The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (12:01): It is a pleasure to be speaking first today on this vague attempt by the government to respond to recommendations of the Fair Work review. Members of the House will recall that the government was mugged by reality when it stacked its panel for the Fair Work review, after promising it would have such a review, and then those individuals discovered the reality of the flaws and failures in the system and made some quite sensible recommendations. The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 is supposed to implement the second stage of those recommendations. In fact, it barely touches on them, and it also brings in some other matters that had nothing to do with the Fair Work review recommendations, in relation to workplace bullying. I know the minister will accuse the opposition of going soft on such matters as workplace bullying; of course, that is definitely not the coalition's position, and I will make remarks about that perhaps later today or when further amendments are brought to the House.
We are deeply disappointed that the government have sidelined the bulk of the remaining Fair Work review recommendations. They have used this piece of legislation to grant additional rights to union bosses, with no explanation, and, as I said, respond to a separate report on workplace bullying done by a committee of this parliament. Arguably, matters relating to workplace bullying do not belong in the Fair Work Commission, an organisation straining at the seams with the amount of work that it has been given by the government. The government have allocated, I think, $21 million to assist, but we are just getting one seriously overloaded bureaucracy happening here.
The priorities in the Fair Work Amendment Bill are overwhelmingly not those identified by the review panel. The government got 53 recommendations from its own stacked review panel, and it has not seen fit to advance any of those in this legislation. The first bill contained the non-contentious amendments, making it look as if there was action happening when in fact nothing was really going on. In fact, this bill is quite dishonest. It has now been confirmed that many of the provisions—which were announced with much fanfare—actually do not have any impact at all: for example, arguably those relating to penalty rates. We also noted that the provisions in this bill relating to unpaid no safe job leave reintroduce elements of the Workplace Relations Act, an act hated by the Labor government and torn up in disgust. But they were quite sensible measures. They were designed to protect pregnant workers, and it was confirmed by the trade unions that they had not been picked up and put in the Fair Work legislation.
It is an uncommon and unfortunate theme that we are not getting from the government regulation impact statements when major changes such as this are being made. At the Senate inquiry into this bill, the departmental officers could not provide any real reason why there was no regulation impact statement. In fact, every time departmental officers are asked why there has not been a regulation impact statement on major pieces of legislation that are rushed through, poorly drafted after no consultation with industry or stakeholders, the hapless department officials sit there saying: 'We don't really know. It was considered that there were no grounds for regulation impact statements.' This is coming from the top down, from ministerial offices saying to the department that there is no need for a regulation impact statement. My question to the House is: why not? Why not get it right? What are you afraid of? Why not consult with the people who are affected most?
Given that this bill will affect every employer and employee in Australia, we do believe that we should have had that regulation impact statement. It should have been prepared to objectively assess the costs and benefits of the changes. It should not have proceeded without it. As I said, such a lack of clarity and a rushed bill. We are seeing that all over the place. Knock it up in a hurry, introduce it, tick the boxes, keep the unions happy, perhaps if it is not quite right—and we expect to see this later today or tomorrow—move amendments to your own bill. How messy: move amendments to your own bill, because you did not get it right the first time or the unions were not happy or you did not do exactly what you were supposed to do and so on.
It is absolutely imperative that with this type of legislation we get the balance right. We are very apprehensive towards, in particular in this legislation, a dramatic expansion of the rights for union bosses. We note that the Prime Minister—who was then the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—took great pride that her Fair Work Act, enacted in 2008, got the balance right. In fact, in her first press conference as Prime Minister, she said: 'I talked for hours with business leaders, with union leaders, with small business leaders just to make sure we got the balance right.' She repeatedly said that, including as recently as 2012 when she said:
… we built a modern and fair system that has got the balance right.
I guess that the balance is a matter of subjective judgement and I know that members of the government, none of whom are here to talk about their own bill, might argue that the balance is right. But we did hear the Prime Minister say that the status quo then got the balance right. Why then has it become necessary to dramatically increase unions' right of entry?
This bill has brought to 400 the total number of pages of amendments to the Fair Work Act since 2009, when the balance was right. I have a detailed list of the 157 new or extended union rights under the Fair Work Act. The government's desire to appease the unions by picking recommendations from the review, augmenting them, adding other issues and dressing it up as a response to an independent review is pretty awful.
Coalition senators and coalition MPs firmly believe that there are two recommendations in particular that were made by the Fair Work review that should have been in this bill, and they are not. They are key recommendations and they stood out. One was reflected from the High Court's unanimous judgement in the Barclay v Bendigo TAFE case which found that union bosses should not be an untouchable class in the workplace. That was picked up by the Fair Work panel review. But, of course, this revolves around the minister himself, who intervened, using more than $160,000 of taxpayers' money, in a court case to argue for the union bosses against the Bendigo TAFE, a taxpayer funded, educational institution. When you have a ruling from the High Court as strong and clear as that, you would think that you would pick it up and enact it in legislation in this parliament, but it has just been sidelined.
The second recommendation of the Fair Work review that should have been picked up in this particular piece of legislation reflects a promise made by Kevin Rudd when he was opposition leader that the Fair Work Act would not allow the return of 'strike first, talk later'. Arguably, another case, the JJ Richards case, makes it clear that technically the Fair Work Act does allow strike first, talk later; it is not sufficiently clear that it does not. We know the confusion, the disorganisation and the chaos that result in Australian workplaces when that particular action happens. So we would have liked to see those two recommendations that were not even touched included in this legislation.
I touched on the right of entry. We have long been concerned with the Prime Minister's broken promise that there would be no change to union right-of-entry laws, a promise made on the life of the Prime Minister's own mother, in her words. Labor's Forward with Fairness document just before the 2007 election contained this express commitment to retain the existing right of entry provisions: 'We will make sure the current rights-of-entry provisions stay,' the then spokesperson, now Prime Minister, said. 'We understand that entering on the premises of an employer needs to happen in an orderly way and we will keep the right-of-entry provisions.' So, based on these promises, it was rightly expected that the existing right-of-entry provisions would be maintained. We now know this is simply not the case. There has already been a dramatic expansion of the laws relating to union access and we have seen an onslaught of visits.
It was recently reported that the AWU made 156 site visits to BHP's Worsley Alumina site in 2012 and a further 175 in 2011, and the Pluto project experienced more than 200 union site visits in the first 90 days of the act. I wonder what time of year this was—I expect it was in the southern winter and the Western Australian summer. The vast majority of these visits are either a blatant membership fishing expedition or they are designed to intimidate.
How much disruption does that really cause to a workplace? I have some recent experience of this. From my other role in this place as the opposition's spokesperson for child care, I can say that we are seeing a pushing into the workplace of the union United Voice: taking over the shared space of lunchrooms—it is very difficult to find somewhere to sit down and talk in a busy childcare centre—pulling the childcare educators off the floor, insisting that they listen to the message, bullying them into signing up and so on. We have lots of real-world examples where, inappropriately, unions are barging into the workplaces where ordinary people are trying to carry out a day's work. This is not to suggest that unions should not have access to employees; there is no problem with that. This is to suggest that unions should not be able to barge into a workplace, to interrupt what is an important activity on the floor of a childcare centre, in a small business, at a mining centre, everyone downs tools and the union conversation holds sway.
If the initial broken promise about this is not bad enough, we now have before the parliament a bill that would even further expand the right of entry laws. The concerns relating to expanded provisions proposed in this bill are really two. The first concern relates to the default location. If the employer and the union official cannot agree in it being the lunchroom, then what happens? The second concern relates to the employer's liability for travel costs for union officials exercising a right of entry permit in remote locations. We do agree with the sentiment expressed by the Australian Industry Group that this measure is simply an attempt to increase union membership and will not increase productivity. I know the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is going to say when he comes into this place, 'Oh no, that is not right, the employer does not have to pay for the relocating of the discussion to an alternative venue'—perhaps because it cannot happen on a mine site—'the union has to pay, the employer does not have to pay'. I think that will be the argument that the minister will bring in here.
We have received briefings that indicate that, while the union might initially pick up the tab, the union will then bill the employer—so ultimately the employer will pay. To avoid any doubt, I would like the minister when he sums up the debate on this bill to make it very clear that, if unions have a right of access to a group of workers in a remote part of Australia and for whatever reasons the public spaces on that work site are not available, or even if they are, it will not be the employer who has to pay for the travel costs, the fares often from the eastern states to Perth and then to the mine site—maybe because it is an urgent matter it involves a charter and thousands of dollars are ticking over—and then also has to pay for the workers to stop work, attend the meeting, travel there and back and so on. That needs to be clarified absolutely.
The plethora of safety issues associated with union access to remote sites includes the fact that infrequent travellers require escorting on all offshore platforms. There is more and more activity in offshore drilling at the moment—they need helicopters for transport, and there is huge distraction. Extra resources are required to be diverted while at the same time the occupier is exposed to significant risk and liability. As we all know, if you work in any remote mining site the amount of safety training you have to do before you even start day one of your job is quite extensive, as it should be, but if union bosses from the eastern states have to be escorted and obviously have not done that training, there are huge additional stresses placed on the employer. We would like to see provisions in the bill that make the employer responsible for travel expenses related to the right of entry. We want to see provisions that make the lunchroom the default meeting location relating to the right of entry opposed.
This bill also picks up on some family-friendly provisions. I think there is a bit of a game being played by the government in talking about provisions that sound as if they do not exist when in reality they often do. I am not going to go into each of these provisions, but there is a strong theme running through them—it runs through everything that the government does when it comes to its Fair Work regime—and that is that employers and employees cannot be trusted to talk to each other. There is an extensive provision here about roster changes. I reflect on my own rural electorate and I think of a small workshop in a town of 2,000 people. Under these provisions, if the employer wants to change the roster of the employee there is a long, complicated discussion process that has to be entered into. The government will probably say that is okay; if they agree then there is not a problem. But you do not need to enshrine all this stuff in legislation. You have to accept that generally, on the floor of most workplaces, sensible discussion ensues. After all, if the employer were to change the roster of the employee and not tell the employee, how ridiculous would that be in the first place, especially in a small business?
I highlight small businesses because the cost to small business of complying with all this stuff is enormous. Remember that even when what you are describing as a process that employers and employees have to go through seems quite reasonable, as it often does, it is not the outcome that is the issue, it is the process—it is the process that kills you because it takes an inordinate amount of time and an inordinate amount of cost and it wears people down. We do recommend that roster change provisions be reworded to provide more clarity and less complexity for the employer.
I started my remarks by talking about workplace bullying, making the point that this legislation picks up a recommendation by the House Standing Standing Committee on Education and Employment in its report on workplace bullying but it has nothing to do with the review into the Fair Work legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers says it was her committee, so I congratulate her. It is an important subject and I know she would have given it thorough consideration.
No-one in this place does not take workplace bullying seriously. Everyone, in their first job, if they were not bullied themselves just a tiny bit, knows of someone who was. Everyone, when they think of the circumstances of constituents whom they meet on a day-to-day basis or of their adult children whom they talk to, who are often starting out in the workplace, and when they read all the stories knows that it is an issue. But we are disappointed that the government did not decide to deal with the issue in a separate bill to ensure the necessary oversight.
As I have already mentioned, the Fair Work Commission has a wide range of responsibilities, but there is a whole body of workplace health and safety legislation. There is Safe Work Australia, various state regulators and a huge number of acts that deal with workplace health and safety, including workplace bullying, and it would have been much more appropriate for any measures designed to address that issue to come under those particular pieces of legislation.
If we are going to refer to bullying in this bill, one point I do want to note is: what about the bullying that happens when union officials march on to the workplace and bully employees? I mentioned firsthand experience—I cannot say I have witnessed it, but I do get emails every day from all around Australia, from childcare centres and directors. I have talked to many in the workforce who have been directly affected and they have explained how union bosses have marched in and bullied them in the workplace. When we have finished the second reading stage of this bill and moved amendments, I foreshadow that the coalition will be moving amendments to say that the definition of 'bullying' should be extended to include bullying by union officials towards both workers and employers. It is simply inappropriate that a union official takes over the lunch room of a workplace, interrupts the activities of that workplace and then bullies what is often a group of vulnerable and low-paid workers. The stories I have heard in the childcare sector have made my skin crawl.
Not only have union sign-ups not been a precondition of the increased wages that may be being sought by those workers under a separate provision and not only has it not been a requirement that you join a union but the union bosses have said, 'Unless 60 per cent of the workers in this centre join a union, you won't get a look-in.'
The government has been forced to defend that position with some frequently answered questions on the DEEWR website. The minister cannot come out and say any of this; again, the department is having to pick up the slack and actually respond. However, there is a website and some questions and some lame excuses but, out in the real world, you have people from this union barging into the workplace and saying, 'Okay, who's going to be the first to sign up and, unless 60 per cent of your membership signs up, nobody here will be able to apply for the increased wages?' That is not right, it is completely out of order and it should be stopped. We will very vigorously prosecute the amendment that we will move, which says that not only do we accept the measures that the government proposes about workplace bullying but the definition of 'bullying' should be extended to include 'bullying by union officials towards both workers and employees'.
I note that there have been press reports which have suggested that there may be additional amendments moved by the minister to his own legislation that will expand compulsory arbitration. I would make it very clear to the minister that we in the coalition would take a very dim view of him introducing such amendments at a late stage. I do note that this bill has been sent to a House committee and to a Senate committee. The Senate committee has reported; the House committee has not yet reported. It would only be reasonable that the House committee and the Senate committee should have an opportunity to have a look at any new amendments that the minister brings in, particularly in the area of compulsory arbitration.
That would be opening up a whole new front in terms of the Fair Work legislation in this country and it would be totally unreasonable. We have not even been informed that such amendments might take place; we have just read about them. They have not seen the light of day and that is a bit unfortunate.
I want to conclude by highlighting the coalition's policy to improve the Fair Work laws. We do understand the need to protect jobs. We believe in reward for effort. We understand the need to have healthy businesses that employ more people and pay better wages. That is why we will stand up for workers and their employers in a balanced way—because we do know that fairness is a two-way street. Our improvements in the policy are based on providing common-sense solutions to practical industrial relations problems that exist under the Fair Work laws. There have been so many calls for changes to the laws from unions and employers alike.
There will always be people who think we should go further and there will always be people who say we have gone too far and we are trying to scare everyday workers. But these Fair Work laws are comparatively new. It was a sensible proposition for the government to look at them after two years; although they have not paid any attention to the review; but we know that laws can always be improved. They should be reviewed and different points of view should be considered. So I want to restate, as everyone on our side has stated many times, that pay and conditions of workers are safe under the coalition, because we support their workplaces. We do not, as the government does, support the union officials in those workplaces. We do not focus just on the core workers in the workplace who happen to be members of a union—I believe the percentage of union members in Australia is down to 13 or 15 per cent, even though the desperate drive to sign up new members in unions is happening all around us.
Labor is on track to having almost 160 special rights in place just for unions in the Fair Work laws—160 special rights for a group of workers that is 13 per cent of the total workforce in this country. Why should they have a position and a privilege that is not extended to any other worker? Our definition of fairness is not about this small subset of the total workforce; it is about everyone. It is not just about the union bosses; it is about everyone. It is about having a balanced and sound process and policy for everyone. It will fix our most pressing problems in a cautious and prudent way. It embraces common sense and balance. I thank the House.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers and Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) (12:27): I am very pleased to be speaking on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. This bill builds on what we have already done as a government to bring fairness back into the workplace.
It does not seem that long ago that I was elected to the parliament on a wave of dissatisfaction around the coalition's policy for unfair conditions and no safety net at work. With Work Choices, so many people around this country saw a situation where the balance of their penalty rates and their rights was ripped away from their workplaces. They got take-it-or-leave-it contracts which reduced penalty rates and reduced their pay and made people a whole lot worse off. It took the election of this government to bring in the Fair Work Act, an act that restored fairness and balance to the workplace. It ensured that people had national standards and that awards were in place. One of the things that the previous government did was phase out awards so that there was no safety net whatsoever for those workers at work.
We know that most employers do the right thing, but, for so many people in so many jobs around this country, a safety net is critically important to ensure that they have a good quality of life, decent wages and compensation for their efforts. It should not be a fundamental debating point that people receive compensation when they have to work in the evenings, on midnight shifts or on weekends when other people are enjoying time with their families. So we had to rewrite the whole of the Workplace Relations Act and bring in the Fair Work Act. I am pleased that the bill before the parliament today builds on the Fair Work Act.
The first really important thing that this bill does is expand the National Employment Standards for the right to request flexible work. The previous speaker said that this is not important and asked why we even need to have this. As I go round and talk to people, they say that in the National Employment Standards the right to request flexible work, as it currently stands, has made a big impact when they approach their employer to ask for flexibility when they return from maternity leave, as just one example. They have been able to approach their employer and request flexible working arrangements when they return.
It is so important that we listen, and we have listened—I have certainly had this raised with me by many constituents—and allowed those flexible working arrangements to be expanded. For those workers who are mature-age workers, workers with a disability, employees with responsibility for the care of school-aged children, employees with caring responsibilities or employees suffering from domestic violence or caring for a member of their family or household who is suffering domestic violence, these are really important steps. For those people, the ability to request flexible work is so important.
Indeed, I have spoken in this place before about the importance of the ability for someone who is experiencing domestic violence to request flexible working arrangements. The reason I have spoken so passionately—and I know that you have also been incredibly passionate on this, Speaker—is that if a person, usually a woman, who is experiencing domestic violence cannot take leave, cannot get flexibility around their working arrangements to accommodate, perhaps, going to court or moving house, then they may find themselves no longer employed. If they are no longer employed, they lose their economic freedom and economic independence and can just end up staying in a cycle of domestic violence. So it is critically important that those family members who may have been experiencing domestic violence are able to have that flexibility. Putting it into the National Employment Standards is really sending a signal to our community and our society that this is an issue that should be able to be raised at work; it does affect work, and flexibility should surround it.
I would also say that for employees with caring responsibilities the right to request flexible work is critically important. I speak in my new role and also spoke when I was on the back bench to many carers who are balancing work and their caring responsibilities. This can come in at any time. It might be a partner. It might be a child. It might be a parent. It might be a friend. It might be a family member. To ensure that people who have these caring responsibilities can still stay economically independent, can still stay part of the workforce and can request and have an employer consider those flexible arrangements is critically important. As with mature-age workers, as with workers with disabilities, it really touches, I think, on the heart of a compassionate community but also sends a clear signal to the community that we believe that these people have obligations—they have responsibilities—and their employer should consider these responsibilities in terms of flexibility. So I think this element in the National Employment Standards is so important.
The bill also provides for an increased period of concurrent parental leave from three weeks to eight weeks and flexibility on when that can be taken. This will give new parents more time to spend together with their child when they can do so. This is really, really important. We know that having a baby is a very exciting time for a lot of parents, and to be able to spend that time together and have flexibility around that is very important. To provide for improved protections for pregnant workers through extending the right to transfer to a safe job for employees with less than 12 months service and ensuring that special maternity leave does not diminish an employee's entitlement to unpaid parental leave is also another important protection in this bill, as is expressly providing that a worker returning from parental leave can request flexible working arrangements such as part-time work.
