and (b) 2012-13 (to date), what has been the contracted cost to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship of having the (i) Refugee Minor Program delivered by the Victorian State Government Department of Human Services, (ii) New South Wales State Government Department of Families and Community Services provide services to Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) wards, (iii) ward and non-ward UHMs living with a carer in Queensland, as provided by the Queensland State Government's sub-contracted agency, Mercy Family Services, (iv) South Australian State Government Department of Communities and Social Inclusion, deliver services to both wards and non-ward UHMs under its MOU with the department, (v) Western Australian State Government Department of Child Protection, provide services to UHMs living with a carer under its costs sharing arrangement with the Department, and (vi) relevant government in the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania provide services to UHMs under case specific arrangements negotiated with the department.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(i) (a) and (b) The table below outlines the costs to the Department of delivering the Refugee Minor Program by the Victorian State Government Department of Human Services for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years.
Financial year |
Total (excl GST) |
2011-12 |
$3,294,193.94 |
2012-13 (1st quarter) |
$959,135.00 |
(ii) (a) and (b) The table below outlines the costs to the Department of services provided by the New South Wales State Government Department of Families and Community Services to UHMs for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years.
Financial year |
Total (excl GST) |
2011-12 |
$82,080.50 |
2012-13 (1st quarter)* |
$21,000.00 |
* Estimated figure. All invoices yet to be received.
(iii) (a) and (b) The table below outlines the costs to the Department of services for UHMs living with a carer in Queensland, as provided by the Queensland State Government's sub-contracted agency, Mercy Family Services, for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years.
Financial year |
Total (excl GST) |
2011-12 |
$214,620.00 |
2012-13 (1st quarter)* |
$55,150.00 |
* Estimated figure. All invoices yet to be received.
(iv) (a) and (b) The table below outlines the costs to the Department of services provided by the South Australian State Government Department of Communities and Social Inclusion to wards and non-ward UHMs under its MOU with the Department for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years.
Financial year |
Total (excl GST) |
2011-12 |
$1,431,315.10 |
2012-13 (1st quarter) |
$323,598.83 |
(v) (a) and (b) The table below outlines the costs to the Department of services provided by the Western Australian State Government Department of Child Protection to UHMs living with a carer under its costs sharing arrangement with the Department for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years.
Financial year |
Total (excl GST) |
2011-12 |
$39,230.54 |
2012-13 (1st quarter) |
$20,524.49 |
(vi) (a) and (b) The table below outlines the costs to the Department of services provided by the relevant government department in the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania to UHMs for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years.
|
Total (excl GST) |
||
Financial year |
ACT |
TAS |
NT |
2011 |
$5,112.90 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
2012 (1st quarter)* |
$1,022.58 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
* Estimated figure. All invoices yet to be received.
Please note that state and territory governments also contribute to meeting the costs of these services. The costs reflected above are for UHM services specifically. UHMs also access a range of other Commonwealth funded settlement and mainstream services, such as education, healthcare and other support.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1305)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 27 November 2012:
In respect of the eligibility requirements that need to be met in order for Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors to receive Settlement Services, (a) what are the details of the requirements, and (b) how frequently are they reviewed and updated by the department.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
UHMs who fall under the IGOC Act are considered wards of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and are eligible to receive services under the UHM Program.
UHMs who do not fall under the IGOC Act (referred to as non-wards) are eligible to receive services under the UHM Program as follows:
in Victoria and Queensland - until the UHM attains 18 years of age; and
in South Australia – generally for one year, or until the UHM attains 18 years of age, whichever comes first.
Services for UHMs are under ongoing review, in line with the changing needs of client groups and in accordance with community standards.