It is surprising that in this day and age I still get complaints directly from my constituents from people who have gone on maternity leave or paternity leave and face a battle when they would like to return to work. They often express to me that there is little understanding or flexibility, and they find it all incredibly difficult. And so I think it is important that in this area we are ensuring that we make it explicitly clear that workers returning from parental leave can request flexible work arrangements, such as part-time work.
Another incredibly important part of this Fair Work Bill goes to the heart of bullying in our community. As previously said, the changes in this bill about bullying at work are changes that have been thoroughly looked at by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment. I did chair that committee, and we were struck at the hearings about the effect that bullying has in our community. We did individual impact statements—I think one of the first times that a committee has done that—where we heard directly from people about the effect. We were flooded with submissions about the effects that bullying and harassment have on people, but I was particularly struck by how debilitated people were after experiencing it.
After listening to people's stories, what became very clear to me was that the resolution time, the transparency around resolution and the effectiveness of resolution were not always there. They were not always there, and that often exacerbated people's feelings of not being listened to, of not being responded to and not having their case dealt with. The title of the report was Workplace bullying: 'We just want it to stop'. That was because that was the resounding message from so many people. So I am very pleased that the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 picks up on the majority of recommendations from that report. In particular, I am very pleased that it picks up on having a national definition.
One of the concerns that came out was that people often say that they have experienced workplace bullying. Often it is workplace bullying; sometimes it can be something else. Sometimes it can be an interpersonal disagreement; sometimes it can be sexual harassment; and sometimes it can be a range of different things. Without a common definition that everyone is working to it is very hard to tackle this issue effectively.
The previous speaker said that this is dealt with under work health and safety, and I must make it clear that I agree that there is a responsibility for employers and that this should continue to be dealt with under work health and safety. It was not dealing with individuals effectively; under work health and safety legislation it was often taking a long time. So some of our recommendations went to looking at helping inspectors understand workplace bullying—a psychosocial hazard and something that is a relatively new concept compared to the guard on the machine—and looking at how we can better deal with this as a work health and safety issue.
In addition to that we also made it very clear that people felt they needed to have an individual right of recourse. I am incredibly pleased that this bill picks up the ability for an individual to have a right of recourse through the Fair Work Commission. It makes it clear that bullying is not reasonable management practice, and therefore performance management conducted in a reasonable manner is not bullying.
Unfortunately, people who do not want to acknowledge that bullying happens often say, 'If you bring in a definition about bullying and you bring in laws about workplace bullying then you will stop decent and reasonable management of staff'. We are very clear in the definition, that it does not include reasonable management practice. I think that is a very important part; but what we are talking about is systematic, ongoing bullying behaviour that really does affect someone's life.
The bill makes it clear that should the Fair Work Commission be satisfied that a person has been subject to workplace bullying it could make orders that it considers appropriate to remedy or prevent such conduct from re-occurring. If the Fair Work Commission considers that a bullying complaint should be investigated by the work health and safety regulator through workplace health and safety, the commission may refer the matter to the appropriate regulator for investigation. It is important to recognise that having an individual course to resolve bullying complaints does not take away from the role of WHS regulators. But it does give individuals an opportunity to be heard, to resolve their issue and to do that quickly. It was something that came through very strongly from the many people we heard from. It is important to note that we are providing the Fair Work Commission with $21.4 million over four years to help workers who are bullied at work to get help quickly and affordably.
There is a lot of work to be done in this area. There is varying ability in different jurisdictions about how to tackle the issue, but as we heard from the parents of Brodie Panlock, who committed suicide after significant bullying, borders should not matter in getting help or seeking recourse for a victim of bullying in the workplace. They have been great campaigners and I would like to acknowledge them publicly, as I have done many times before, for their focus on prevention. Prevention was one of the recommendations we made, and that is why it fits into health and safety. We really need to lift our efforts with managers, employees and workplaces right around the country to ensure that people understand what bullying behaviour is and what impacts it can have. I would like to commend the Panlocks and the many other advocates for the work that they do in raising awareness about bullying and in preventing bullying in workplaces around Australia.
I have not been able to get to the other parts of the bill, and one of the important elements concerns penalty rates. It is necessary to enshrine penalty rates, overtime, shift work loading and public holiday pay, and these should be considered by the Fair Work Commission when it sets award rates and conditions. (Time expired)
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (12:42): I am pleased to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 in this place because it gives me the opportunity to raise many concerns that the coalition and the working public of Australia have with this legislation. It is passing strange that with well over a hundred pieces of legislation on the Notice Paper that this should need to be urgently dealt with in the last 11 days of this dying parliament. We know why: it is to lock in the base of the Labor Party and Prime Minister Julia Gillard in particular. We know that they need to maintain the rivers of gold that come from the unions to fund the Australian Labor Party. The coalition has a strong record of supporting workers. One of the best things you can do for a worker is to give them a job and, under us, unemployment reached its lowest point in modern political history.
I would like to place on the record that the coalition is all for stamping out workplace bullying and providing more flexibility to employers. A lot of this came about because the Cole royal commission found there was a culture of lawlessness and a lack of the rule of law in industrial and building sites in this country. We established the Australian Building and Construction Commission to deal with this, and it was very effective. However, this particular legislation seeks to expand the influence and rights of union bosses in Australian workplaces, particularly through its right-of-entry provisions. This bill states that in the absence of an agreement between an employer and union officials on where meetings with employees will take place, unions will be able to host meetings in workplace lunchrooms or crib rooms. They even charge employers the cost of travelling to and from the workplace.
I am one of the people in this place who actually knows Mick Young, the famous former Labor member of parliament, one of the last real representatives of workers in this place, who said: 'You can't come here unless you've washed your hands in Solvol.' Mick had obviously washed his hands in Solvol, and I have done the same. I have worked on building and construction sites myself and I can tell you that having union bosses enter the lunch room when you want to get away from everything, when you are not a union member, is not very tantalising. It is not a great idea. You want a bit of peace, not the harassment that comes with this right-of-entry legislation.
This is just another attempt by the Gillard government to appease, as I said, the union bosses who have kept them in power and to erode previous reforms that were implemented to curb the dominance of unions in the workplace. The changes to the right-of-entry provisions outlined in the bill will mean that the default location will be the lunch room, as I said. But, with only 13 per cent of Australian employees being members of the union, the remaining 87 per cent will face constant harassment and bullying from union officials on their own work sites.
Once again, this is a broken promise from Prime Minister Gillard. Prior to the 2007 election, the Prime Minister stated on numerous occasions that there would be no changes to the right-of-entry provisions. In a press conference in August 2007, she stated:
We will make sure that current right of entry provisions stay. We understand that entering on the premises of an employer needs to happen in an orderly way. We will keep the right of entry provisions.
She later reaffirmed this position in questioning by journalists, claiming:
I'm happy to do whatever you would like. If you'd like me to pledge to resign, sign a contract in blood, take a polygraph, bet my house on it, give you my mother as a hostage, whatever you'd like.
That is what she promised. Well, we know never to trust this Prime Minister's so-called promises. Remember the carbon tax promise: there would not be one under the government she leads. But to backflip on a promise she so readily pledged to uphold makes it obvious that it is the union heavyweights and Labor's faceless men that are running this country, not this Prime Minister and this government.
In my home state of Western Australia, we have never seen many instances of union heavyweights being arrested for trespassing on various building sites and workplaces. Notorious union thugs, including the CFMEU's former WA secretary Kevin Reynolds and the current acting CFMEU national president, Joe McDonald, have a long history of criminal behaviour associated with their union activities at work sites. Joe McDonald readily says, when he is stopped about his nefarious activities, 'But we're a militant union,' as if to say that is an excuse for misbehaving and breaking the law. Interestingly, the current workplace relations minister, Bill Shorten, went to Western Australia recently and met with the MUA, and said how attracted he was to the MUA because they were so militant. There you are: the current workplace relations minister, who is meant to see the calming of relationships between employers and employees, saying that he wants to see more militancy in the workforce. As I have said before in this place, fancy putting a union boss like Bill Shorten in charge of the ministry. It is a dog-in-the-manger approach, and that is what is happening in relation to this legislation.
Now, Joe McDonald—getting back to that great Western Australian!—and the CFMEU have racked up over $1 million in fines since 2005 from Fair Work Building & Construction in response to claims of workplace bullying. Mr McDonald has also faced criminal charges and has been arrested on numerous occasions, as well as being forced to face court and defend these charges. Last year, Fair Work Building & Construction's Leigh Jones claimed that Mr McDonald was misusing members' fees in order to settle court disputes. So not only is he abusing the workers; he is also using union people's money to pay his fines. So much for those who take money out of their own pay only to see Joe using it to get himself out of jail and to blatantly flout workplace laws. In WA alone, Mr McDonald has been banned from workplace sites for his militant behaviour, further discouraging people from joining this cause—and Mr McDonald is certainly not alone in this type of behaviour.
We know that, in 2007, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd expelled Mr McDonald from the ALP due to his thuggish behaviour and criminal convictions. Guess what? He has just rejoined the Labor Party! As soon as Kev goes, good old Joe gets back in—and he wanted to run for the Senate, I understand. What is even more frightening for employers and employees alike is that the CFMEU has since decided to appoint Mr McDonald national president, despite his great, nefarious history.
As I said earlier, Mick Young washed his hands in Solvol—a real representative of the workers. That is what the unions were based on during the great shearing strikes of the 1900s, the belief that unions were needed to protect the rights of the workers—
Mr Champion: Protect us from you!
Mr RANDALL: and that protecting the rights of the workers was the sole conscience and arbitrary work of the unions. If they did that, they were doing their job. But when they just become a political arm of the Labor Party and, dare I say, the Orwellian dogs out there doing the work of behalf of the Labor Party, well of course you have to question whether they have forgotten about the workers that they are meant to represent. And they have. In fact, as a result of this, people have seen—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Saffin ): Order! The honourable in the member for Wakefield will get his go in just over six minutes, so I would ask him to wait.
Mr RANDALL: We know why people like the member for Wakefield are so sensitive about an issue like this. Every member of this place has to be a member of a union to be in this place. Not only that, Linda Savage in an article here claimed: 'Dumped Labor MP blames factions'. She wanted to be a member of the Labor Party in Western Australia and, because she would not join a faction, she lost her preselection. In this article, Ms Savage said that she could not see that 'joining a faction would make her a better MP and called on party powerbrokers to explain it to the public—if they could'.
The article continued:
Although [factions] are not mentioned in either the constitution or the rules of the WA branch of the ALP, nearly every State Labor MP is either a member of a faction, or has been at some time.
There is a really good local state member in my electorate called Tony Booty, a Labor member. He did not get a job—
Mr Champion: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What has this got to do with the context of this bill?
Mr RANDALL: It has.
Mr Champion: It has no relevance to it at all.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will just remind the member for Canning that it is the Fair Work Amendment Bill, so it would be good to talk about that.
Mr RANDALL: That is right, and we are talking about rights of entry and having to be a member of a union, and we are talking about the fact that the unionised workforce now is down to 13 per cent in this country because people have realised that unions are not serving the workers; they are serving the interests of their political masters. This is what is happening in this case.
As we know, it took someone like Bob Hawke, an ACTU boss, to introduce a number of regulations to limit the unions' wage demands in what he called the Accord. He understood that the unparalleled increase in employees' wages could damage our economy and hurt businesses in this country. Paul Keating then expanded this. Two leviathan Labor leaders saw the problems of allowing unbridled union power and they wanted to limit it.
Today, this Prime Minister Julia Gillard, a former union lawyer herself, representing the AWU and others, is trying to return to the dark ages of union militancy and dominance by trying to appease the interests of the very people who are keeping her in power. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did not pursue the interests of the unions enough, which led to his knifing and dismissal as Prime Minister by the current Prime Minister along with the faceless men and the union heavyweights such as Paul Howes of the AWU. Since then, this Prime Minister has been valiantly working to restore union power, particularly as over two-thirds of her cabinet are former union secretaries. Interesting. Two-thirds have a union background as members of parliament. We have a diverse background on this side of parliament. We have got a whole range of different career options, as opposed to, as I said, two-thirds of cabinet having been union secretaries. As eloquently put in the Australian by Ross Fitzgerald in a recent article on 11 May:
The Prime Minister has repaid that support—
in other words, the support of the unions—
by backing legislation that unfairly tips the balance of workplace relations in favour of the unions and with fiscally reckless policy announcements including the use of taxpayer funds to prop up salaries of aged-care and childcare workers on condition that they join a union.
They are using taxpayers' money to do it. It is back to the old 'no ticket no start' on building sites.
This is what this legislation is about: entrenching the power of unions in terms of right of entry and other issues in this legislation. This further cements this dominance and increases the right-of-entry provisions, not only creating an unnecessary issue relating to bullying and harassment, but also causing the loss of time and wages for both the business and the staff—the workers. Remember the workers? They are meant to care about the workers on that side of the House, but they do not; it is more about themselves and their own power base.
It has also been shown that membership of the unions significantly decreases an employee's chances of re-employment. A lot of people coming back as FIFOs from the north-west in non-unionised workforces are finding it difficult to get employed in certain areas if it is a unionised workforce. These are some of the issues facing people now. For example, in the Pilbara all that militant union behaviour that was happening in the seventies and eighties had been stopped and we saw the productivity that came out of the Pilbara, where Western Australia produces more than 50 per cent of this nation's export income, but now we have both the CFMEU and the AWU wanting to head towards demarcation disputes in the Pilbara.
Part of this legislation says that businesses are going to be required to foot the bill to allow union representatives to go on site, to have this right of entry, in remote places and that the businesses will have to pay the costs—the airfares, the accommodation. Some of these sites are oil rigs or drilling platforms off the coast. It has been estimated that the cost of this right of entry could be something like $30,000, borne by the employer—and we wonder why we are one of the dearest places in the world to do business. This is, as I said, just kowtowing to their union bosses.
We have made it clear that, should we be the government after 14 September, we are going to restore the powers of the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. One of the great ways of reducing those powers was to defund them, but we are going to see that they are properly funded because this will take the militancy out of the Australian workplace. You can see what is going on in Melbourne at the moment with Grocon and others. This needs to be stopped. It needs a decent cop on the beat and we are going to refund and re-empower the ABCC so that they can do their work and they can stop this thuggish behaviour that the Prime Minister, through this legislation, is trying to entrench in the Australian workforce before she exits the stage on 14 September. It is not in the interests of the Australian economy. It is not in the interests of Australian workers or businesses or our reputation. This piece of legislation is not supported because of the consequences it will bring to our country. (Time expired)
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:57): That was the longest six minutes of my life, having to wait for the member for Canning to finally finish up. He talks about the shearers strike in the 1890s and the political wing of the labour movement, but it was because that strike was broken viciously, nastily, by laws that were enacted by colonial parliaments that we have a Labor Party in this country, and that is why we are better off having a Labor Party in this country. That link is a good link. It is one of the reasons why The Financial Review in its front page today—at least in their iPad version—there is a headline that says 'World's highest low-paid workers'. That is a tremendous headline. I cannot tell you how proud I was when I read that headline. I think it is a good thing that our low-paid workers are the world's highest paid. You heard in the member for Kingston's speech about the very good report she has done on bullying, which this bill refers to and I will refer to a bit later on.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: It is a wonderful thing that the member for Mayo has to listen to my speech. I always enjoy making him listen to my speeches on industrial relations because I know he has a great interest in this area, having been one of the architects of Work Choices—an unsung backroom architect. He has one of the members protecting him—I cannot remember what that member is the member for—but he is one of the unsung architects of Work Choices. They do not like talking about it anymore.
Mr Briggs: Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Wakefield, who did rise on a point of order on the previous speaker on relevance, has a studious interest in my background and the member for Bradfield's background. We are happy to send our bios to him, but if we can also send the talking points relating to this bill—the same that Joel Fitzgibbon referred to this morning on television—that would be terrific.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member for Mayo will take his seat. There is no point of order. The honourable member for Wakefield will continue and talk to the bill.
Mr CHAMPION: Indeed I do know about the member for Mayo's background. He has corrected me. I did once say he had never had a real job in his life but it turns out he once was a console operator in a service station up at Mildura.
Mr Briggs: No, it was in Adelaide.
Mr CHAMPION: In Adelaide; I stand corrected. He would know just how important wages and conditions are.
Mr Briggs: If you have a job.
Mr CHAMPION: Indeed.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: I will get to that. We hear those opposite talking about the cost of living incessantly these days, and we will always have a rising cost of living because we have inflation as a common thing in the economy. It is low at the moment. The important thing about having good wages and conditions, things like penalty rates, things like public holiday loading, shift loadings, is that they are all an integral part of the minimum wage of those people who work unsociable hours on checkouts, in service stations, cleaning, which I did, trolley collecting—all those jobs that people generally do not want to do and are the hardest work that is done in this country. Those workers rely on penalty rates as part of their wage to be able to survive. Often it is the difference between surviving, making the family budget, and not. An integral part of dealing with the cost of living is to have fair and decent minimum wages.
As I said before, I am pleased that the Financial Review today highlighted the fact that in this country we have very high minimum wages in comparison to the rest of the world. You only have to go to America and see the appalling poverty that exists among retail workers where Walmart and other major retailers pay a pittance to their workers. We only have to look at that country to know what a big difference it makes to have a fair social safety net not just in the way your government treats you but in the way your employer treats you.
Penalty rates are there not just to pay fair wages but also to compensate people for antisocial hours. I am proud to say that my state, South Australia, despite trenchant opposition from the member for Mayo and others, has instituted penalty rates on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. It is a very important thing to do, and not without employer support, I must say. It was a result of an arrangement, a deal if you like, between Business SA and the union movement to ensure that workers on those evenings after an appropriate period get penalty rates. That is to compensate people for working at times when others would not work, when others are having important time with family and friends. So I am very proud that South Australia has done that. I think it is an important social advance. It shows what a progressive state South Australia is and it shows the care and concern that union leaders Peter Malinauskas from the shop assistants union and Dave di Troia from United Voice have for workers who are working at these antisocial times.
I know from my own time in the union movement—and I am proud of being a union member and I have got my ticket up in my window in Parliament House—just how important family and community time is. There can be no doubt that this bill is an important protection for giving workers flexibility in terms of dealing with family and community life. That is a tremendously important thing to do. I reckon a good 60 per cent of my work when I was a union official was just helping workers and sometimes managers negotiate the delicate balance between the company's interests, and often just the company's convenience, and the workers' interests. I have lost count of the amount of times I saw rosters changed that really had a big impact on people's family lives or on their sporting commitments on the weekend or on their Defence Reserve commitments or on other community commitments. Often those were very important things for society. Most of the time you had sensible arrangements where you could go to your employer and talk about such things.
That is what this bill does. It gives those people an ability to make a request—and it is just a request—for flexible work arrangements. They include mature age workers, workers with a disability, workers with responsibility for caring for children of school age, employees with other caring responsibilities and sufferers of domestic violence or carers for family members or households suffering domestic violence.
Most of the time when I dealt with managers in these situations, we found that a compromise could be reached where the company was not a hundred per cent happy but they might be 80 per cent happy and the worker walked away with a roster that helped deal with their family issue. It happened in big employers and in small employers. Often it was mainly about communication, and the important thing about this bill is it enshrines the idea that that communication should go on, that these requests can be made as part of the normal employer-employee relationship.