Settlement services (as distinct from care and welfare services) may be provided through UHM service providers or through Humanitarian Settlement Services and other DIAC-funded settlement programs, depending on client need and circumstance.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1310)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 28 November 2012:
Since 1 December 2007, in the financial years (a) 2007-2008, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-2010, (d) 2010-11, (e) 2011-12, and (f) 2012-13 (to date), (i) how many Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors that have arrived in Australia by boat have been granted a permanent protection visa through Australia's on-shore refugee humanitarian program.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
Please refer to the response to question 1299.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1311)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 28 November 2012:
By way of monthly breakdown, since 1 December 2007 to date, (a) how many Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) arriving through Australia's off-shore refugee and humanitarian program have not had access to pre-arrival orientation, and (b) what difficulties have service providers reported to the department in terms of increased 'transition time' required to understand the needs of UHMs.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) Departmental records on the number of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHM) arriving through the offshore humanitarian program that have not accessed pre-arrival orientation services are not readily available and cannot be provided within the required timeframe. A manual examination of hundreds of individual records dating back to 2007-08 would be required and would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(b) The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) is not aware of any feedback from service providers in relation to any increase in the transition time required where UHMs may not have accessed pre-arrival orientation services.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1312)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 28 November 2012:
Would the Minister provide the details of all analysis or assessments undertaken by the department from 1 December 2007 to date, to determine the capacity of the existing care and support framework for Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs), including the capacity of service providers to adequately provide for the needs of UHMs.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
Until December 2009, guardianship of all UHMs receiving services under the UHM Program was delegated by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to state and territory governments.
In 2009, following an increase in the number of UHM IMA arrivals, the Department considered an expanded range of service options. It was noted that, unlike the historical UHM caseload, IMA UHMs generally arrived without any family to care for them, and required significantly different support services from previous arrivals.
An assessment of client needs and existing service and funding models in 2009 led to the Department contracting a non-government organisation, Life Without Barriers (LWB), to provide 24 hour care and accommodation for IMA UHMs without family or community members to care for them, so as to ensure that the Minister's obligations as guardian were fully met. LWB was initially contracted to provide services to UHMs in Western Australia and Queensland.
The Department also gave consideration to the possibility of tailoring services to meet the needs of older, more independent UHMs, and in February 2012 the Refugee Youth Support Pilot (RYSP) commenced, with the aim of testing a model of care that focusses on settlement and transition to independent living. The RYSP provides independent, supported living arrangements for approximately 80-90 older UHMs in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. The RYSP is currently undergoing evaluation.
In addition, in the second half of 2012, the 24-hour LWB service model for IMA UHMs was extended into Victoria and South Australia. This expansion of services has further increased the capacity of the UHM Program to respond to client needs. The expansion recognised that UHMs may establish community links (for example with schools and local services) while living in community detention housing prior to visa grant, as many UAMs now do, and provides further opportunity for UHMs to be settled in the same location after their visa has been granted.
The Department monitors the delivery of services by LWB and RYSP providers through reporting, meetings, departmental visits to service provider premises and properties, and regular (often daily) liaison.
Proposed directions for the guardianship and services framework for UHMs have been the subject of discussions with state and territory governments during 2012, through a sub-committee and working group of the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services' Ministers Advisory Council.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1313)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 28 November 2012:
In respect of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) who have received a protection visa, by way of breakdown by month, since 1 December 2007 (a) how many have been required to relocate to a different state in order for guardianship requirements to be met, and of these UHMs, (i) how many move back to their original state/territory where they have connections or employment opportunities, and (ii) how many undertake interstate relocations without having any formal guardianship/care arrangements place.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) Providing statistics on the number of UHMs who relocate to a different state following their protection visa grant would require manual examination of hundreds of individual files and records and would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Prior to the Department expanding the UHM Program into Victoria and South Australia in late 2012, the majority of UHMs without carers were settled in either Queensland or Western Australia in order for guardianship and custodianship requirements to be met. Some UHMs were already located in Western Australia and Queensland in Community Detention arrangements; for those who were not, this did require relocation. Since the program expansion, however, there are now increased settlement options available to UHMs without pre-existing carers and the necessity to relocate is significantly reduced.
(i) Prior to the aforementioned UHM Program expansion, a small proportion of UHMs have moved back to their original state/territory where they had connections or employment opportunities.