The other important things that this bill does in regards to families is that it gives pregnant workers an extension in the right to transfer to a safe job. That is particularly important for women in the workplace because obviously you do not want to be putting yourself at risk when you are pregnant and it ensures that special maternity leave does not diminish the employee's entitlement to unpaid parental leave. It puts in place consultation obligations for employers to consider the impact of the changes around this. Family flexibility and a commitment to protect the family—not just talk about the family but actually enshrine legislative commitment—is part of this government's raison d'etre, it is part of our DNA, it is part of what we do, not just in the course of our deliberations in the industrial movement but also in our deliberations of what a Labor government should do.
Bullying is the last thing I want to talk about. Obviously I want to pay tribute to the work done by the member for Kingston in the chairing of the House of Representatives committee inquiry into bullying and its report, Workplace bullying: We just want it to stop. I think she very carefully and methodically in that report outlined the public case for legislative change to deal with this issue. There will always be those in this parliament who are all care and no responsibility, who say, 'Yes, this is a terrible thing, we all think bullying is terrible but there is really no legislative way of fixing it.' The difficulty with that is that it really sends a big message to bullies that they can get away with it.
This bill sends the opposite message. It says that, if you are a bully, you will not get away with it. Bullying actually occurs in a variety of ways. Often it is employers on employees or a manager against an employee. Sometimes it can be groups of employees against other groups of employees and I have seen a number of instances in my time as a union official where that occurred. It becomes an issue for management as well because they want a happy and harmonious workplace and, tragically, sometimes you have groups of employees or individuals who are bullied at work by their co-workers. It is a scourge on the productive workplace and it is a scourge on people's working lives, and we want to make sure that it stops.
This bill basically allows an application by a worker affected by bullying to the Fair Work Commission to deal with a bullying complaint and it requires the Fair Work Commission to deal with that application in respect of bullying as a matter of priority. Having an independent umpire to go to is particularly important. There are many state jurisdictions which also have work health and safety regulators dealing with this, but, until this bill, there have been a number of occasions where quite serious bullying has fallen through the cracks of legislation. It is not a health and safety issue. It might not be an issue of discrimination in the sense of those matters on which there is anti-discrimination legislation. So people end up basically either enduring bullying or quitting. Their options are either to endure it or to exit.
This bill will make sure that the Fair Work Commission has an ability to examine the issue and has an ability to intervene. It will not impinge on reasonable management practices, including performance management which is conducted in a reasonable manner. That is an important thing. It is not an unreasonable thing for employers to be able to address matters of performance, but it should not tip over into bullying. This bill provides the sensible balance that you need to address this issue.
There are a few other issues in this bill which are issues of contention. It cleans up right of entry. There has been some feedback from employers and the like. I think they are all sensible changes. Right of entry is a matter of responsibility between both employers and unions, and neither should abuse the process. A union should not abuse the process. They should not force an employer to endure their company too often. But, likewise, an employer should provide reasonable access to their employees in order for them to exercise their right to become union members. It seems to me that that is basically a test between unions and management as a test of their maturity.
This is a great bill. It protects wages and conditions. It protects people from bullying. It protects families and the community from work impinging on important parts of our lives. I commend it to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (13:12): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The true purpose of this bill is to deliver to the Labor Party's paymasters in the union movement the measures which they are demanding as the price for their continued support of this hopeless government. Amendments dealt with in the bill include introducing what are supposed to be new family-friendly arrangements, amending the modern awards objective to introduce specific reference to penalty rates, and amendments which the government is expected to make to reintroduce compulsory arbitration.
In the time available to me today, I would like to make three points about this bill. Firstly, it is about serving the interests of the union bosses and the union movement and putting the national interest last. Secondly, it is poor policy and poor process, rushed through and with little attempt to systematically address key recommendations of the Fair Work review. Thirdly, it will do serious economic damage, while the benefits it purportedly delivers are illusory.
Let me turn to the first proposition, that this bill is about serving the interests of the union bosses and the union movement. We know that this is a government which has assiduously served the interests of the union bosses, even though the proportion of the Australian workforce who are members of a union is at an all-time low, with only 12 per cent of private sector workers being union members. We know that this is a government which has consistently put the interests of union bosses ahead of the Australian people. We know that this is a government made up of ex-union officials, ex-union lawyers and ex-union employees, including the Prime Minister, who is a former trade union lawyer; the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is a former National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union; the Minister for Social Inclusion, who is a former state secretary of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union; the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is a former official of the Australian Workers' Union and the son of Bill Ludwig, the long-term AWU big boss; the Minister for Climate Change—
Mr Champion: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wonder what the life experiences and the CVs of the front bench of the government have to do with the bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): There is no point of order. I call the member for Bradfield in continuation.
Mr FLETCHER: The Minister for Science and Research is a former secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is a former assistant national secretary of the Australian Services Union. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation formerly worked for the CFMEU as an industrial officer and was a legal officer with the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy was at one point a superannuation officer with the Transport Workers' Union. The minister for sustainability was an organiser for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association.
It is beyond doubt that this is a government which is redolent of protecting the interests of the union movement. But in this bill the Rudd-Gillard government has abandoned even the most threadbare pretence of governing in the national interest. This bill has one purpose only—to deliver to the Labor Party's paymasters in the union movement the measures they are demanding as the price for their continued support of this hopeless government. The compelling evidence for that claim includes the stark contrast between the position the Prime Minister took when she had portfolio responsibility in this area in 2010, and the position which Minister Shorten is widely expected to take when he introduces amendments to this bill to reinstate compulsory arbitration.
We know that the peak Victorian union bodies responded when the minister withdrew compulsory arbitration provisions from an earlier draft by threatening to withhold all but lukewarm support for Labor at the forthcoming federal election, with Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary, Brian Boyd, reported as saying that the unions were reserving their judgement on the level of support they would give to Labor in federal marginal seats in Victoria. He had this to say:
It is in the balance. A worthwhile package has to come out the other end of the parliamentary process.
And there is a stark contrast between the position that the minister is widely expected to take in reintroducing these compulsory arbitration provisions with the advice given by the Prime Minister, when she was then minister for workplace relations, to the ACTU in a letter in which she said that to reintroduce such provisions involved significant risks, including the risk of constitutional challenge. The return to compulsory arbitration would be a dreadful idea and a return to the bad old days of lower productivity and fewer jobs.
Let me give it another example of how the provisions in this bill respond to the agenda of the union bosses. I am referring to the measure which would enshrine penalty rates in modern awards, proposed section 134(1)(da). This was not a measure which was suggested by the Fair Work Review panel, so where did it come from? It came from Mr Dave Oliver, the Secretary of the ACTU, in a speech he gave on 6 February 2013, when he said:
… we'll be asking the government to enshrine penalty rates for weekends in legislation, and protect it forever.
It seems the union bosses are supremely confident that this government will sit, beg and roll over when they whistle, so much so that the ACTU boss is not even bothering to conceal the extent to which he is directing this government.
This is a bill which demonstrates poor policy and poor process, and there has been little attempt to systematically address the key recommendations of the Fair Work review. Once again, we see the tawdry spectacle of this government granting itself an exemption from the general requirement for a regulatory impact statement, which is a sure indication of poor process and of something to hide, particularly in a bill which will affect every employer and every employee in Australia. No doubt the rushed nature of the process in this bill explains the concerns raised in many submissions to the Senate committee. Indeed, a great majority of those submissions offered suggested amendments with a view to giving greater clarity. This is an indictment of the loose, careless and imprecise provisions of this bill.
This government has failed to do the detailed work of consultation to ensure that the bill's provisions are drafted with sufficient clarity. Sadly, this is an all-too-familiar story with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I think we can be confident that when he was a student at Melbourne's exclusive Xavier College his nickname was not 'Details' Shorten. Let me give as one example the provision in the bill, proposed section 145A, which would require employers to consult regarding roster changes. I quote Mr Barklamb, of the Australian Mining and Metals Association, who appeared before the Senate committee:
… no roster change would be too small to trigger the new consultation requirements, which may act as a veto on implementing essential changes if misused.
Once again, no case has been made to depart from the existing approach.
The vast bulk of this bill does not deal with recommendations arising from the Fair Work review.
At the same time, the bill conspicuously fails to deal with two matters which it should have taken up. The first is the High Court's unanimous judgement in Barclay v Bendigo TAFE, which found that union bosses should not be an untouchable class in the workplace—a recommendation that was also made by the review panel. The judgement in that case followed the present minister intervening in the High Court on the side of the union boss, Mr Barclay, arguing that it was the intention of the Fair Work Act that union bosses were untouchable even if they did the wrong thing. It is clear from the judgement of Mr Justice Heydon that the minister's intervention was extremely ill-judged. The judgement says:
… the Minister's stance before and during the oral hearing was not that of an intervener, but that of a partisan.
A second area that the bill should address is that before the 2007 election then opposition leader Kevin Rudd pledged that the Fair Work Act would not allow the return of 'strike first talk later'; yet the recent decision of the Federal Court in the JJ Richards case tells a different story. As the case demonstrates, the Fair Work Act as presently drafted gives unions the power to obtain protected action ballots in circumstances where most reasonable people would argue that it should not be allowed. If Labor were fair dinkum in living up to its promise on this point, it would have included amendments to the act in this bill in response to the JJ Richards case, which tells us that as presently drafted the legislation does not live up to the promise made by the then opposition leader in 2007.
The third point I want to come to is that the provisions of this bill will do serious economic damage while the benefits they purportedly deliver are illusory. I have referred already to the provisions of this bill which impose a requirement that every modern award should contain penalty rates for weekend work. On this side of the parliament we do not believe that the parliament should be in the business of legislating the details of each and every modern award, particularly taking account of the flexibility that may be required in particular sectors. This provision would have a serious impact on many industries where weekend work is commonplace and expected, such as real estate. I would like to quote from a letter I received from one real estate agent in my electorate, who said:
… weekends and evenings are important for my real estate agency to do business as they are the most practical and effective time to conduct open for inspections, to conduct property management inspections, to show properties to potential purchasers and/or tenants, for sales staff to attend listing appointments/appraisals, to conduct auctions, for phone canvassing, for cold calling and for tenants to pay their rent to the agency etc.
If penalty rates for weekend (or evening) work became part of the Award, my real estate agency would suffer financially due to the increased costs associated with the penalty rates. This could lead to a reduction in the number of employees that our agency currently employs and changes to the staff rostering on weekends which may decrease the hours some staff work … Unfortunately this will no doubt affect the rate of employment in the … area.
This is an excellent example of the kind of economic damage this ill-considered measure could cause.
We have heard a fair bit from speakers for the government about the benefits this bill purports to deliver by improving the position for victims of workplace bullying. The government has used a fairly obvious parliamentary tactic here, by responding to a quite separate report on workplace bullying, which was not a matter extensively considered in the government's own recent Fair Work review. They have done that, and included these provisions in this bill in an attempt to disguise the extent to which this bill hands over a tray full of goodies to the union bosses.
On the question of workplace bullying, let there be no doubt: the coalition takes workplace bullying very seriously, and we support proposals to strengthen the system to stamp out such conduct. However, we are concerned that the changes proposed by this bill would allow a worker who alleges that he or she has been bullied to lodge a claim with the Fair Work Commission without having first sought any preliminary help or advice. This would have significant consequences for employers and would also materially the increase the workload of the Fair Work Commission.
We have therefore suggested two key changes, which we believe need to be made to these provisions. The first would require that workers must first have sought preliminary advice or assistance from a regulator before lodging a claim, and the second—very importantly—would expand the provision to include the conduct of union officials. Union officials should not be above the law, and if they engage in workplace bullying they ought to be subject to any provisions of the law which deal with such conduct. That should be a principle which is so obvious that it is not even necessary to articulate it. But unfortunately, given the government we presently have, it is necessary to make that principle an explicit one.
The bill before the House today is in substance an effort on the part of this government to deliver to its paymasters in the union movement a whole series of measures which have been on their wish list for a long time. It is about serving the interests of the union bosses in the union movement, it is poor policy and poor process and it will do serious economic damage. The Australian people have a right to expect that their government will act in the national interest and would deal with matters involving workplace relations as they deal with matters in any other area: having consideration to the interests of all Australians, and not to the interests of a narrow cabal of union bosses—notwithstanding the fact that it is those union bosses who have put most Labor parliamentarians into this place.
Regrettably, as this bill demonstrates, we have a government that is failing to live up to that standard. There can be no doubt in the light of this bill that we have in Australia today a government of the unions, by the unions and for the unions.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (13:27): I rise with pride to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, which is an amendment to the Fair Work Act to put in place changes in four key areas. Mr Deputy Speaker, I briefly want to take you through each of those and then talk a bit about the bill and the act more generally.
The first area in which this bill seeks to amend the Fair Work Act is in relation to providing for better family-friendly arrangements in a number of ways. Firstly, by expanding the group of workers who will be eligible to make requests for flexible working arrangements under the National Employment Standards. That group of workers will be expanded to mature age workers, for example, workers with a disability and employees with the responsibility for the care of children of school age, and the list goes on. This is an important extension of the right to request flexible work under the National Employment Standards.
The other family-friendly arrangements within this amendment bill provide additional protections for pregnant workers through extending the right to transfer to a safe job for employees with less than 12 months service—so, extending the right which exists for others to those who have worked for less than 12 months—as well as ensuring that special maternity leave does not diminish an employee's entitlement to unpaid parental leave.
The bill also seeks to provide expressly that a worker returning from parental leave has the right to request flexible work arrangements, such as part-time work. The right to request part-time work in those circumstances is clearly fundamental to people being able to re-enter the workplace, having taken time off to look after young children, at a pace which suits them. More and more, people are choosing to re-enter the workforce not on the basis of going from no hours a week to a full-time situation but on a gradual process. I am sure that everyone in this House and people listening to this debate will have people in their lives, if not themselves, who have experienced exactly that desire of wanting to graduate their return to work having taken time off to look after a young one. This legislation provides for an express right to request part-time work.
The second, broad area in which the bill seeks to amend the Fair Work Act is in relation to bullying. Bullying is a scourge throughout our community. It is particularly a scourge in the workplace and it is so important that we are doing everything we can to stop this scourge. There are some who estimate that as many as one in three—and more—people will at some point experience bullying within a workplace. Indeed, the Productivity Commission has estimated that the cost of workplace bullying could be as high as $36 billion a year. That is a very large number. It is about the size of the entire Victorian budget. So this is not just a cost to people's lives; it is a direct cost to our economy. That is why, in addition to this legislative package, the government is providing the Fair Work Commission with $21 million over four years to help workers who are bullied at work get help quickly and affordably.
In relation to this bill, a number of recommendations have been taken up, following the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, chaired by the former committee chair the member for Kingston, which looked at the issue of bullying in the workplace. I acknowledge the member for Kingston's role in relation to that inquiry.
The bill essentially provides the ability for a worker who has been affected by bullying in the workplace to apply to the Fair Work Commission to have their complaint dealt with and dealt with as a matter of priority. The definition of 'bullying', which would be contained in the act as a result of this bill, would be the same definition provided for in the House of Representatives' committee report. The bill makes clear that 'bullying' does not include reasonable management practices, including performance management, conducted in a reasonable manner. No-one is suggesting that the ability for managers to manage their workplace, to seek improvement with their workers and to raise justifiable issues with workers about their work performance cannot occur. That can all still occur and, clearly, it is important that it does. It is important that that be seen as entirely separate to bullying, because it is.
Bullying is an issue beyond that, which very much occurs in the workplace and, as I said earlier, comes at an enormous cost. In circumstances where the Fair Work Commission, having heard a complaint in relation to bullying, then determines that bullying has occurred, the Fair Work Commission will be empowered to make the orders that it considers appropriate to deal with that circumstance.
We in the government stand in different shoes, as we have just heard from the previous speaker on this issue, because we see this as an issue which needs to be addressed upfront and very clearly. The coalition, in the way in which they are approaching this issue, seek to put additional steps in the way which make it harder for people to raise a bullying complaint. The more steps that you put in the way, the less likely you are to have people come forth with the very legitimate issues that they may have. The coalition, as you have just heard, are proposing variations to this legislation which would provide that a worker, before taking a matter to the Fair Work Commission, would first have to seek preliminary help, advice or assistance from an independent regulator. That is an obstacle that, for many people who have suffered the indignity of bullying in the workplace, who want to bring forward that matter, who have summoned up the courage to take the step to deal with it, will simply not jump. That is why it is very important that the bill before the House goes through in the way that is being proposed.
The third area in which we are seeking to amend the Fair Work Act relates to right of entry, and there are some very sensible provisions within this bill to clarify the roles of both parties in relation to right of entry as well as the role of the Fair Work Commission. Importantly the bill provides the power to the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes about the frequency, for example, of right-of-entry visits and their impact on employers and, indeed, other occupiers of that place of work. The bill provides that where there are disputes as to where meetings will take place within a workplace as a result of a right of entry being used, the default answer to that dispute is that meetings can occur in the place where the relevant workers would spend their mealtimes or other breaks—which, again, is the normal, natural place where you would expect meetings of that kind to occur. These are sensible provisions which deal with the question of right of entry in the workplace.
The fourth area in which the bill seeks to amend the Fair Work Act concerns penalty rates. Penalty rates are a feature of our industrial relations system, and other systems around the world, which has been built up over a century or more to recognise that working outside the zone of nine to five carries with it a personal cost—a personal cost in terms of spending time with family, a personal cost of participating in one's community. So much of our society is organised around the principle that people are at work, by and large, between the hours of nine to five and that other activities, such as those that occur on a weekend, are designed for the weekend. So if you are working at that time it comes at a cost to you, and a penalty rate should be applied. Penalty rates are important from that point of view, but for many workers they have come to represent a significant part of their remuneration. People are relying on their penalty rates for the additional money they bring in. Penalty rates really go to the heart of the work-family balance which we try to achieve in our society. What this bill will do is amend the modern awards objective within the act so that an additional factor that will be taken into account by the Fair Work Commission when making awards will include:
… the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working overtime; unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; working on weekends or public holidays; or working shifts …
That as an additional factor in the modern awards objective gives a guidance to the Fair Work Commission in the making of modern awards and how to deal with the question of penalty rates when making those awards. That will be a very important provision, indeed.
The Fair Work Act is an act which is working very well and it stands in stark contrast to what we had prior to this—which was, of course, Work Choices. Under the Fair Work Act, productivity is up—three times higher now than it was under the Work Choices legislation. Employment is up: more Australians, despite the global economic crisis, are employed today than ever before. A significant and critical measure when looking at efficacy of industrial relations legislation is that industrial disputes are down—on average around one-third the rate that was experienced during the time of the Howard government—and wages have been steady. Central to the fact that the Fair Work Act is working well is that at its heart lie collective bargaining and enterprise agreements. The act provides for an appropriate balance between workers and their employers and it provides for flexibility for employers and employees to reach the working arrangements they would want, but at the heart of this, in terms of the setting of standards, is collective bargaining. That is a very different philosophy to what the Howard government sought to do under Work Choices and what, if it were ever to happen, a future Abbott government would do in this sphere as well. What is in the DNA of the coalition is to have an industrial relations system which does not have at its heart collective bargaining between employers and their workforce but rather individual bargaining between an individual employee and their employer in circumstances where there can be no equality of bargaining power between those two entities.
Throughout our legal system there are notions of equality of bargaining power. In commercial law, for example, it is determined that where people do not have an equality of bargaining power then that can affect the legality of arrangements which are reached in those circumstances. But what we had under Work Choices was legislation which allowed for a situation where there would inevitably be an inequality of bargaining power, where an individual would be asked to go one-on-one with a multibillion-dollar company and seek to bargain on something which equated to equal terms. That is patently ridiculous, and it is why Work Choices was so unfair. And that is why any return to a legislated scheme of individual contracts would also be deeply unfair.
We know that, despite what is being said now, if there were to be a future Liberal government, that is exactly where a future Liberal government would head. We know that before 2004 there was no word about enacting Work Choices but, on gaining control of the Senate, that is the very first thing that the then Howard government did—the signature piece of legislation throughout that term of government, and not a word breathed of it in the election beforehand. We know that when AWAs were implemented under the basis of that, penalty rates were stripped away under most of the AWAs that were agreed to. We also know that since 2007 Tony Abbott has said, for example in 2008, 'Work Choices was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers, and let's never forget that.' In 2009 he said, 'Workplace reform is one of the greatest achievements of the Howard government.' And in his book Battlelines he said that Work Choices was not all bad. That says everything when you bear in mind that, were they to be elected to government, the current policy of the opposition is to have an industrial relations system which would legislate for individual contracts. When you marry up Tony Abbott's comments with that now stated objective of the opposition were they to win government, it is completely clear what would happen in that event, and that is that workers would lose their rights as a result of a system of that kind. This act provides balance and that is what we need to keep.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:42): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. The bill before the House today proposes to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 in six areas. They are: amending the existing family-friendly arrangements provided under the act; amending the modern awards objective to provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions; introducing new anti-bullying measures; amending right of entry provisions; amending the functions of the Fair Work Commission; and also providing some minor technical amendments.
This bill was referred to the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment on 21 March this year for inquiry. The reason for the referral was that 'The bill makes changes to the Fair Work Act that will have an impact on each employee and employer in Australia. It is important that the parliament be fully aware of this bill and identify any unintended consequences.' I agree that the bill makes changes to the Fair Work Act that will impact on each employee and employer, and that is why I support an inquiry into this bill so that employees, employers and their respective representatives can have the opportunity to comment and be heard on the proposed amendments. I am concerned that this bill is being hurried through, rushed through, parliament before the committee report on the inquiry has been finalised and tabled and therefore before members of the House have had the opportunity to review the report and consider the committee's recommendations.
There were 41 submissions made to the committee for this inquiry, and there was one 3½-hour hearing scheduled for Melbourne that took place on Friday, 24 May. The public hearing was conducted primarily as a series of roundtables with union, employer and community groups. I congratulate and thank all of the parties who made submissions, attended and presented at the public hearing. The transcript of that hearing is publicly available, as are the submissions to the inquiry.
With most inquiries conducted there are a wide range of views put in submissions, and the inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 was no exception. Broadly, the ACTU and the CPSU appeared before the committee at the one public hearing that was held and supported the passage of the bill. The community representatives that appeared before the committee at the public hearing focused on issues relating to flexible working provisions, as well as parental leave and antibullying measures. I note that Carers Victoria spoke in detail about the significantly lower rates of workforce participation of carers compared to other Australians and made the point that this was rarely by choice.
The employer representatives that appeared before the committee raised serious concerns about the bill. Mr Stephen Smith, Director of National Workplace Relations for the Australian Industry Group, made the following opening comment to the committee:
We are very disappointed with the content of this bill. As the committee is aware, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2012 implemented mainly technical changes to the Fair Work Act which neither unions nor employers particularly objected to. We had high hopes that this particular bill would address some well-recognised problems with the legislation and deliver a more productive, flexible and fair workplace relations system. Unfortunately the bill fails to address that. It is extremely lopsided, in our view, it does not even attempt to strike a balance. It expands the entitlements of employees and unions in numerous areas, and employers issues of concern are not addressed at all.
Mr Dick Grozier, Director of Industrial Relations with Australian Business Industrial and Director of Workplace Policy with the New South Wales Business Chamber, said:
… since this inquiry was established and the submissions were lodged, there have been a number of developments, and the most obvious of those is the report from the equivalent Senate committee.
He then goes on to say:
In case it is unclear, we remain of the view that the appropriate recommendation from this committee is that the bill not be proceeded with. In our view, it has been hastily drafted—and we think there are a number of signs of that in the bill, as we are adverted to in our written submissions. It has not been subject to an impact assessment, and we think that is a very important omission. It has not been subject to anything like proper consultation. In the main, where it draws upon or purports to draw upon recommendations either of the expert panel or of the House committee, the proposals are inconsistent with those recommendations. So it remains our view that the recommendation from this committee should be that the bill not be proceeded with.
Mr Daniel Mammone, the Director of Workplace Policy and Director of Legal Affairs with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:
… ACCI does not support the bill in its current form. Whilst a number of provisions could be supported, in the context of other amendments which would redress the existing problems identified by industry, in its current form it is simply unbalanced, and this has been the view of leading business organisations across Australia.
So three significant employer associations do not support the bill in its current form. Master Builders Australia also made a submission to the inquiry, and I note that MBA is a peak employer association for the building and construction industry and that building and construction is a major driver of our national economy. Locally, for my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast, our economy has been dependent on the building and construction industry for many, many years. Master Builders Australia said in its submission:
Whilst Master Builders supports measures to improve the operation of the FW Act—
the Fair Work Act—
the Bill's provisions will further compound the current statutory constraints on employers to structure their workplace to suit their business. This submission highlights that the changes which would stem from the Bill are not balanced, as they work against the viability of business and strengthen the role of unions. They do not provide any measures which enhance productivity. The selection of the chosen items for priority enactment is not based on any criteria that guided the Government's processes for reviewing the FW Act and hence, as indicated throughout this submission, the Bill should, at the least, be deferred.
They go on to say:
The Bill should be deferred until a properly considered comprehensive, productivity focused range of reforms are placed before Parliament. At the least, a fully formulated Regulatory Impact Statement should be prepared which objectively assesses the costs and benefits of the amendments.
I have serious concerns about process. As I have said, the bill was referred to a House standing committee for inquiry. Forty-one submissions were received. A half-day public hearing was held. The committee's report has not been finalised and tabled. Members have therefore not had the opportunity to consider the report or its recommendations, and that is because the report has not been finalised. And yet here we are today debating the bill. That is being done against a background of significant concerns being raised by peak employer associations.
I do not believe that the views of either employees or employers should be dismissed in a debate about workplace relations. I believe that the inquiry should be completed, the report tabled and members given the opportunity to consider the report and its recommendations before the bill is debated. Feedback from industry groups is not as positive as I am confident the government would like. I have already spoken about the views put by employer associations at the public hearing and referred to the submissions put by Master Builders Australia, but there is much more in the submissions. The National Farmers' Federation said in its submission:
The NFF is of the view that the proposed amendments are unbalanced, pro union and regressive. … The Bill if passed will put stress on farming businesses and risk jobs, job prospects and is likely have a detrimental effect on the Australian economy.
There is a common theme here, and it is that peak employer associations representing industry are of the view that this bill is not balanced.
Many have also said that the bill fails to deal with the recommendations that arose from the Fair Work review that was undertaken in 2011 and 2012. For example, the representative from AiG noted at the public hearing that in a number of areas the bill conflicts with the recommendations of the review, with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry noting that the legislation continues to delay changes to the act in favour of amendments which were largely not recommended by the panel.
This leads into the next issue that was highlighted, which is that a regulatory impact statement was not drafted for this bill. A number of submissions point this out, questioning whether due process had therefore taken place. The lack of a regulatory impact statement deprives the community of the opportunity to look at a detailed assessment of the predicted impacts of the bill prior to its implementation, with Master Builders Australia noting:
… a fully formulated Regulatory Impact Statement should be prepared which objectively assesses the costs and benefits of the amendments.
This bill has been given an exemption from having to provide a regulatory impact statement, but, at the Senate inquiry, departmental officers could not provide any substantive reason for it being provided with this exemption. Considering the range of changes proposed under the bill, it is difficult to rationalise that such an analysis would not be needed.
This issue in turn leads to the effect that changes such as the ones outlined in the bill can have on businesses. At the public hearing, the representative from Australian Business Industrial and New South Wales Business Australia noted that the amount of time needing to be devoted to employment matters because of the complexities of the act creates an issue for business, further stating:
As one goes down the business size spectrum, this increasingly becomes an inhibition on employers from taking steps and often exacts quite a high personal cost on them because they become concerned about staffing problems that they do not seem confident to redress and also about not being able to take steps to benefit their business.
Later, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry representative stated:
The problem with the legislation, and particularly this bill, is that it imposes a lot of impediments on businesses when they are making decisions about employing people and making decisions about what they can do about problems within their business.
One of the changes that has the potential to affect businesses is the proposed right-of-entry change. ACCI, in its submissions, noted:
Quite clearly, the existing right of entry regime is not the same as the previous laws which existed prior to the commencement of the Act in 2009 and the new proposals are both trying to fix issues as a result of these changes, but is also introducing new costs and problems on employers.
Other submissions to the inquiry outlined concerns related to changes that would make the default location for union meetings the lunch room, in the absence of an agreement between the union and the employer. Business SA, in its submission, said:
These amendments need to be seen for what they really are and that is an avenue to assist unions to recruit new members.
As part of the amendments unions will be given the right to hold discussions in the area where meal breaks are taken.
If this amendment to the Fair Work Act is made employees will have to sit and listen to a sales pitch about joining a union or leave the lunch room.
Surely employees are entitled to eat a meal without being potentially harassed about joining a union.
The Australian Mines and Metals Association makes this point in its submission:
Key among employers’ concerns about the Bill’s proposals in this area is freedom of association and the need to protect employees who have no desire to meet with unions or to have any intrusion into their rest time.
Another issue that was raised is the inclusion of penalty rates in the legislation. In the public hearing, the Australian Industry Group said:
Our view on penalty rates is that they are an issue that should not be addressed in legislation. They are an issue that should be left to the tribunal. Our problem with this bill is that it seeks to require that awards either contain penalty rates or puts criteria there that until now have not been there and have not been a problem.
This bill, as I have stated, does not reflect the points of the Fair Work Act review, the recommendations of which seem to have been put aside for consideration at another time, despite clear disappointment being voiced by industry groups. It is concerning that there was no investigation done into the potential impacts of this bill, considering the flow-on effect it may have for businesses and employees. The House committee inquiry should have been allowed to conclude and the report tabled and considered by members before this bill was debated.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:57): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. On many occasions I have come into this House and spoken in support of over 87.3 per cent of the bills that have come from the government. But this bill is one that I cannot support because it is fundamentally flawed, it is bad policy and there are no strong productivity outcomes for our nation as a whole. On closer inspection of the bill—in trying to understand its genesis—call me cynical, but it does look like it has been orchestrated as some kind of payback to the unions for supporting the Prime Minister.
I note a bill like this was not put forward under the reign of the previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd; and, as a result, the faceless men turned on him and dug the knife in and there was blood, political blood, everywhere. That is why we now have a bill before the House which is fundamentally flawed and poor in its choreography—in particular with regard to the right-of-entry provisions. I employed over 100 staff and had 14 depots around Queensland. There is a place in the Australian landscape for good union representation, but this bill goes way too far with its demands for right of entry to small businesses.
The bill speaks to employees of employers as bad people, but I can tell you that the relationships between staff and employers across the nation in small business are good ones. They are good relationships where employers are often more than just a boss; they are a marriage guidance counsellor, they are a friend. These types of reforms are not needed for small business. If there is an argument for right of entry to large business, then so be it. But this bill cannot be accepted for small business across this nation.
Debate interrupted.
CONDOLENCES
Hawke, Mrs Hazel, AO
Report from Federation Chamber
Order of the day returned from Federation Chamber for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House expresses its deep regret at the death on 23 May 2013, of Hazel Hawke AO, place on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious service, and tender its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
The SPEAKER (14:00): I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the matter immediately. The question is that the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that a recent NATSEM report confirmed that, even on worst-case scenarios, 87 per cent of Australian households will be better off under the coalition's plan for tax cuts without a carbon tax? Why is the Prime Minister keeping a tax that hurts families without helping our environment?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): To the Leader of the Opposition's question, families will be worse off under his plan to take away the schoolkids bonus—a direct cut for families raising two children across the schooling life of their children of $15,000. That is real money, worse off, Australian families around the nation.
On carbon pricing, the Leader of the Opposition has come into the parliament and yet again misrepresented the impact of carbon pricing. Carbon pricing is working to reduce carbon pollution. There is no doubt about that.
Mr Abbott: I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister about the NATSEM report that showed that 87 per cent of Australian households would be better off under the coalition, even on worst-case scenarios.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: The Leader of the Opposition's question referred to the government's carbon pricing policy and suggested it was not working to reduce carbon pollution. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the question he actually asked. The question he actually asked, in answer to it: the government's policy—the carbon price and the Renewable Energy Target—are working to reduce carbon pollution. We have a policy working to reduce carbon pollution. Not one of the ridiculous, hysterical claims made by the Leader of the Opposition against carbon pricing has come true—not one of those claims.
I note that the Leader of the Opposition was out at a steel-manufacturing facility earlier today. No doubt he refused to tell the workers there that he came into this parliament and voted against their jobs by voting against the Steel Transformation Plan.
The intention of this government is for carbon pricing to continue because it is the least-cost way of reducing carbon pollution in our atmosphere. The Leader of the Opposition would prefer a higher cost way of reducing carbon pollution in our atmosphere. No doubt he would push those costs through to Australian families. It is estimated that that would cost families up to $1,300 a year. Then, of course, there is the Leader of the Opposition's plan to make them $15,000 worse off during the life of their children at school. The Leader of the Opposition has tried every act of hysteria when it comes to carbon pricing. Now the Australian people can judge from the facts, not from his fiction.
Education
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is helping lift school performance? Prime Minister, are there any obstacles to implementing these measures?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the member for Reid for his question. The member for Reid and others in the parliament may have read in today's newspapers the story of Canley Vale High School, which has lifted its performance through the support of our Smarter Schools National Partnerships. This is a school that has focused on teacher quality, quality learning and empowered school leadership. What that means is that new ways of working have been combined with extra money from the federal government—in the case of Canley Vale High School some three million extra dollars to ensure that children in the school get a better education. The principal is reported as saying that NAPLAN is particularly useful and it shows that the school results are above average in almost every area. The kinds of practical initiatives that have been funded through the extra resources made available by the federal government include after-school homework clubs, a double literacy period for years 7 and 8, and attendance programs—simple measures but making a powerful difference for the quality of children's education.
I want to see that kind of change—new resources working with improved teaching to raise outcomes for children—in all 9,500 schools around the country. I want to see that for the children of Queensland. I want to see $3.8 billion flow to 1,700 Queensland schools, boosting each school on average by $2.2 million. This would be a very big change for Queensland, better for the children, lifting the learning outcomes. That is why I have written to Premier Newman and asked him to be frank about the real reasons that he is refusing to work with the federal government to increase funding for Queensland schools. Certainly we have provided the detailed modelling and updates to that modelling five times. There have been 56 meetings of officials. But, despite this, Premier Newman has not responded to our offer.
What is the explanation for this? Presumably, the Leader of the Opposition is prevailing upon Premier Newman to put the politics first and put the kids last. My message to Premier Newman is: put the kids first and the politics last. Do what the Premier of New South Wales has been prepared to do.
We will see a great sporting clash this week between Queensland and New South Wales. I am concerned too about the education race between those two states. I do not want to see children in Queensland left behind. Premier Newman should do the same as Premier O'Farrell has done and put his children first. (Time expired)
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:07): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Prime Minister, you mentioned the importance of national partnerships in schools. Prime Minister, are you aware of other examples where national partnerships are important?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): I thank the member for Reid for his supplementary question. I can assure him that right around this great nation I am aware of many schools that have lifted the performance of the children in those schools through our national partnership money, which is why I was so distressed to see in the 2010 election that the Leader of the Opposition announced as one of his cutbacks ending that national partnership money and reducing the quality of children's education.
Even worse is the misrepresentations being engaged in by the opposition about the power of this money and where it is being distributed. I point to the example of Irrawang High School near Raymond Terrace in New South Wales. The shadow education spokesperson said on Newcastle radio that improvements in that school had happened without an injection of new funds. That is completely untrue and designed to mislead people. It is completely untrue because that school has benefited from $3 million of targeted investment through our national partnerships—the money that the Leader of the Opposition in the last election said he would rip away. But, of course, that promise is just a curtain-raiser for what he is promising in September this year, which would be $16.2 billion less for our schools.
Our kids deserve better. They deserve a high-quality education. We on this side of the parliament are determined to ensure that every school offers a great education. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the report in the media today that she has been approached by the foreign minister to quit her job for the good of the party?
Mr Robb interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein is warned! The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:10): To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: that report is entirely untrue, but given I am asked a question by the shadow minister for foreign affairs I will take this opportunity to table a report from TheGuardian that makes it absolutely clear that she has misled the Australian nation. She has misled this parliament. The opposition's policy about refugees and asylum seekers—
Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—
Mr Hawke: Speak up, Laurie. We can't hear you.
The SPEAKER: I can hear the member for Mitchell, and he will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Mitchell then left the chamber.
Mr Frydenberg: That is a valid interjection.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong can join him under standing order 94(a). I warned everybody yesterday graciously. Nobody took the hint. I am not going to bother with warnings today. The standing orders are the standing orders.
The member for Kooyong then left the chamber.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, has the Prime Minister completed her answer?
The SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms Julie Bishop: I seek leave to table my press release headed 'Guardian beat up' denying the allegations made.
Leave not granted.
Education
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (14:11): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Why is the Australian Education Bill so important for the future of our schools? Is the minister aware of any other approaches in relation to the importance of education?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:12): I thank the member for Deakin for his question. Like all members on this side of the chamber, he knows that education is the key to our national prosperity, that it is a pathway out of disadvantage for many young Australian students and in the Asian century it will be the platform for high-skilled, high-paid jobs in the future. I will soon table comprehensive amendments to the Australian Education Bill enshrining in the legislation the most significant reforms in education in 40 years, amendments that put in place for the first time a new fairer school funding system that will see every school funded on the basis of need, amendments that set out in detail the National Plan for School Improvement reforms, including a model based on the recommendations of the independent Gonski review.
Importantly, this bill brings for the first time funding for government and non-government schools together in one piece of legislation, providing extra public funding for students who need it. It does not matter where they live and it does not matter what school they are going to. Crucially here we have a choice for the Australian public and people listening: a legislated plan provided for in the budget, increasing school funding every year, driving reforms to help students and locking in fairness for the long term or the opposition's plan to keep a broken funding model that would see students left behind and schools go backwards by $16.2 billion.
There was an op-ed produced by the Leader of the Opposition on education. Previously he had said that the injustice in school funding was that public schools get too much money. We saw the 'real solutions' glossy. Education came in at priority No. 17. Today he had an opportunity to set the record clear and what did we get on education from the Leader of the Opposition? It had a whiff of the Howard era about it. There were a few typical incantations: 'when I was at school', 'choice, choice' and of course their old favourite 'a rigorous curriculum'. Well we have news for the Leader of the Opposition. In the 21st century not every parent has a choice where they send their child to school and, in case he has not noticed, we have already got a national curriculum. We have delivered it and it is being taught in schools around Australia.