(ii) In some cases, the relocations are advised in advance which enables the relevant state welfare agency to conduct carer assessments prior to the relocation or for arrangements to be made with the Department's contracted service provider. In other cases, UHMs choose to relocate without prior notice. In these cases, liaison with the relevant state welfare agency and/or relevant service providers takes place after the move where the Department is advised of the client's new location.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1314)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 28 November 2012:
(1) Is it a fact that the Minister is the 'guardian' of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) who have received a protection visa; and if so, (a) please detail how (i) the delegation of the Minister's guardianship responsibilities are transferred to another jurisdiction, (ii) how UHMs are able to obtain services without an effective guardian, and (iii) the department keeps track of such delegation transfers; and if not, (b) please detail (i) who is responsible for the provision of settlement services to UHMs, and (ii) what eligibility criteria are applied in coordinating the transfer of care arrangements.
(2) What coordinated support arrangements are in place for UHMs transferring between different state/territory jurisdictions?
(3) Since 1 December 2007, and by way of monthly breakdown, in (a) 2007-2008, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-2010, (d) 2010-11, (e) 2011-12, and (f) 2012-13 (to date), how many delegated guardianship transfers for UHMs were undertaken.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(1) Under the IGOC Act, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is the guardian of non-citizen children who:
have not turned 18 years of age;
are not Australian citizens;
arrived in Australia without their parents or a relative who had turned 21 years of age, or did not have a parent or relative over the age of 21 years who was already in Australia and with whom they intended to live, and;
intend to live permanently in Australia.
The Minister is the guardian of those unaccompanied minors who fall within the definition set out above. A small proportion of unaccompanied minors do not fall within the definition in the IGOC Act and the Minister is not the guardian of these minors. The Minister is guardian of the majority of unaccompanied minors who enter the UHM Program following the grant of a Protection visa.
(a) (i) Section 5 of the IGOC Act provides that the Minister may delegate his powers and functions under the Act to an officer of the Commonwealth or of any State or Territory. By way of an Instrument of Delegation, the Minister has delegated many of his powers and functions under the Act to officers of the Department and of State and Territory Child Welfare Agencies.
(ii) As noted above, the Minister is the legal guardian of most UHMs. His guardianship responsibilities are carried out by officers exercising delegated guardianship. UHMs for whom the Minister is not guardian (often referred to as non-wards), are provided with support services under the UHM Program in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. Non-ward minors who have travelled to Australia without a parent are usually in the care of a relative and receive support through Humanitarian Settlement Services and other DIAC-funded settlement programs.
(iii) An Instrument of Delegation signed by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship specifies which functions under the IGOC Act are delegated to particular positions. Where a minor for whom the Minister is guardian seeks to live with a relative or other suitable community member following the grant of a permanent visa, the Department will ask the relevant State or Territory Child Welfare Agency to accept delegated guardianship in accordance with the Instrument, in relation to that child. Following an assessment of the proposed care arrangements, the Child Welfare Agency will advise whether it accepts delegated guardianship.
Senior departmental officers exercise delegated guardianship responsibilities in relation to minors for whom the Minister is guardian who are placed with a contracted service provider following the grant of a Protection visa.
(b) Please refer to response 1314(a) (iii).
(2) Where a UHM for whom the Minister is guardian transfers to a different state or territory or between care by a contracted service provider and placement with an individual in the community, arrangements will be made to ensure delegated guardianship for the minor is transferred to the relevant officer.
(3) (a) The Department is unable to provide data for the 2007-08 financial year.
(b) The Department is unable to provide data for the 2008-09 financial year.
(c) The table below outlines the monthly breakdown of referrals of clients from Commonwealth delegated guardianship to State and Territory Government delegated guardianship of UHMs undertaken in the 2009-10 financial year.
Month |
Number of transfers |
Jul-09 |
15 |
Aug-09 |
9 |
Sep-09 |
54 |
Oct-09 |
15 |
Nov-09 |
26 |
Dec-09 |
15 |
Jan-10 |
12 |
Feb-10 |
13 |
Mar-10 |
20 |
Apr-10 |
13 |
May-10 |
4 |
Jun-10 |
9 |
Total |
205 |
(d) The table below outlines the monthly breakdown of delegated guardian transfers for UHMs undertaken in the 2010-11 financial year.