What we can take from the opposition leader's very carefully scripted piece, given the $16.2 billion of investment in schools that would be denied as a consequence of Mr Abbott's policies, is that if you are a kid in the country who does not care about the extra support you need or if you are a teacher in a tough school then get ready for the rhetoric of choice and cuts. This is a very important piece of legislation in front of the parliament—A National Plan for School Improvement—making sure that we have a better education for all Australian students in all schools.
National Security
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (14:15): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer the minister to his statement yesterday in relation to a convicted Egyptian jihadi terrorist held for seven months in a low security family accommodation facility in the Adelaide Hills that, 'I have not received advice as to whether the person in question has gone through any assessment.' Can the minister now advise the House of the status of his claim for asylum?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:15): I thank the honourable member. Yes, I can advise the House. There has been no assessment in relation to this matter.
Rural Assistance
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:16): My question is to the Treasurer. Can he advise when the $420 million crisis assistance package was made available to the states and why Queensland is still prevaricating whilst cattlemen shoot dying cattle and suffer the trauma of pending foreclosures? Given we are now five months into the crisis and there is still no significant action from Queensland, can he redirect the $420 million to a reconstruction fund, thus facilitating farm access to government interest rates of three per cent?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the member for Kennedy for this very important question, because we do have a crisis in our northern cattle industry. We have an enormous amount of stress, high levels of debt and problems with valuations in parts of our rural sector right across the country, not just in North Queensland but also in the dairy industry in parts of Victoria and also in Western Australia. This is a very serious issue that the government takes seriously, which is why we did this fund late in April with a package of $420 million in concessional loans for farmers.
What we see here are viable farms impacted upon on the one hand by a high dollar and on the other by revaluations. Of course, this has put them under an enormous amount of stress. The government has put forward in good faith a package of $420 million in concessional loans. But to effectively deliver this we do require the cooperation of the states. They have the infrastructure at the local level to deliver this. They have the apparatus to deliver it and to work on the ground. I thought we would get that. I thought we would get it quickly, given the amount of stress in parts of the rural sector. So, frankly, I have been shocked by the failure of the states to come to the party. We are asking them to take on the administrative costs, so we are putting forward this package in good faith. It is urgently needed for a whole group of farmers who are viable in the long term but are impacted very badly by levels of debt and the value of the dollar in the short term. I have been shocked by the failure of the states to come on board, because this money should be flowing right now. I would urge all of the states to come on board, in good faith, to work with the Commonwealth in the interests of our rural producers.
The member for Kennedy asked me whether we could consider creating some new organisation to do this if we do not get the cooperation of the states. I say that that would certainly involve too much delay. This matter is urgent. So in the first instance the federal government's preference is to work in a cooperative way with the state governments to get the finance to these rural producers who desperately need it. We will continue to do that in good faith.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:18): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the Parliament of India, from the Lok Sabha. On behalf of the House I extend to them a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Education
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. How will access to the best possible education help Australia's students to take advantage of the opportunities of the Asian century? Why is this critical in building a stronger economy and what obstacles are there?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (14:19): I thank the member for Capricornia for her ongoing interest in quality education for all young people. In the Asian century the fact is that four of the top five schooling systems are now in our region—that is where our competition is. If our young people are going to have the vast array of rewarding career opportunities, we need to compete successfully with the schooling systems in the Asian region. Indeed, in the Australia in the Asian century white paper we set the goal that by 2025 Australia's schooling system would be in the top five. The only way we can do that is to reform the education system and to invest heavily in it.
In Queensland, that is not happening. In New South Wales, it is happening. Premier O'Farrell has confirmed that he has been put under enormous pressure by the Leader of the Opposition not to sign up to the agreement to which he did sign. Obviously, Mr Newman in Queensland is succumbing to that pressure because he thinks it is more important to put the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of the kids in Queensland. I say to the Premier of Queensland, 'Put the kids before the Libs.' Put the kids first. We must make sure that kids in Queensland get the same quality education as is now on offer in New South Wales. What is on offer from the Commonwealth for Queensland is $2.5 billion in extra funding. That means an average of $2.2 million per school. For those schools that are especially disadvantaged it is even more, because that is the basis of these reforms.
But the Leader of the Opposition wants to put his career before the careers of those kids who need to compete successfully in the Asian century. So put the kids before the Libs and sign up to these reforms. Instead of improving relations with our region, which this would do by having more kids travel to and from Asia, we have had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition verbal the Indonesian government. In so doing, she has embarrassed herself, she has embarrassed the parliament and she has embarrassed Australia. She should apologise or resign.
National Security
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (14:22): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Given the minister's previous answer to my question, will he give an undertaking that at the conclusion of any assessment this convicted jihadi terrorist will be deported?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:22): I can advise the honourable member that the assessment has yet to commence. But I make it very clear that every person who is considered for the granting of a permanent visa is subject to a character test. If the person fails this test, their visa can be refused. Security assessments are also, of course, a routine part of the protection visa application process, so it would be a part of any assessment of this individual. Individuals who are assessed by ASIO to be directly or indirectly a risk to national security are issued with an adverse security assessment. As a matter of policy, the government has determined that individuals with adverse security assessments should remain in detention rather than live in the community.
Workplace Relations
Mr LYONS (Bass) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. How is the government reforming the 457 visa system to build stronger and fairer Australian workplaces, and are there other approaches?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:23): I thank the member for Bass for his question, an important question about protecting the interests of workers in this country. As a government, we responded to the global financial crisis by supporting Australian workers. We repealed Work Choices to ensure we enhanced employment security. And we will reform the 457 visa to ensure we provide employment opportunities for workers in this country, particularly young people who are being trained and need a job. This is not, as some try to describe it, anti foreign worker; this is unashamedly and unapologetically pro local worker, and so it should be. The fact is this is consistent with Labor values.
I watched the opposition leader in an interview today dismiss the abuse of 457s as 'nonexistent'. How does he explain that 15 per cent of employers surveyed by the Migration Council of Australia said that they have no trouble finding local workers but still look overseas first? What about the growth of 457s increasing 20 times faster than the total employment growth rate of this country? What about wage rates falling where there is a spike in 457 use? Indeed, what about the seven per cent of those applicants on 457s saying that they are paid less than locals? The reason, of course, that the opposition leader denies the evidence is that he has said and continues to say this temporary scheme should be the mainstay of immigration in this country. The opposition's position can also be summed up by what the member for Cook said in a speech to the Australian Mines and Metals Association on 2 August 2012:
… it is essential we consolidate the role of 457s and look to restore access that has been taken away for these visas…
That was last year before these reforms. Further, he went on to say:
At current levels … under the 457 programme there is room for expansion.
What a stark difference between the opposition and this government. We want to protect the interests of local workers and ensure that when we do use the 457 scheme, which is an important scheme, it is used legitimately. What it should not be used for is as a replacement for workers in this country or to displace young people who are being trained and want to fill the positions in the future. The opposition have made clear that they want to see an expanded version of the 457 scheme. They have said they want to remove, as they would put it, the 'impediments' to accessing this scheme which would grow the scheme and deny Australian workers and young people in this country proper jobs, genuine jobs, in communities throughout the country.
National Broadband Network
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I remind him that, by his own admission, he wrote to Telstra in 2009 to urge the proactive replacement of every asbestos-contaminated pit in Australia. What advice did the minister receive from Telstra regarding the health and safety risks of this proposal? Did he receive advice that his proposal involved greater safety risks than leaving intact and undamaged pits in place?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:27): I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. But I have to say, what a glass jaw this fellow has got. Yesterday, he ran an argument saying we were not doing enough and today, because he has opened the book on asbestos for the first time, he is saying, 'You shouldn't do this; you shouldn't do that.' Now we have a debate about duelling opinions on the best way to treat asbestos. What a glass jaw. Yesterday, we know what was raised about asbestos. I would love to have thought it was about the residents of Penrith.
Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: could you remind the minister he is not in a North Carlton pie shop and he should return to the question.
The SPEAKER: The member for Wentworth is abusing points of order and will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The continual abuse of points of order will not be tolerated. My sense is guided by the standing orders.
The member for Wentworth then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The minister has the call.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Aston will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Canning can wave his arms all he likes or we can actually have appropriate behaviour in accordance with the standing orders.
The member for Aston then left the chamber.
Mr SHORTEN: Little did I know when I said 'glass jaw' that he would so quickly prove my statement.
The SPEAKER: The minister will return to the question.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, it is not okay, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If, for once, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was listening as opposed to talking, she may have heard that I was actually bringing the minister back to the question.
Mr SHORTEN: I have been asked a question about competing methods for dealing with the threat of asbestos. I am pleased to answer that question because this government has got a proud record. This government, in fact, is a world leader.
Nothing excuses Telstra's failure to deliver up to the promises and undertakings it has made to the community. Again, I wish to put on record that I recognise that the CEO of Telstra has shown leadership, as opposed to a small target, by indeed offering his acceptance of responsibility.
But I have been asked about what the best way forward is in terms of dealing with asbestos. I do not resile from the view that the best way to deal with asbestos is not in the long term to leave it in the ground. But on this side we stand for the eventual eradication of asbestos. Asbestos kills people; it kills 700 people a year—it is a dreadful substance, and the people who have produced it over the years have done this in the full knowledge, in my opinion, of the risks it presented.
But if you want to change health and safety, it does take time. There are a lot of people who need to be brought along the path of making Australia's workplaces safer. In my experience it is particularly difficult to change the health and safety direction of large corporations. It is slow and difficult; otherwise it would have happened many years ago. What you have to do is alert them—that is what this government has done—you have to identify the issues, you have to seed ideas into them and you have to put forward suggestions on what should be done. It needs to be done at the highest level. That is what this government has done.
But, indeed, you not only need to challenge organisations—and they normally respond in my experience, as Telstra did: 'We've got it under control'. But then what has happened is that this government has initiated a review of asbestos, we have acted on the recommendations and we have set up the first agency to create a national approach. This government has done a lot, and I have to say that it is a sad day when otherwise respectable members of the opposition seek to tarnish their own reputations by turning this into a political issue.
Asbestos should be a bipartisan issue, and even though he is not in the chamber I extend to the member for Wentworth the opportunity to work with us on how to make asbestos safe, because it does not matter how you take and challenge those pits that are there; under anyone's policy on telcos, if you open one of those pits in the wrong way you will hurt people and you will damage them, and that is what we must fight jointly. (Time expired)
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): Madam Speaker, I rise to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Given the advice the minister received that disturbing these asbestos pits would be dangerous, what advice did he give the government as it moved toward doing just that through the rollout of the National Broadband Network?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:32): Oh my goodness! The Luddites have taken over the asylum here!
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will return to the question! The minister is warned: abuse at this dispatch box will not be tolerated.
Mr SHORTEN: If you go through the flat-earth theory we just heard, we should never do any infrastructure work in this country because, under the opposition's simplistic understanding of asbestos, we just leave it there and never tackle the issue.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked: given the information he had from 2009, what advice did he give the government as a cabinet minister about the National Broadband Network, which was about to do exactly what he had been warned against doing two years previously? It is not a—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr SHORTEN: I appreciate the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Reps promoting me from parl. sec. to cabinet in 2009. But in terms of what goes on—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: But in terms of the issues, I appreciate a question from the opposition on health and safety, and I particularly appreciate it on asbestos from the Leader of the Opposition. The historians in this chamber and listening may be interested to know that until this week the Leader of the Opposition has never raised a question on asbestos in the parliament. But I can say that, when it comes to dealing with asbestos, we take the advice of our regulators. We are the ones who have created a national agency. We are the ones who have done a national plan.
This is in stark contrast to what happens when the coalition get power. We all know what happens then: it is reported today in Fairfax that the then minister for workplace relations, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, rejected a plan to speed up asbestos compensation. Strike 1, 2001!
Then we have a situation when there was a proposition about putting in a drug which would support asbestos victims in their suffering—
Mr Hockey: How is this relevant, Madam Speaker?
Mr Dutton: Relevance!
Mr SHORTEN: They know where this is going, don't they?
The SPEAKER: The minister will return to the question—
Mr SHORTEN: The opposition leader, when he was in—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will return to the question!
Mr SHORTEN: The opposition leader, when he was in power, would not deal with helping and easing the suffering of asbestos victims. And when Bernie Banton— (Time expired)
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): Madam Speaker, I rise with a further supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that he took no further action on possible asbestos contamination, even though he knew that millions of contaminated pits were going to be disturbed as part of the National Broadband Network rollout?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:34): Goodness me, I love a lecture from this pack of hypocrites opposite—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will return to the question!
Mr SHORTEN: The reason why the question is such a hypocritical question is that, unfortunately, there is always a record of what goes before you. And what I have here—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Firstly, he should withdraw the phrase that he used, which is unparliamentary. Secondly, at least four or five of my colleagues have been thrown out today without a warning. You have warned the minister and he should be ejected from the House.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. They were abuses of points of order and not adhering to standing order 65(b). The minister is answering a question; I will ask him to refer to the question before the chair. I am just going to explain: the word used can be considered or not considered unparliamentary, but I will ask the minister to withdraw.
Mr SHORTEN: I am happy to withdraw. What I should have said is that it is a trifle inconsistent on a professional basis from those opposite when they say, 'Well, the member for Maribyrnong contacted Telstra a number of times and insisted on finding out what was going on, and Telstra said they had it under control'. When he has become the minister—when I have become the minister—we have acted on the review, which was initiated by my predecessors. And we are the first government ever to act; we are the first government to put in an asbestos agency. We have moved very quickly when we were notified of the problems—and our Comcare regulator has been there in the last six to eight weeks as complaints have come in.
But on this startling idea for those opposite, who have never paid attention to asbestos generally—although there are a few notable exceptions opposite, I should be fair—in 2006 Mr McGauran, the then member for Gippsland, responded to the late member for Calare, Mr Andren, when he was asked a number of questions about asbestos, and the then government, the coalition government of short memory, went through it and said, 'Yes, the Telstra network'—this is at point 2 in the Hansard, which the opposition did not bother getting out because they like to pretend that this discovery about Telstra is new—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Practice makes it quite clear. Perhaps under the old standing orders tangential information may have been in order but this has to be directly relevant to the question, and all the bluster in the world and all the shouting do not make it relevant.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. She may have observed my adherence to abuses of points of order. The minister has the call.
Mr SHORTEN: The number of interjections opposite do not change one truth. In 2006 a coalition minister wrote to Mr Andren:
The Telstra network still contains pits … containing—
(Time expired)
Economy
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (14:38): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's plan to create a stronger economy and a fairer society by making smart investments in our schools?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:38): I thank the member for Banks for that very important question. Before I go into that in detail I just want to inform the House that the RBA, the Reserve Bank of Australia, has decided to keep interest rates on hold. What this means is that interest rates are now at record lows under this government. That is of enormous benefit to many people out there with mortgages and many people out there in small business. If you have an average mortgage of $300,000, you are paying $5,500 a year less on average than you were when Labor came to government—that is, when the others were in power. So lower interest rates are further evidence of the very strong economic management of this government.
We have put in place a fiscal policy which has given the Reserve Bank the flexibility to lower rates over time within an environment of contained inflation. That is absolutely essential so we can grow our economy for the future. Our economy has been growing: 13 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007, with record low interest rates, and there have been 950,000 jobs created in that time. Of course, these are precisely the circumstances in which we should be making the very big, smart investments for the future, the ones which bring with them future prosperity, that lift our productivity and that lift our economic capacity. And nothing is more important in this regard than an investment in education. That is why our recent budget was so important, not just putting jobs and growth first but also making room in the budget for investments in education which will bring the great benefit to this country in the years to come.
That is why it is so distressing to see the Leader of the Opposition is in cahoots with the Premier of Queensland, actively coordinating an attack on extra funding which will flow to students in Queensland—extra funding which of course is going to flow to students in New South Wales. If we are going to win the economic race in the future, we have got to invest in education. That is something that the Premier of New South Wales understands, but not something the Premier of Queensland and not something the Leader of the Opposition understand. By their action, by staying with the old broken formula, they are going to deny $4.2 billion to the school students of Queensland over the next six years. What could be worse, what could be more reckless than that denial—the failure to invest in the future? It says everything about those opposite. They have not got a grasp of basic economics. They have not got a grasp of the investments we need to make for the future. They will starve the future, they will not make the necessary investments and in the process they will put their political interests before the interest of students in Queensland.
National Broadband Network
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I remind the minister that on 19 April, after problems with asbestos had been widely reported in the press, the Chief Executive Officer of NBN Co. was asked at a joint parliamentary committee hearing whether asbestos was a big issue for the rollout, to which he responded, 'I would not say it is a big issue.' Does the minister agree that asbestos contamination is not a big issue and, if not, what action did he take with respect to the views of the CEO of NBN Co.?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:41): I do believe that asbestos exposure in Australia is a big issue; let me be very clear about that. The reason why I say that is more people are going to die from asbestos exposure than died in World War I. That is why this government—and I do recognise and concede that those opposite did, in a bipartisan fashion, vote for our asbestos legislation—is the first government since Federation to actually put in place a national approach on asbestos. In terms of telecommunications—
Mr Fletcher: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was: did he agree with the statement that asbestos is not a big issue and what action did he take?
The SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr Adams interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons will leave the chamber under 94(a)!
The member for Lyons then left the chamber—
Mr SHORTEN: I thank the member for Bradfield for his question. I do believe asbestos is a big issue in Australia. It is not just an issue in telecommunications, as I was about to say; it is an issue across Australia. At least one in every three houses has asbestos in it if it was built after 1945 and before the mid-1980s. Even as we speak, and this weekend, there will be people who will do renovations in their homes who need to be alert to the issue of possible asbestos in the house. When they tamper with the shed or they take down the shed or they do the renovations or they lift up the carpet which might have some cement tiles underneath which contain asbestos, they do need to be careful. So I do believe it is an issue, and of course it is an issue within telecommunications.
It is an issue to make sure that we remove it safely. But what we cannot do is adopt the 'see no evil, hear no evil, talk no evil' approach of the opposition about leaving it, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, in situ, in place. It is inevitable that Australians will want to change their houses and renovate them. It is inevitable that whoever is in power will want to renovate our telecommunications system—even if your plan is too slow, too late and too old, nonetheless, if you are elected you will end up having policies which will take people into these pits. What is most important, though, if that is the case—be it the householder at home, be it the telecommunications worker at a telecommunications pit, be it anyone in our community, be it the people who wash the clothes of those who might be exposed to it, be it the kids who might be watching mum or dad renovate on the weekend—is the safe removal.
As much as the opposition have tried to turn this asbestos debate into a debate about NBN—and let's face it, they never talk, by and large, in the parliament, although there are many notable exceptions individually about the issue—they have not really tried to make asbestos an issue of concern for the coalition. It is not really part of their brand. The only reason they are talking about it now is because they see it as a way to attack NBN. Let's call it for what it is.
But let us at least use the opposition attack to take an opportunity to get above politics, to talk about asbestos exposure generally. Telstra has made it clear that they knew there are cement-lined pits which have asbestos in them. They have made it clear that the contractors have not fulfilled it. We know that there needs to be daily exposure. The issue is asbestosis, not politics. (Time expired)
Environment: Marine Parks Management Plans
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities. Will the Minister update the House on what the government is doing to protect our oceans? What obstacles are there to this approach?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (14:45): I thank the member for Corangamite for the question. There is a lot at stake today in terms of whether or not Australia continues to be the world leader on protecting the oceans and whether or not we continue a process which has been going for 20 years, and had been supported under the Howard years but has had a complete backflip under this Leader of the Opposition.
On the weekend I saw a big article in The Australian that told me that there were going to be up to 1,000 people rallying in Torquay who were going to be very angry about this process. After The Australian article—and I will table it—there was no media coverage of it at all. Then I discovered the reason must be the funny way 1,000 people was calculated. Those numbers were in some way short—they used the shadow Treasurer to do the figures, clearly. Why would so few people turn up to the rally?
What the shadow minister for the environment did not tell them was that when they were making their speeches from the tinny they were speaking from—they spoke in a tinny, though admittedly it was on land—they did not let people know that if you wanted to go from that rally to an area where you are not allowed to fish, you would have to go out, turn left, go across the Bass Strait and, after 460 kilometres, you would get to the first place where you could not fish, a place where the no-fishing zone was put in place in 2007 when the member for Wentworth was the minister for the environment. The nearest restriction on recreational fishing was put in place by the Howard government when they were in charge.
This is a process where the science it has been based on was commenced under the Howard years. Some of these plans on the inside cover have the happy smiling face of the member for Wentworth and the member for Dawson for science. As for the process of consultation when they say, 'No consultation happened at all,' there were five separate rounds of consultation and three-quarters of a million submissions engaged—in a process that works. What we found for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park work which has now come back with restrictions put in place by the Howard government that they now conveniently forget, is that fish stocks do improve. Coral trout numbers are six times what they used to be. Crown of thorns starfish are at a quarter of the levels in the protected zones that they are in the rest of the park. It is a process which for 20 years had had bipartisan support, and which the opposition are hoping will come to nothing tonight.
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:48): I have a supplementary question. Further to the minister's answer, could he explain the impact if marine parks management plans are disallowed?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (14:48): Thanks for the supplementary question. I notice that the shadow minister is not the one who has moved the disallowance. He has deferred it off to the member for Calare. The member for Calare in a piece of organisational brilliance has not only moved disallowance for the Coral Sea, for the North-West Zone, for the North Zone, for the South-West Zone and the Temperature East; he has also moved disallowance for the South-East Zone, which was the Howard government's zone. So they are actually attempting in the vote tonight to abandon the exact plans that had been called on by the Howard government.
This shows exactly how far the negativity has gone. It is not enough to outdo and to try to wreck conservation attempts by this government; they have got to attack what little environmental legacy there was from the Howard government and get rid of that too. Make no mistake, if disallowance goes through tonight it begins to become legal for oil and gas drilling to happen in the Coral Sea. It then becomes legal for oil and gas drilling to happen off the Margaret River area. Areas like the Diamantina Fracture Zone and areas like the Perth Canyon that are up for protection now with 20 years of science and all consultation—and what is their approach? In the power of wanting to say no, just like they did with the super trawler, if it is about protecting the ocean, this opposition has no interest.
National Broadband Network
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware that an asbestos pit beside a footpath at a Mackay NBN construction site was uncovered for almost a week in April, exposing workers and the public to asbestos contamination? Given the pit was alongside a footpath next to the main street of the Mackay CBD, does the government know how many people were exposed to this asbestos?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:50): I thank the member for Dawson for his question. He is right, I believe, to raise this concern and I appreciate his raising it. Despite what I have said about some of the issues being raised about the politics of just trying to use asbestos to attack the NBN, I for one am not satisfied to hear what you have just said in terms of the safety of people. I will ask my Comcare regulator to give me a report.
One thing I know is that it is possible to take and handle asbestos safely. I do not support the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition that we just leave asbestos there for time immemorial—all asbestos. I believe that we do have to have a prioritised removal process. This is probably a point of difference, one I hope that it is not between the opposition and the government—
Mr Hockey: Answer the question!
The SPEAKER: Order, the member for North Sydney!
Mr SHORTEN: I believe in the prioritised removal of asbestos because in some cases it will become airborne. Some of the places which have asbestos in them, such as the Telstra pits which the member for Dawson has kindly brought to my attention, could contain asbestos. These pits will get tampered with over time. There are pipes and ducts which will get tampered with—as they will in people's own residential houses.
What we need to do—and what I am pleased that Telstra did at a meeting convened by myself and the Minister for Communications—is that we want to make sure that where asbestos has to be removed where we come into contact with asbestos it is done safely. That is why what is clear in recent weeks and months, and the member for Dawson's question to me taken at face value reinforces the importance of what this government is doing, is that we need to make sure that there is safe handling where people come into contact with it. So I will follow up your matter and I will give you a report on it, and it is not acceptable.
Mr Abbott: I raise a point of order. The minister was asked a very direct question about something that happened in April, more than a month ago. How many people—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Local Government
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government. How is the government building stronger communities by giving financial recognition to local government in the nation's Constitution? How is this being done in a way that does not alter the existing powers of states and territories and why are the facts important when it comes to this issue?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (14:53): I thank the member for Greenway for her question and acknowledge the important work that she did as the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition. This is a proposition that has the support of both the government and the opposition as well as the minor parties in this parliament. Later today we will commence the discussion and conclude the discussion on the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013.
It is important to note that in terms of the support out there in local communities over 490 councils have passed resolutions in support of the government's proposal to recognise local government in the Constitution. This is absolutely vital, because the federal government does play an important role in terms of providing support for local government, including through programs such as the Roads to Recovery program, which deals with local roads, but also the 6,000 local community infrastructure projects that we have done through either the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program or the Regional Development Australia Fund. These are all absolutely vital projects that have made a difference to local communities.
We have made sure in the way that the wording has been framed that it will not change the relationship between state governments and local governments. It talks about local government which is created by the states and therefore created by and accountable to state governments. So it does not change that balance. We have seen a few scare campaigns out there reminiscent of the old daylight saving arguments that it will change the colour of your curtains and the cows will not milk in the morning. All of them are based on similar irrational views. A rational analysis of this change suggests that it is a moderate change but it is an important change. It is important that the Constitution reflect the actual governance structures in this nation, and they are that we have three tiers of government. This has been long supported by the Labor Party. This is also supported by the Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate the Leader of the National Party and others, including the members for Hinkley, Calare, Parkes and others, who I understand spoke at the National Party conference on the weekend and rebelled on the idea that there should be opposition to this referendum.
I think it is vital that this get as broad support as possible. It is commonsense change, it recognises modern reality as it exists here in Australia and it will ensure that there is no doubt whatsoever about whether the federal government can provide that vital funding that local government relies upon. I say to some of the state governments that they would not want to be in a position of having to step in were that knocked out in terms of the ability of the federal government to fund local government. (Time expired)
National Broadband Network
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of evidence given in Senate estimates by the chief executive officer of Comcare that more than half of all asbestos cases since 1996 involving telecommunication pits have occurred in the past six weeks and his concession that 'At a general level, yes, the Commonwealth will be liable'. Why is the Prime Minister insisting that the risk of asbestos contamination occurring as a result of the National Broadband Network is not the government's responsibility when her own head of Comcare has confirmed the opposite is true?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:57): I thank the member for her question. I would refer the member to the words of Telstra CEO David Thodey, who said: 'We own the infrastructure, it is our responsibility.' That is the head of Telstra saying that they own the infrastructure and it is their responsibility. So clearly Telstra has stepped up, as is appropriate, and taken responsibility for its infrastructure, and so it should.
On asbestos generally, of course this government takes the view that if there is a hazard in our nation then we are concerned to do everything we can to support community members who are worried about that hazard in their environment and their lives and to support the removal of that hazard from people's lives. That is why this is the government that has stepped up to having better approaches on asbestos, as the Minister for Workplace Relations has outlined to the parliament today. I am concerned whenever I hear that anybody has become worried or has become exposed to asbestos. We all should be concerned about that.
Mr Abbott: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was quite specific. It referred the Prime Minister to the head of Comcare's statement that the Commonwealth would be liable for this asbestos contamination, and the Prime Minister should address that matter.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I was asked about the question of responsibility and I have quoted the CEO of Telstra and his words, 'We own the infrastructure, it is our responsibility.' But the government has not been content to just say this is a matter for Telstra; the government through the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Communications convened a meeting yesterday because we want to see everything that can be done being done. That is the government's approach. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that as we take that approach we will deal with people respectfully, and that is a sharp contrast to how he has approached these questions in the past.
Parliamentary Budget Office
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (14:59): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. How is the government making sure that members of parliament have access to independent advice on getting policies and proposals fully costed? Why is it important that the Australian people are fully informed about costed and funded policies?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (15:00): I thank the member for Chifley for his question. This government is very proud of the fact that we have established the Parliamentary Budget Office, which provides an unprecedented opportunity for members of parliament to go and get their policies independently costed. That means that now, for the first time, there will be absolutely no excuses for parties to avoid getting their policies independently costed and having them out there before the Australian people before the election.
Of course, we have all seen the Leader of the Opposition out there running around with his so-called 'real plan'—that little pamphlet that he sticks up under his chin when he does a television interview. He tell us that he has a real plan, but we are just months out from the election and we still do not have a single properly costed policy from the opposition. That is because they are determined to hide their plans from the Australian people.
I read in the Daily Telegraph today that the member for North Sydney has issued a gag order on coalition MPs and coalition candidates talking to the Parliamentary Budget Office 'over fears that new laws will expose the coalition to greater scrutiny'. Well, we would not want that! It just goes to show you the extent to which they will go to avoid having their policies exposed to any scrutiny.
I do note that, to his credit, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked about this today, he said, 'Well, this is all news to me.' But I would have thought that, if the member for North Sydney was writing to his colleagues, the Leader of the Opposition would be at the very top of his mailing list, because when it comes to unfunded and uncosted policies, he is the chief architect. He is the one responsible for their $20 billion paid parental leave cash splash. He is the one that is responsible for the billions of dollars that they want to waste—
Ms Julie Bishop: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is starting to be like an obsessive compulsive disorder. They do nothing but talk about—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat and count herself lucky! The Assistant Treasurer has the call.
Mr BRADBURY: He wants to waste billions of dollars handing out money to polluters. And what about that other one, the Northern Australia policy, where they are going to build all of these dams around the place and are going to gold-plate footpaths up in Northern Australia. None of these policies are costed. It is all starting to look like there is a pattern here of those opposite trying to hide their plans from the Australian people.
We all know they are not going to release the nastiest of their policies now; they are saving them for the secret commission of cuts. But now it looks as though they do not want any of their policies to be exposed to any scrutiny ahead of the election and they will not be sending any to the Parliamentary Budget Office. I have to say that there is one thing that should scare every Australian family. What we saw at the last election with their $11 billion black hole is nothing; if they were to get elected at the next election their big black hole will be paid for by every Australian family, and that will be through savage cuts to the bone. (Time expired)
National Security
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:03): My question is again to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer the minister to article 32 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which states:
The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require …
I ask him again: will the minister give an undertaking to this House that a convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist will be deported?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:04): As I have already advised the House and the honourable member, there is a process in place and there is a determination to be made by ASIO in relation to these matters. I will not be answering hypotheticals as to what would occur after a security agency makes an assessment in relation to these matters. But you can be assured that they will make those decisions and advise the government and we will ensure that the Australian people will be safe.
The one thing I will not do is take advice from the those members opposite who were members of the Howard government, who of course have got an extraordinary record on national security. Seven hundred people escaped from immigration detention in two days in June 2000. They unlawfully deported an Australian citizen. They unlawfully detained an Australian permanent resident. They deported an Indian doctor that they falsely claimed to be a terrorist. That is the record of the Howard government. We do not need any lectures from you, I can assure you.
MOTIONS
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Censure
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:05): Speaker, I seek leave to move that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship be required to explain to the House the contradiction between his answer to the House today with respect to the convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist and his letter to the member for Stirling dated 10 May 2013.
Leave not granted.
Mr PYNE: I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Sturt from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship be required to explain to the House the contradiction between his answer to the House today with respect to the convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist and his letter to the member for Stirling dated 10 May 2013.
In the House today the minister said that he could advise the House that there had been no assessment in relation to this matter.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr Randall interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canning certainly is not The Speaker. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:06): There has been no lead-up whatsoever to this moving of a motion—none whatsoever. They have not prioritised this at all as an issue in question time and then they come in here and move a suspension. So I move—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business does not have the call. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: There cannot be a point of order on the motion moved by the Leader of the House.
Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: There is not a point of order on the motion. The Leader of the House—
Mr Abbott: No, but, Madam Speaker, it is open to you to refuse to entertain the motion from the Leader of the House, given the seriousness of the matter that is now before the House from the Manager of Opposition Business, and I respectfully—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not an option open to me. The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
The House divided. [15:12]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:21): I second the motion. A national security debate should not be gagged. We have a minister who cannot get his story straight. In question time today he said no assessment is proceeding on this.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.
Ms O'Dwyer: Stop being a bully.
The SPEAKER: The member for Higgins is warned.
Mr Albanese: Speaker, the government's position is that national security should not also be used to delay time until Malcolm Turnbull gets back for the MPI. That is what is happening here.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Stirling has the call.
Mr KEENAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a minister on this matter who cannot get his story straight. He has told one version of events at question time and another in a letter to me on—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Stirling will resume his seat.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:22): Given the member for Wentworth will be back at 3.28 and able to do his MPI, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [14:27]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (15:32): The time for the debate has expired.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
National Broadband Network
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:33): I am following up on a question from the member for Dawson. Whilst I have informed him personally on the matter in Mackay, WorkSafe Queensland was the Queensland work health and safety regulator that investigated this site in Mackay. The contractors involved in this work were covered by state legislation. The Queensland regulator did not issue any enforcement or improvement notices. Comcare did not participate in these inspections and were advised after the fact.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (15:33): Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr JOHN COBB: I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr JOHN COBB: The member for Watson, the environment minister, claimed that on behalf of the coalition I was moving a disallowance on the fact that the Howard government established the south-east marine park and the management plan there, too. Not so. As the minister would know if he listened or didn't tell porkies, in actual fact what we are moving is a disallowance of a management plan of the Gillard government.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member for Calare should withdraw.
Opposition members: 'Porkies'?
The SPEAKER: And now I might get everybody on the front bench to withdraw! The member for Calare.
Mr JOHN COBB: I withdraw.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:34): Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: In question time today the member for Stirling and the member for Sturt both asserted my statements in the parliament in relation to a detainee held in detention were inconsistent. I reject that assertion. What happened there, of course, was the effort to use parliamentary procedure in order to allow the member for Wentworth to come back and do his MPI.
PRIVILEGE
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (15:35): I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In a personal explanation yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:
The claim that I said the coalition had an agreement with Indonesia is not true. At no time did I say in an interview with The Guardian online or in any other interview that the coalition had either negotiated or reached an agreement with Indonesia.
This statement was made in response to an article published by TheGuardian Australia under the headline 'Indonesia have agreed to co-operate in turning back boats, insists Coalition'. The assertions made by the deputy leader in her personal explanation contrasts with remarks attributed to her by TheGuardian late yesterday. According to a published transcript of the deputy leader's interview with TheGuardian
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member is raising a matter of privilege.
Dr EMERSON: She said—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, matters of privilege are very serious ones. If the minister wishes simply to have a political hit on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he can do a doorstop, like he usually does, rather than wasting the time of the House on a spurious—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat! The minister has the call.
Dr EMERSON: This is the quote:
… one thing you understand about diplomacy and others do as well is the professional diplomats are paid to present, aah, particular views but what goes on behind the scenes can be quite different—what people say privately can be different to what they say publicly …
The deputy leader's comments were clearly calculated to imply that, regardless of the Indonesian government's public position, there was a private understanding between the Indonesian government and the coalition to support the coalition's dangerous turn-back policy.
The SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister get to the issue of privilege.
Dr EMERSON: I am, Speaker. Members owe an obligation of honesty and candour to the House. I ask you, Speaker, to consider this matter with a view to giving precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests to determine whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has misled the House. In making this assessment I ask you to consider the precedent involving the former member for Chisholm, Dr Wooldridge, who was condemned by this House for making expressed statements in a personal explanation which were inconsistent with implications contained in remarks made outside of the House.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Media
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (15:37): Madam Speaker, I have a question for you. I understand that you are aware that the Press Gallery has refused accreditation to Independent Australia, and presumably other online publications, partly on the basis that the website was perceived to be opinion based rather than a news site. Given the fact that the mainstream media is now crammed with opinion rather than news, would you agree that, in the interests of democracy, this closed shop policy is inappropriate and that the Department of Parliamentary Services, in conjunction with the Presiding Officers, ought to devise a more equitable policy to give access to online media?
The SPEAKER (15:38): The member for Bradfield is also seeking the call. The member for Bradfield has the call.
Questions in Writing
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (15:38): Madam Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105 in relation to a number of questions that I have put on the Notice Paper that, surprisingly, remain unanswered. Question No. 361 dated 11 May 2011, over two years ago, was asked of the then Assistant Treasurer. To assist you, in terms of who you should direct the follow-up to, that is the member for Maribyrnong.
The SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield will get to the point.
Mr FLETCHER: The next question that remains unanswered is also dated 11 May 2011 and that was question No. 362. Question No. 363 was also to the Assistant Treasurer and also dated 11 May 2011. Then there is question No. 826, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, dated 7 February 2012, which is almost 18 months ago. Then we have questions 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212 and 1213, all dated 23 August 2012, addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Then question No. 1221 to the Treasurer and No. 1222 to the Minister for Emergency Management. I seek your assistance, Madam Speaker, in following up these unanswered questions.
The SPEAKER (15:39): I will write in accordance with the standing orders.
DOCUMENTS
National Security
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:40): I seek leave to table a document in relation to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's previous statement. Contrary to what he just asserted, the letter states to the acting shadow minister for immigration, Mr Keenan:
The assessment of the protection claims for these individuals are being progressed.
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave not granted.
PRIVILEGE
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:40): Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Last Friday page 1 of The Australian in an article entitled 'Coalition pushes for early poll' stated:
The leader of opposition business in the lower house, Christopher Pyne, last night wrote to the independents on the threatened no-confidence motion—
and goes on to quote from the alleged letter. This is indeed a very serious matter. The most serious matter that members of parliament could consider is a motion of no confidence on the floor of this chamber. The article suggested that the crossbenchers had all been written to and had received a letter from the Manager of Opposition Business. It is clear from the Manager of Opposition Business's own statements on Friday and the facts of the matter that at the time the article appeared no such letter had gone to any of the crossbench members of the House of Representatives.
This is a very serious matter indeed that draws into question the responsibility of those crossbench members and the responsibility that they have to carry out representation in this chamber. It was based upon a falsehood from the Manager of Opposition Business that was reported, as I said, on page 1 of The Australian. The journalist was clearly told that this was a fact. This was clearly not a fact. It is a very serious matter to state—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: which is why I am referring it to the Privileges Committee. I am glad that you acknowledge that it is—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: I am referring it to the Speaker to ascertain whether there is a prima facie breach of privilege. I indicate that the government intends to pursue this serious matter, because it is serious to tell a falsehood to a journalist but even more serious when it is about an alleged no-confidence motion and goes to the responsibility and obligations of the crossbench members of this House of Representatives. I table for your information the page 1 article in The Australian entitled 'Coalition pushes for early poll'.