Month |
Number of transfers |
Jul-10 |
7 |
Aug-10 |
13 |
Sep-10 |
12 |
Oct-10 |
6 |
Nov-10 |
13 |
Dec-10 |
5 |
Jan-11 |
11 |
Feb-11 |
5 |
Mar-11 |
13 |
Apr-11 |
6 |
May-11 |
22 |
Jun-11 |
13 |
Total |
126 |
(e) The table below outlines the monthly breakdown of delegated guardian transfers for UHMs undertaken in the 2011-12 financial year.
Month |
Number of transfers |
Jul-11 |
11 |
Aug-11 |
19 |
Sep-11 |
11 |
Oct-11 |
17 |
Nov-11 |
10 |
Dec-11 |
5 |
Jan-12 |
9 |
Feb-12 |
15 |
Mar-12 |
16 |
Apr-12 |
10 |
May-12 |
24 |
Jun-12 |
13 |
Total |
160 |
(f) The table below outlines the monthly breakdown of delegated guardian transfers for UHMs undertaken in the 2012-13 financial year, as at 31 October 2012.
Month |
Number of transfers |
Jul-12 |
19 |
Aug-12 |
13 |
Sep-12 |
15 |
Oct-12 |
18 |
Total |
65 |
*Figures provided in tables under 1314 capture arrivals only and are not a reflection of the overall numbers in the UHM program.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1317)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
In respect of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) who have obtained a protection visa, (a) how many arrange their own carer to avoid relocation to a different state, (b) how many reports has the department received, and/or is aware of, where UHMs have sourced new carers through Facebook and other social networking sites, and (c) how many of these UHMs are still in contact with, or monitored by, the department.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) The Department does not keep records on the reasons why Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) nominate carers in particular states.
(b) The Department does not keep records on how UHMs identify their carers, however, all carers are assessed. Please see the response to PQoN 1314 in relation to carer assessment.
(c) Refer to response (b) above. UHMs residing with approved carers are under the supervision and delegated guardianship of the relevant state welfare agency. There is regular liaison between the Department and state and territory child welfare agencies.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1318)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
In respect of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors (UHMs) turning 18 years of age, (a) what targeted support/transitional care arrangements are available, (b) what guidelines does the department issue to service providers to support UHMs in transition, (c) what analysis and assessments has the department undertaken to determine levels of homelessness amongst this group, and (d) by way of monthly breakdown, in (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09, (iii) 2009-10, (iv) 2010-11, (v) 2011-12, and (vi) 2012-13 (to date), would the Minister provide the details on the levels of homelessness amongst this group.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) As part of the UHM Program, state and territory governments, as well as contracted service providers, support UHM clients in transitioning to independent living in the lead up to turning18 years of age. UHMs who turn 18 are placed in suitable long term housing as part of their transition. These young people are assisted to engage in the community with local cultural and religious groups, as well as with a range of life skills including budgeting, cooking, community services and household maintenance.
Where UHM or Refugee Youth Support Pilot (RYSP) clients are transitioning to the Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) Program, the HSS Service Provider will seek a transition out care plan and other relevant information about the youth from the originating service providers.
Once UHMs turn 18 years of age they are eligible to access a range of services, including mainstream services such as education, training, employment assistance and health care. Clients will already have had access to many of these services, such as health care and education under the UHM program, providing service continuity.
(b) Guidelines are provided to service providers in relevant program contracts.
(c) and (d) There is an acknowledged lack of available data across the Commonwealth and the States and Territories on the rates of homelessness experienced by migrants and refugees, including for UHMs. Whilst anecdotal evidence suggests some among this group may be more vulnerable to homelessness than others, including young refugees and migrant and humanitarian youth and women subjected to family violence, there is currently no data to confirm or rebut this.
The Department and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) are working together to improve the analysis of the homelessness experience, including through the General Social Survey and Census of Population and Housing. The Department also plan to include questions on housing and homelessness in the longitudinal survey, 'Building a New Life in Australia', which will follow refugees over their first five years in Australia, collecting a range of information about how well they settle.