COMMITTEES
DisabilityCare Australia Select Committee
Appointment
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:43): by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, Ms Rishworth, I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia be appointed to inquire into and report on the implementation progress with the rollout of DisabilityCare Australia and related matters;
(2) the Committee:
(a) may report from time to time but that it present a preliminary report on the rollout of DisabilityCare Australia after 12 months of operation, and a final report after 24 months of operation;
(b) will have particular reference to reports each six months from DisabilityCare Australia on implementation progress on reforms to services for people with disability under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, which address:
(i) average expenditure on package costs;
(ii) sector capacity and workforce issues;
(iii) client take-up rates; and
(iv) differences between the child, adolescent and total population launches; and
(c) consist of twelve members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, three Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one Member of the House of Representatives or Senator to be nominated by the Australia Greens Whip, and one Member of the House of Representatives or Senator who is an Independent or from another party;
(3) every nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) the members of the Committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the Committee’s report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(5) the Committee elect a Government Member as its Chair;
(6) in the event of an equality of voting, the Chair has a casting vote;
(7) five members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government Member of either House and one non-Government Member of either House;
(8) the Committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the Committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the Chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the Chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as Chair at that meeting;
(9) the quorum of a subcommittee be two members of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise one Government Member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the Committee or:
(a) any subcommittee have the power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) any subcommittee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; and
(c) subcommittee have the power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(11) the Committee be:
(a) provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the Presiding Officers; and
(b) empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;
(12) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(13) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
I thank the shadow minister, who has indicated his support for this process.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013
Explanatory Memorandum
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:43): I present a replacement explanatory memorandum to the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:43): A document is presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following document:
Procedure—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a Member—Report on events of 10 October 2006—Government response.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill 2013
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013
Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:44): by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
National Broadband Network
The SPEAKER (15:45): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The threat posed by the government's mismanagement of the National Broadband Network rollout.
I call upon those honourable 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 TURNBULL (Wentworth) (15:45): The National Broadband Network is the largest infrastructure project in our nation's history. It is also the most mismanaged. This project was undertaken by the Rudd and Gillard governments without any analysis of any kind as to whether the approach they were taking was the most cost-effective or, indeed, the most safe.
Despite going to the 2007 election with a policy that said the Commonwealth would not invest in any infrastructure project without a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and despite having established a specialist agency—Infrastructure Australia—to do precisely that, in this, the biggest project in our nation's history, no such analysis was done. This is the biggest blank cheque written in our country's history. The government had no idea how long this project would take. It does not know what it will cost. Our own analysis suggests, making some very conservative changes to the financial assumptions, that it is likely to cost $94 billion as opposed to the $44 billion in the now utterly discredited corporate plan.
The project is running so far behind schedule it would put an arthritic snail to shame. I refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to these numbers: in its corporate plan published at the end of 2010—the first corporate plan—it said the NBN was going to pass 950,000 brownfield premises by 30 June. In August last year it scaled that back to 286,000 premises to be passed by 30 June. As of the end of March it was scaled back again, saying it would only reach between 155,000 and 175,000. As of mid-May, we are told they had passed just over 70,000 homes.
This is a classic case. It would remind those honourable members who have had anything to do with marketing or sales of an unsuccessful salesman who has an annual target. He does not make any sales in January but says: 'Don't worry, boss. It's going to ramp up.' There are no sales in February, no sales in March, no sales in April, until he finally gets to November and has not made any sales, but he says: 'Don't worry. It's going to be a brilliant Christmas. We're going to get the whole year—the hockey stick will become so steep it's vertical.' That is what the NBN Co.'s plan looks like at the moment.
In the second half of last year, they passed 137 houses per working day. So far this year they have been passing 353 houses per working day. The only problem is that their plan, their target, is at this time to be passing 1,028 houses per working day. They would have us believe that in two years they will be passing 5½ thousand every working day, so they are going to increase their rollout volume by a factor of 15. This project is failing.
We have had the unedifying spectacle of the new Chairman of NBN Co., Ms Siobhan McKenna, saying that she does not want the minister to speak to the chief executive officer other than through her. We have had reports in the press saying that she wants the chief executive to be sacked—she wants to be the executive chairman. When this rather disturbing news was put to Mr Quigley in Senate estimates, the minister Senator Conroy intervened and would not allow him to answer the question and would not rebut the proposition himself. Can you imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, a situation where you had a public-listed company and the chairman was reported as having no confidence in the chief executive and wanted to have him sacked, and that matter not being put to rest almost immediately? It would be a completely untenable situation. But this is the disaster that the government is presiding over.
I turn to the latest example of mismanagement: the question of asbestos. It has been known for many, many years that there are pits and ducts in Telstra's network which are made of asbestos-containing material—in other words, asbestos fibre cement. This has been a matter that Telstra has taken seriously and it has elaborate procedures to deal with it. So, when pits are broken—a truck might run over them or new holes have to be bored in them for new ducts, or anything of that kind—there are elaborate procedures for attending to that.
However, in 2009 we know that an AWU official known to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations wrote to Mr Shorten, then the parliamentary secretary, and raised the issue of the asbestos in the Telstra ducts and pits. The then parliamentary secretary, now the minister, wrote to Telstra and sought some explanation. Telstra responded, as we know, and said that they had a whole procedure for dealing with asbestos-containing material but, where the infrastructure was not friable and when it was buried, it was safer left in situ because it was not exposed to air and there was not any interference with it. And they had a logical risk-management process. That is what the minister was told, because he was proposing then that Telstra should literally dig up every pit it had and remove any asbestos-containing material in its ducts. It would have been a gigantic exercise. As Telstra's chief executive advised him, it would obviously have raised real issues of health risk. It was a risk-management question.
As of 2009, of course, the NBN was only just established. The company was formed in April 2009, and there was no plan to disturb Telstra's pits. Work was done to replace them from time to time when they had to be repaired, when things broke or when there was some upgrade. But then along came the NBN. The deal between the NBN and Telstra was for the NBN to use all of Telstra's infrastructure—all of its pits and ducts. What has happened is that Telstra has an obligation to upgrade those pits that are too small for the multiport device that the NBN is using for its fibre rollout. Many of these pits—hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pits—are too small and have to be removed and replaced with a plastic pit. That is Telstra's responsibility to do that work. So you go from a position in 2009 where interference with and disturbance of Telstra's pits was an infrequent occurrence—and it was well known that many did contain asbestos—to the position where virtually every single pit in the country was or was likely or liable to be disturbed in this fashion.
Furthermore, Telstra's ducts—the pipes that carry the various cables, be they copper or fibre, around the country—are filled with copper and in many cases do not have the space to take the new fibre optic cables of the NBN Co., and have to be augmented with new pipes in the ground. That responsibility is actually not Telstra's; that is the NBN Co.'s. If those new pipes have to enter into an existing pit that is made out of fibrocement then of course there is an asbestos issue. The minister, Senator Conroy, was quite wrong yesterday when he said that the asbestos management issue was only an issue for Telstra. It is an issue for the NBN Co. as well. In any event, all of the work that is being done by Telstra is for and on behalf of the NBN Co.
So in 2009 the minister was very alert and very much on notice to the asbestos issue with Telstra's infrastructure, but at the time that infrastructure was being rarely disturbed. Fast forward 18 months or so later and the Telstra infrastructure is being entirely disturbed—it is being remediated and augmented almost in its entirety. It follows therefore—and the minister knew this very well because he noted this in his own correspondence—that asbestos becomes a much bigger issue. The question that the opposition has been pursuing is: why did the minister apparently not raise this with the minister for communication—and by this stage in 2011 he had come into cabinet—or did he, and we have not yet learned about it? Why did the minister not raise it with Telstra or NBN Co. prior to Ray Hadley making a big issue of the asbestos risk in Penrith last week—a member of parliament whose history and experience in the trade union movement gave him a special awareness of asbestos issues? Fixed with that actual knowledge of the risk associated with Telstra's pits and ducts and knowing that they were all going to be disturbed, why did he then apparently take no action? We have no answer to that.
Today, the minister said that the coalition was somehow or other being irresponsible in suggesting that all of the Telstra asbestos-containing material should not be immediately dug up and replaced. This is a risk-management issue. Telstra's current asbestos management procedures, a public document, state on page 9:
Asbestos containing conduits and pits in good condition do not need to be removed as a matter course, however where they present a hazard to staff or members of the public, they will be made safe or replaced following the removal practice in this procedure.
It is interesting that the minister has accused the opposition of seeking to make a political issue out of this, when in fact he has created a massive scare campaign, which runs the risk of becoming a sort of public hysteria and creating enormous anxiety about asbestos. In the House today he said that all of the asbestos-containing material in Telstra's network, even if it is buried under the ground, should be replaced. What are people to think about asbestos that is built into their houses, into schools, into hospitals and into industrial buildings—asbestos-containing material that is inert, that is intact? In his effort to place all of the blame for this on Telstra and to try to make himself a hero on this issue, he is on the verge of creating something in the order of a national panic. There is no question that asbestos is a very serious issue—there is no doubt about that. But there is also a very important risk-management issue here. If asbestos is in a building structure—particularly if it is buried under the ground, if it is intact, if it is inert, if it is not exposed to the air, if it is not being broken or damaged and if people are not drilling through it—then one has to take a very hardheaded and practical view as to whether it should be proactively removed. In any process of removal, no matter how well managed, you have some risk of the asbestos fibres escaping.
There are very disturbing resonances between this and the pink batts episode. With pink batts, we had a roof insulation industry that was putting in roof insulation as and when required, and was doing so in accordance with safety standards. Then the government turbocharged that industry and poured so much money into it. Many, many more people became involved and, of necessity, safety standards were much harder to enforce and compliance was much harder to supervise, and the tragedies that occurred did occur.
And this is what has happened here. You had asbestos being treated as an important issue by Telstra, as and when it was necessary to do so, but with the pits and the ducts rarely being disturbed. But now, of course, they are being disturbed—all of them. And as a consequence you have many more people working on it and it is harder to enforce standards—I am not making any excuses; the standard should be enforced and I hope will be enforced. But you have of necessity a much greater challenge.
And yet knowing all of that, and knowing the experience of pink batts, this minister, unless there is something that he has not told us, did nothing. (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (16:00): I appreciate the member for Wentworth providing us with a chance to set the record straight on what has been a disgraceful fear campaign by the coalition. As with any major national project there are important conversations that policymakers need to have about what we want to achieve and how best to set about achieving it. So I want to speak first about why Australia needs the National Broadband Network—a fibre-to-the-home network—and then discuss the issues of asbestos that the honourable member has raised and how the government is responding to those.
The simple fact is that, in a 21st century developed country, access to the internet is a form of basic infrastructure. It is to our generation as the water and electricity networks were to generations before. The member for Wentworth knows this; he has great knowledge of the information technology industry—certainly unlike his leader, who has confessed 'I'm no tech-head'.
The member for Wentworth might cast his mind back to 1923, when construction began on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Back then, Sydney was home to fewer than 40,000 cars—not enough to cause a single traffic jam. But when construction on that bridge began the policymakers of the era built a bridge capable of carrying six lanes of traffic flanked by an extra two lanes for trains. It might have seemed a bold move but, as the member for Wentworth well knows, and as his constituents would well know, the Sydney Harbour Bridge is now an indispensable artery of the city's transport system. Over 160,000 cars cross the bridge daily, four times the entire number of cars that existed in the city of Sydney when construction of the bridge first began.
The point here is that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was not designed for the Sydney of the 1920s; it was designed for, and it continues to serve, a Sydney of the future. And it is that same spirit with which Labor first proposed a national broadband network. We do not know precisely how our technological use will change in the future. But one way of thinking about this is to think about how our own IT usage has changed just in the past 10 years, and then imagine it changing just as dramatically again.
That is why we need the National Broadband Network. Under the NBN, every home and every business will have access to superfast internet via optic fibre, fixed wireless and satellite technologies. For 93 per cent of homes and businesses this will be a national fibre network. The point here is that unlike copper, which transmits electrical current, fibre uses pulses of light to transmit information. Over recent years, engineers have steadily been achieving more rapid fibre transmission speeds: up from 100 megabits a second a few years ago to 1,000 megabits a second today. That is the difference between being able to download a CD full of information every five seconds and doing so every 50 seconds. And the boffins do not think that they have found the limit on fibre just yet. Some tests suggest that it could be up to 1,000 times faster again. Unlike copper, fibre to the premises is an information superhighway without a speed limit.
People in my own electorate of Fraser are already seeing the benefits the NBN has to offer. Gungahlin Library is part of the Gungahlin Digital Hub, where residents are able to learn more about how to access the NBN. They are running free training sessions, covering a range of computer basics, everyday online activities, online safety and security and connection options. I would encourage those opposite, whether or not they call themselves tech-heads—especially if they do not—to visit the Gungahlin Library to learn about how the NBN is delivering.
I have welcomed the release of detailed maps by NBN Co. which show where the construction of the National Broadband Network will start. The maps show that NBN fibre has been rolling out across Civic, Acton and parts of Braddon, as well as in Gungahlin. It is worth making the point that, for all its conniptions about Labor's National Broadband Network, the coalition has now adopted a policy which has a multibillion-dollar price tag and which has the same accounting treatment as Labor's NBN, but which ultimately will deliver far slower speeds than the NBN. So the need for the National Broadband Network is clear.
I want to turn now, though, to the issue that the member for Wentworth has raised over managing asbestos risk during the rollout. As has been made clear during question time, the health and safety of Australian workers and Australian communities is our No. 1 priority. As the opposition would be well aware, Telstra has accepted full responsibility for the issue. The government is expecting Telstra and its contractors to follow Australia's strict laws on the handling and removal of asbestos in preparing its pits and ducts for the rollout of the NBN. Those pits and ducts are owned by Telstra and used by NBN Co.
We have announced that the first National Asbestos Exposure Register will be created and maintained by the new National Asbestos Safety and Eradication Authority. This continues the strong tradition in the Australian labour movement of leading the national charge on identifying and eradicating the scourge of asbestos and asbestos-related disease. It was the labour movement that got asbestos banned: blue in 1967, brown in the mid-1980s, white in 2003. That happened thanks to pressure from the labour movement. There cannot be any shortcuts in asbestos safety. We understand that and we have acted.
There have been a number of incidents in recent times through the remediation of Telstra's pits and ducts, and that includes in Penrith. There has been at least one as a result of work being done by contractors to NBN Co. When you are working in the telecommunications industry and doing this type of work, you will deal with asbestos. That is well known. But the most important issue, and the one the government has continued to focus on, is to ensure that the strict laws in place for the handling and removal of asbestos are followed at all times. It does not matter if you are Telstra, if you are NBN Co. or if you are a builder doing renovations: asbestos has to be dealt with in a safe and appropriate way.
The coalition cannot pretend that this issue would not arise under their policy. If you are advancing fibre-to-the-node technology, as the opposition does—and they have accepted that it is a slower technology that will deliver slower broadband speeds—it will involve working in areas with asbestos risk. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that perhaps we are intending to leave the copper in the ground forever, that Australia will forever have a copper network. Copper to the home is not something that anyone believes Australia will have in a century's time.
NBN Co. is continuing to assess the situation but it does not expect it to impede the overall rollout. The construction process already takes into account a period of several months in each area for Telstra to remediate its infrastructure. The remediation of Telstra's infrastructure is carried out by Telstra and it is paid for by Telstra. Telstra has known for 30 years about the presence of asbestos in its pits, and this is a process which will be managed by Telstra.
Since 2007 Labor has done more than any previous government to combat the problem of asbestos. We have established the national asbestos agency, the national asbestos plan and the National Asbestos Exposure Register. Under the Gillard government we established the asbestos management review in 2010. Before that there was no coordinated or consistent approach to managing asbestos beyond workplaces. That is why earlier this year we also introduced legislation to parliament to establish the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. In the 2013-14 budget we provided that agency with $10½ million in funding over the next four years to help protect Australians from asbestos related diseases. The agency will pave a new way for a national approach to asbestos eradication. It will handle asbestos awareness and education. It will administer a national strategic plan.
Conversely, what can we say about the record of the coalition on asbestos management? I am sure some of the speakers who will follow me will say something about the Leader of the Opposition's track record in this regard. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a lawyer who fought to deny compensation to thousands of victims of CSR's asbestos mine in Wittenoom. Back in 2004 it was Labor who shamed the coalition into returning donations given to them by James Hardie. In 2007, as health minister, the Leader of the Opposition refused to list on the PBS a drug known as Alimta, which would ease the suffering of asbestosis patients.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the remarks that the honourable member has made about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition are not relevant to this MPI. He is just having a free kick.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. The parliamentary secretary will speak to the motion.
Dr LEIGH: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I understand why those opposite are concerned about the track record of the two major parties when it comes to asbestos. As Fairfax media has reported, in 2001 Telstra wanted to create an independent body to fast-track compensation payments to employees exposed to asbestos and sought approval from the then department of workplace relations. The then minister for workplace relations was the now opposition leader, so the fact is that the opposition leader knew as far back as 2001 that Telstra was aware of asbestos in its infrastructure and sat on his hands. It is time for the opposition leader to explain what he knew, what correspondence he had with Telstra about asbestos in 2001 when he was workplace relations minister and why he chose to ignore it.
In 2005 a question on notice was asked of then Minister McGauran, representing the then communications minister, Senator Coonan, about Telstra's use of asbestos. The minister provided an answer in February 2006—not exactly a speedy answer, but an answer nonetheless—that explained Telstra's use of asbestos in pits, ducts and exchanges and the possibility of exposure. So those opposite cannot argue that the Howard government was ignorant of this issue. The Howard government was in fact well aware of the issues with asbestos and Telstra's infrastructure. Those opposite have a track record of this standing up for James Hardie, while those on this side of the House have a track record of standing up for those who have been affected by asbestos, of standing up for workers, of standing up for people like Bernie Banton.
We know the National Broadband Network is a necessity. We are working to mitigate the risks that are generated by building the NBN, but only someone who argues that they will never open a single pit again can promise that this asbestos will not be disturbed. The coalition's policy is a policy which builds fibre to suburban nodes. It is a kind of 'get your water at the village well' approach. If you want to build fibre from the node to the home you will have to pay for it yourself, at $5,000 a pop. That not only is inequitable but will mean that for many Australian households their connections are 25 megabits a second at best. That is around one-40th the speed that the NBN can provide. I am sure slow upload and download speeds trouble the member for Wentworth, but they do not trouble the Leader of the Opposition. He has made the brash statement that he is 'confident 25 megs is enough for the average household'. I have talked about what that kind of thinking in the 1920s would have meant for the Sydney Harbour Bridge: the Leader of the Opposition would have built a single-lane bridge because that was enough for the then 40,000 cars in Sydney.