This data analysis will not support prevalence findings but will support improved policy and service delivery responses for migrants and refugees who are identified as most vulnerable to homelessness.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1319)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
What transitional care arrangements are in place for Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors exiting community detention.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
UHMs generally remain in community detention properties for up to four weeks following Protection visa grant, to allow settlement arrangements to be finalised. Where transitional care arrangements are required, generally in cases where a carer assessment is in progress, UHMs can be cared for under the UHM Program, administered by Life Without Barriers.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1320)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
In respect of the budgetary allocation for the department's Community Programs and Children's Division for 2012-13, (a) what is the total sum of the budgetary allocation, (b) what is the breakdown of allocation between community detention and Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
The Community Programs and Children's Division is responsible for the delivery of major departmental programs that span several Budget Outcome deliverables and for a number of client cohorts, not just UHMs and Unaccompanied Minors (UAMs). Funding for this division for the 2012-13 financial year is not identified in isolation within the Portfolio Budget Statements, rather it is incorporated within the total funding provided to the Department of the following programs:
Program |
Program Name |
2.1 |
Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance |
4.1 |
Visa Compliance and Status Resolution |
4.2 |
Onshore Detention Network |
4.3 |
Offshore Asylum-Seeker Management |
5.1 |
Settlement Services for Migrants and Refugees |
It should be noted that activities undertaken by the Community Programs and Children's Division that relate exclusively to the care and management of Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) do not have a specific budget allocated in the 2012-13 financial year. These form a component of the total funding provided to the Department on a 'no win/no loss' basis and costs and budget vary with changes in demand.
Specifically, the 2012-13 administered budget for the UHM Program is $15.693 million.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1321)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
Are there processes utilised by the department in determining discrepancies in relation to the age of young people arriving in Australia from refugee backgrounds; and if so, what are the processes.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
In 2010, the Department piloted an interview based assessment that has since been adopted that includes any evidence or information a client can provide relating to age. The Department consulted widely on this approach and developed the process with advice from the Council for Immigration Services and Status Resolution (CISSR), now known as the Minsters Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention (MCASD). Prior to the pilot, the Department discussed the approach with the Ombudsman's Office, the Departmental Health Advisory Group (DeHAG) and the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The approach was endorsed by each body.
In making an age determination, the Department conducts a focused interview in all cases to assess whether a client is under or over 18 years of age. All interviews are conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the presence of an independent observer and are digitally recorded, subject to the client's agreement. Clients are encouraged and supported to provide the Department with verifiable documents at any time. If credible new information is brought to attention, cases undergo an independent review.
The Department does not rely on bone scans and other physical investigations (such as dental examinations) for age determination. This approach accords with the findings of the AHRC's inquiry report 'An Age of Uncertainty'.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1322)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
Is the department aware of the concerns of service providers that there are inadequacies in the department's age assessment processes; and if so, how are these inadequacies affecting (a) care and support arrangements, (b) physical and mental health assessments, (c) appropriate education or training support, and (d) access to youth services.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
The Department is aware that some stakeholders have raised concerns about age determination. Age determination is a complex policy, ethical and legal issue that many asylum seeker destination countries are facing. Please see the response to PQON 1321 which outlines departmental practice in relation to age determination and its endorsement by key stakeholders.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1323)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
In respect of the Refugee Youth Support Pilot, (a) what was the total cost, (b) what were the outcomes, and (c) is there any committed funding to allow for the further rollout of the pilot; and if not, what will happen to the 100 Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors who were part of the pilot.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) The Refugee Youth Support Pilot is still in progress. The twelve month period of the Pilot will cease on 5 February 2013, with an extension of services until 30 June 2013 for those clients who have not yet turned 18 years of age. Program costs will be analysed through the Pilot evaluation.
(b) The outcomes of the Pilot will be set out in the evaluation report, expected to be completed by 1 March 2013.
(c) The Pilot was established to help inform future UHM care models and will not be extended beyond 30 June 2013. By this date, all Pilot clients will have turned 18 or will be close to turning 18 and will be referred to the HSS Program for continued care and support as required. A comprehensive transition out care plan will ensure that clients make a smooth transition into independent living.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1324)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
In respect of the evaluation of the Refugee Support Pilot, (a) when will the evaluation be completed, (b) what are the assessment criteria for the evaluation, (c) is it being compared to other service providers, including the Life Without Barriers model, and (d) who is undertaking the evaluation.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
(a) The evaluation of the Refugee Youth Support Pilot is expected to be completed by 1 March 2013.
(b) The terms of reference for the evaluation are to:
1. examine whether the overall approach being tested through the Pilot leads to positive settlement outcomes for clients, whilst remaining cost effective;
2. assess the three Pilot models to identify any differences in terms of their implementation and outcomes and determine which aspects may be adopted as part of a final 'best practice' model;
3. assess the outcomes achieved for (and/or experiences of) participants in the Pilot against those who are in the existing UHM program to gain an understanding of the benefits/drawbacks of the Pilot model in comparison to the current approach;
4. examine the cost of delivering the Pilot in comparison with the UHM Program; and
5. determine whether it would be more effective to integrate the provision of all settlement services into the UHM/Pilot settlement model rather than splitting services between those providers and HSS.
(c) Please see terms of reference 3 and 5 above; this will include a comparison with the Life Without Barriers 24 hour care model.
(d) The evaluation is being conducted through a partnership between the Department and ARTD Consultants. The fieldwork component of the evaluation is being conducted by ARTD Consultants. A mentor from ARTD Consultants has also been engaged to guide the broader evaluation process.
Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program
(Question No. 1325)
Ms Gambaro asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
Would the Government consider releasing to market the tender (previously published on the AusTender website as 'Accommodation, Care, Welfare and other services for unaccompanied humanitarian minors. APP DIAC 12/54. Category 8313159 – Refugee Program) for the support of Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors in community detention and under humanitarian visas; and if so, when.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answers to the honourable member's question is:
As outlined on Austender, the anticipated release date for a Request for Tender (RFT) for accommodation, care, welfare and other services for unaccompanied humanitarian minors (UHMs) is the third quarter of 2012-13. This RFT will cover services for UHMs (i.e. unaccompanied minors who have been granted humanitarian or protection visas) only.
Overseas Child Abduction Scheme
(Question No. 1331)
Mrs Markus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 29 November 2012:
(1) What steps will the Government take to assist Australian families of children abducted to previously non-Hague Convention states, prior to the ratification by these states of the Convention, where the terms of the Convention are not to be applied to historical abductions?
(2) In respect of Australian children abducted to Japan in international child custody disputes, (a) since 2009, how many Australian children have been abducted, and (b) what steps have been taken or processes initiated towards the development of a bilateral agreement with Japan.
Dr Emerson: On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affair, The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The Attorney General's Department has responsibility for Hague Convention issues. It has advised that the Australian Government can provide some financial assistance to parents whose child has been abducted to a foreign country, including countries which have not ratified or acceded to the Hague Convention. This assistance is provided under the Overseas Child Abduction Scheme, which is a means and merits tested scheme. In addition, the Australian Government has long-standing arrangements with International Social Service Australia, to provide social support services (including counselling and mediation) for families affected by international parental child abduction.
(2) (a) The Attorney-General's Department only maintains statistics for applications received under the Hague Convention, but not for other inter-country child abductions. Since 2009, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided consular assistance to nine Australian children abducted either to or from Japan. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that it received three applications for financial assistance in relation to children abducted from Australia to Japan, since 2009.
(b) Australia has been a strong supporter of wider participation in the Hague Convention and has been an active participant in several international fora aimed at encouraging Japan to ratify the Hague Convention. The previous Japanese Government announced in May 2011 that it would ratify the Convention. The Australian Government has welcomed the commitment of the new Abe Government to go through procedures for an early ratification of the Hague Convention. The Government has pursued bilateral agreements with countries that are not parties to the Hague Convention, but at this stage there is no prospect of such an agreement with Japan.