But we do not have to use infrastructure analogies; we can use IT analogies. When I bought my first computer in 1984 it had 3½ kilobytes of memory. I do not think that we send emails that small these days. But in fact in that period the then computer editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, Gareth Powell, wrote that he thought no program would ever need more than 16 kilobytes. Statements like that are a warning to anyone who forgets that the things we can do with technology far outpace our imagination. The sorts of statements by the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that 25 megabits a second is enough ought to embarrass the member for Wentworth, and I know they trouble many prominent Australians. Dr Karl Kruszelnicki recently told me that he regularly talks to school classes using Skype. With the Australian classes the copper connection is unreliable and has to be reset a couple of times an hour. But if he talks to Korean or Japanese students, he can expect uninterrupted high-resolution videoconference. That is what the national broadband will deliver to Australians.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (16:15): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important matter before the House. This is a debate about competence and integrity. It is about competence, because the government and NBN Co. knew that asbestos would be a key challenge for the NBN project and they have miserably failed to meet that challenge. It is about integrity, because the government's dishonesty and lack of accountability mean that Australian families cannot believe a word spoken by this Labor minister. But ultimately, today's debate is about ensuring that Australian families are not forced from their own homes because a Telstra or NBN Co. contractor releases asbestos fibres into the air. This is about making sure that no worker contracts mesothelioma because he was working on the NBN rollout. This is about keeping Australian families safe.
Although we do have our differences of opinion on many things, I think it is clear that both sides of parliament do take this issue seriously. Ultimately, we have the best interests of Australian workers and families at heart. However there is one member of parliament who does not seem to care a whole lot about this particular issue. At 4:53pm yesterday, the member for Lyne tweeted this extraordinary comment:
This asbestos beat up on NBN is extraordinary politics.
The Australian public can make of that what they will. However, I wonder whether the member for Lyne would still claim this is a beat-up if it was his family that was forced to leave their home due to fears of asbestos contamination. Would he think it is still a beat-up if it was his son or his daughter who may have been exposed to asbestos? I wonder whether the residents of Lyne would be pleased to know that their local member thinks that a poorly trained contractor hacking into an asbestos contaminated pit outside their house is just a 'beat-up'. We may not all agree, but at the very least I think it is reasonable to expect every member of this House to take this issue seriously.
While most of us take the issue of asbestos management seriously, the government clearly lacks the competence to go with their concern. Asbestos was always going to be a key challenge of the NBN rollout. We know that the current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations was aware of this issue as far back as 2009. Telstra has been aware of this issue for years. NBN Co. has also been aware of this issue for years. So why are we having this debate? Why are we having families living in hotels in Sydney because their houses are contaminated with asbestos? Why did the government have to call a crisis meeting yesterday? Why is there a crisis at all?
The answer is very simple. This government is completely incompetent. This government makes the Hollow Men and Yes, Minister look like the very models of an effective government. This government could not even give away free ceiling insulation without burning down people's houses. The government could not give away money to Australians during the GFC without also sending cheques to dead people and pets. The Gillard Labor government will probably go down as Australia's worst government in history.
But in the worst government in Australian history, the Minister for Broadband and Communications is a special type of incompetent. He tried to regulate the print media for the first time in our peacetime history, and lost that battle in a fortnight. It seems that he has just given up on anti-siphoning. His first try at a national broadband network died a quick death and taxpayers had to pay compensation to Sky because of the way Senator Conroy handled the Australia network tender. Even if we set aside our philosophical differences about the best way to roll out the NBN to all Australians, the NBN is still a failure because of this government's incompetence and inability to implement even the most basic of policies.
On an issue this serious, the least Australians can expect is that the government will be honest and open about the scale of the problem and the potential risks to families and the taxpayer. Unfortunately, as with other aspects of the NBN, you cannot trust a word that is said by NBN Co. or the government. We have endured for years vague and misleading information from the government and NBN Co. on every aspect of the project. I could provide the House with dozens of examples of misleading and vague information being provided by NBN Co. and the government, but to save time I will mention just one. The following exchange is from a public hearing of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the NBN in April. Mr Fletcher asked:
Are you finding that asbestos is a big issue across the board?
NBN CEO Mike Quigley, replied:
What is your view, Ralph? I would not say it is a big issue.
Then the Chief Operating Officer, Ralph Steffens, added:
No. It is present, as it would be anywhere, in any geography. But it does not seem to be a huge problem at this stage.
So apparently two months ago asbestos was not 'a big issue'. These are not my words; these are the words of Senator Conroy's handpicked CEO of NBN Co.
Well, it is a big issue. Families have been indefinitely moved out of their homes. Workers have been put at risk. The NBN rollout has been stopped at various locations all around Australia. In some areas Telstra says the rollout has stopped, while NBN says it is still going ahead. Who can we believe? Yesterday, I must say I was impressed by the CEO of Telstra, David Thodey, who admitted there were problems with the way the issue had been handled by Telstra and promised to do everything he could to fix the problem.
But we have not seen the same level of accountability or honesty from Senator Conroy or NBN Co. Senator Conroy has big questions to answer. The key question here is whether the government pushed NBN Co. to accelerate the rollout to avoid even more embarrassment than it currently suffers as to the very slow pace of the project and, in doing so, pushed contractors to cut corners. That is a question this minister must answer. We know the NBN is massively behind schedule, and we know it is getting further behind each and every day. Senator Thistlethwaite came into my electorate in March last year and told my constituents that construction of the NBN would be complete in Toormina within 12 months. Fourteen months later, there is still no NBN in Toormina.
And every day the rollout is delayed, the cost blows out just a little more
Senator Conroy says that asbestos-related issues will not increase the cost of the network, but that is just more deceit from the government. Every day of delay increases the cost of the project. Proper management of the NBN requires integrity and honesty.
This project is being propped up by Australian taxpayers, who deserve to know the true state of the rollout and the risks and challenges of the project. Even my local paper, the Coffs Coast Advocate, has started questioning the lack of accountability of NBN Co., with an article last week highlighting just how difficult it is to get any meaningful information out of NBN Co. The local paper said:
The figures of how many customers have taken up high-speed broadband, however, remains firmly under wraps. NBN Co has refused to divulge localised sign-up figures to the media …
Australians deserve to know the truth about the NBN rollout.
Unfortunately, the current situation is just the latest blunder in a series of massive blunders by Senator Conroy and the Labor government. There are disturbing parallels between this situation, the pink batts debacle and the BER fiasco. On one hand we have cost blowouts and waste typified in the BER debacle, and on the other hand we have the risk to public safety created in relation to the giving away of pink batts.
The NBN project is beset by delays and cost blowouts. Universal, affordable broadband access has the potential to improve business productivity and community amenity. Unfortunately, this latest crisis means that Australians with poor broadband services will be waiting even longer for decent broadband. This is not a beat-up. This is all about the government's mismanagement of the NBN. It is a national disgrace, and it is time to get adults in charge of this project.
The opposition has not been politicising this matter. We have approached it in a sober and measured way. We have brought it to the attention of the relevant authorities. It is the government's incompetence that is the problem here. Senator Conroy cannot just rest on the fact that Telstra is undertaking certain works. Senator Conroy is responsible for what is happening here. He has to take full responsibility. We have a situation where families right around the country do not feel safe in their homes because of the actions of this government, and it is Senator Conroy who clearly bears the responsibility for this. It is a project that has shown very poor levels of management. It is a project that is massively behind time. It is a project that is way over budget. It is a project that needs decent management if it is to be brought on track. I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this matter of public importance today because it very much is a matter of the utmost importance to this nation both for its future in relation to technology rollouts but also in relation to public health and safety.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (16:25): This is an important public debate around one of the most important pieces of infrastructure to be built in this country this century. It is unfortunate in many respects that the debate that surrounds this important piece of infrastructure does not live up to the importance of the project itself. In his 15-minute submission in this debate the member for Wentworth amused us with an analogy about the salesman who found it very difficult to shift a product. I have got a salesman's analogy of my own and I think it is more apt. The truth that gets told to every salesman who is sent out there to flog a lousy product and the rule of every salesman knows is that if you have got to go out there and flog a lousy product, an inferior product, one that is not nearly as good as the competition, you do not talk about it. You do not talk about your own product—go out there and fling as much mud and do as much nitpicking as possible, do as much bagging and carping and whingeing as possible about your competition's product. But for God's sake never mention your own, because once you mention your own everybody will realise what a lousy product it is.
The member for Wentworth actually understands his policy. He does not believe in it but he understands it, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. The most awkward press conference we have seen in the last 12 months was the press conference where the Leader of the Opposition was standing alongside the member for Wentworth to announce their policy. You could see that the member for Wentworth could not get out of there quick enough. His hands were in his pockets, he was fidgeting. The Leader of the Opposition was reading from notes and had a very puzzled look on his face because he did not have a clue what he was talking about. That lies at the heart of this argument. You have got a Leader of the Opposition who does not understand his policy and a spokesman for that policy who does not believe in it. Is there any wonder that they are standing by that salesman's maxim that if you have got a lousy product in the marketplace, don't talk about it. Just go out there and bag the opposition because you do not want anyone to focus on your own product. It is a slower product that is going to cost the punters more for less. These guys have turned Joyce Mayne on her head: they are offering less for more.
They are proposing a three-tier program. For those who live in inner-city suburbs like the member for Wentworth they have probably already got fibre running past their houses and they have got the money to have it connected or they have got a cable provision or they can afford to buy the best sort of products and the best sort of services, unlike the rest of us. That is the top tier, those people who live in those inner-city suburbs who have the money and have the wealth to be able to buy the best broadband that is available.
Then there is the second tier of people under the opposition's program, the people who can afford to upgrade. The member for Wentworth is only proposing that they are going to bring fibre to the node, and in common speak that could be three kilometres from your house. One of those little grey cabinets that sits in every suburb is what he is talking about. The opposition will bring fibre to the node and if you have got the dough you might be able to spend a minimum of $5,000, more like $10,000, to drag the cable up to your street, up to your premises and get it connected. Then if you have the money you may be able to enjoy the same sort of broadband speeds, the same quality of service that the member for Wentworth enjoys in his very comfortable inner-city electorate. That is the second tier of people.
Then there is the third tier of people—people who live in the electorate that I represent; people who do not live in the inner city and are unlikely to have the dough for the upgrade. They will get the worst service, a service that they will no longer be able to afford, because the opposition's plan—have no doubt about it—is to scrap the NBN and provide less for more. There will be no joy in it for the residents of my electorate, people who know that under Labor's plan 67,000 houses and businesses within the electorate of Throsby are going to get the NBN. By June 2016, 67,000 houses and businesses are going to get the National Broadband Network. It is already rolling past houses and businesses in my electorate, and the only calls I have had from people in my electorate is, 'How quick can we get it on?' and 'I am very afraid of what the other mob might do.'
People in suburbs like Albion Park do not even get ADSL at the moment, after 11, 12 or 13 plans from those who sit opposite, who have the temerity to lecture us on broadband policy. After all the years that they were in government and all the plans, all the 'networking the nation', and the squandering of the resources of the Telstra sale—with a few boondoggles here and there for members in National Party seats—there is still no broadband for people who live in suburbs like Albion Park, Oak Flats or East Bowral, where they do not even have access to ADSL at the moment. They will not have it under those opposite. They know that under a Labor plan they will have access to faster, cheaper and reliable broadband—dragging them into the 21st century. All that is at threat from those on the other side.
So is it any wonder that those opposite—those good salesmen for a lousy product—will not talk about their own product? Is it any wonder that their strategy is to stand in this place and throw as much muck as they can possibly find—even going to the desperate depths of attempting to get some political advantage out of citizens' legitimate concern about exposure to asbestos? They have tried to whip that up into public hysteria for their own political advantage. I do not know how much lower you can go, if that is what you have stooped to in political debate.
I have to say that, if you are going to engage in a debate in this parliament about asbestos, you should at least have some standing on the matter. When I look across at those on the other side of the chamber, I see people who are left wanting—as has the debate over the last 24 hours been wanting from those opposite. Those opposite represent parties that, whenever they have been given the opportunity in any of the state parliaments around this country to do something for occupational health and safety for the working men and women of this country have done their darnedest to dismantle the protections and the compensation provisions that are currently enjoyed by working men and women in this country. Whenever they have had the chance to do something for the working men and women of this country, they have taken a hatchet to the protections that currently exist in all the state jurisdictions around the country. So, if you are going to enter this debate, you should make sure that you are doing it on firm ground and you should ensure that you have some standing on the matter.
I have quite a bit of expertise on this matter. I spent three years of my life campaigning for justice for people who are suffering from asbestos diseases. I spent three years of my life running a campaign with other members in this House, including the minister for industrial relations and the minister for industry, to bring rogue companies like James Hardy to justice and to ensure they put in place a perpetual fund to look after the former workers and those who have been exposed to asbestos products produced by James Hardy. That is what we did with our lives before we came to parliament. We looked after people to ensure that they or, more often than not, their families got some justice. By the time that their legal challenges and their compensation claims were dealt with by the company, more often than not the victim was dead and the compensation was there for their families. So we have standing on this issue.
Those on the opposite side of the chamber had the choice of fighting for the company or fighting for the workers who were exposed to asbestos products and they made their choice. Like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they chose to fight for the company. They have absolutely no standing on this matter, and this matter of public importance should be seen for what it is—a conflated exercise in mud-throwing. The product that they are out there peddling in the market is a disgrace. They are offering less for more, and the people see through it. The people of Australia want the National Broadband Network. The longest line in my electorate is made up of Liberal Party members lining up trying to take credit for the fact that the NBN is rolling past the houses in the streets of their electorates. (Time expired)
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (16:35): I have listened closely to the debate not only in the chamber this afternoon but also over the last couple of days and want to put some thoughts on the record. As far as I can read, at the heart of this issue are two claims. One is that government did not have the foresight with regard to asbestos management in the pits and pipes that are owned by Telstra management and shareholders and therefore have somehow been found wanting on issues in and around Penrith and potentially beyond. The other charge, as best as I can work through, is that one side of this chamber has an NBN policy that goes to all pits and pipes and the other does not and therefore the one that does not is somehow to get a brownie point for being a safer alternative to access to all pipes and pits.
To take on both of those charges, the first thing I would say is that asbestos is not new. That should be stating the bleeding obvious. This has been around for a long time. It is a scourge in the building and construction industry. The level of knowledge in Australia around what asbestos is and its health implications has certainly changed behaviour within the industry across the board, and therefore the way asbestos is handled has a very high level of occupational health and safety attached to it across the board. Within the telecommunications industry and within communications, electrical and plumbing unions, they could all tell you that there are manuals and standards in place, and that Telstra/Telecom and equivalents in other providers all know the rules of the game when handling asbestos.
Therefore, to then say, 'There was a lack of foresight in agreements reached,' I judge to be wrong. There was an option that this chamber could have taken, in a significant and much-needed upgrade to telecommunications in Australia today, where the copper network is full and our use of data by fixed wire is going through the roof—we do need, whoever is in government, to upgrade the telecommunications network in this country. To argue a case that there was no foresight is wrong. The option that government could have taken, in reaching an agreement with Telstra, was to buy the pits and pipes; that was a very real option on the table. And, oh, what a mistake that would have been!
This is rubbish infrastructure. I would be surprised if Telstra today even has a clear map of where all the pits and pipes in our country are, as they have been developed over 60 years going back to PMG days, and they are rubbish infrastructure—waterlogged, asbestos-riddled. Yes, there is rust in there, and, yes, this is infrastructure the government should not own and—I think, happily—does not own.
The words of the CEO of Telstra, David Thodey, yesterday should have weight placed upon them in this debate. He accepted full responsibility for the management of asbestos in their pits and pipes. The manuals are in place; the rules of engagement on safe handling of asbestos are there. I think this chamber rightly, with the government, should push the CEO, the management and the shareholders of Telstra to make sure they follow the rules that have been long established in how to handle asbestos in their pits and pipes.
But then, in this debate, to try and draw a link and say that we should halt the National Broadband Network—as seems to be the agreed position between the union and the Liberal-National party—is wrong. We just need to follow the long-established rules on the safe handling and management of asbestos. And we need to do that for the next decade, regardless of who is in office.
There is going to be a completion of an upgrade of telecommunications. The words of the Liberal-National party in launching their NBN policy were that they would complete the NBN. Fibre to the node does not mean that you are bailing out. If, as to the last 500 metres to a kilometre, there is a voluntary engagement, as part of the Liberal-National party policy, that a home can buy access to fibre to the premises—and, sure, we can argue about price another time, whether it is between $2,000 or $6,000—then to actually have that on offer means that the pits and pipes over that last 500 metres to a kilometre are not just going to be accessed once; they are going to be accessed every single time a home wants to take up the option, as per the policy, of fibre to the premises.
So both parties in this chamber, whoever is the government of the day after 15 September, have a policy that every single pit and pipe in this country over the next decade will be accessed. And I would hope that we push Telstra, their management and their shareholders to handle asbestos according to the long-established principles on the safe handling of a very dangerous product.
But to turn it into some sort of political divide and an exercise in political expediency, to blow up an agreed position on the completion of the National Broadband Network, is just cheap. And it is wrong. And it is disingenuous in this debate to try and imply that one policy will be safer than the other and that one side of the parliament has more foresight than the other.
Telstra owns the pits and pipes. They have taken the money from government to upgrade those pits and pipes, including dealing with asbestos as part of that upgrade. Whichever policy, after 15 September, is the one that leads to the completion of the National Broadband Network, access over the next decade to every single pit and pipe in this country will be a necessity. It is a lie to suggest otherwise.
So the agreed principles on handling asbestos should certainly be an issue that this chamber pushes Telstra to deliver upon. But that does not mean that one policy is better than the other. It does not mean that one policy is safer than the other. And it certainly does not mean that the principle of equity should not be delivered to communities like mine in a telecommunications upgrade that is desperately needed in this country.
Our copper network is full. The infrastructure around the copper network is rubbish. The industry does need to be restructured—split between retail and poles-and-wires—as part of agreements reached to date. We do deserve in this country of ours to have ubiquity across a wholesale platform. We do deserve to have speeds better than 25 megs as part of engaging with the globe around us. We do deserve to have reliability. We do deserve to have retail competition under that wholesale platform that is actually at a good, decent and fair price. This is all part of the biggest infrastructure upgrade of our time, going on right now. I have heard people talk about the want and desire for vision. Well, this is the vision for this nation. It is the largest infrastructure build of our time.
The rules around asbestos are clear and the same for both sides. The impact in dealing with the pits and pipes will be the same. Let us get on with the job and by all means push Telstra, the union, the Liberal Party, Ray Hadley, the people of Penrith and whoever. But do not turn an issue around mishandling of asbestos, according to the current rules, into an exercise of trying to blow up a really important infrastructure bill for our nation, one that finally delivers on the principle of equity. We are a big, isolated country. Our telecommunication systems should match the best in the world. This is it. Let us deliver it. Let us get over the politics.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (16:45): I want to make some very brief comments in contributing to this debate. The first is the very title of this matter of public importance that is being brought towards the House, that being the issue of a threat. As the member for Lyne so rightly pointed out, there is indeed a threat in this parliament. There is a threat to high-speed broadband on an equitable, accessible and ubiquitous level. The threat is any plan other than something that delivers absolute equivalence in wholesale pricing to ensure that we eliminate the digital divide between regional and metropolitan areas and outer metropolitan areas.
What I have heard here today from those opposite, including the member for Wentworth, have been the same old arguments to put Labor's NBN down, to try and promote the very aptly named fraudband policy, the uncosted policy that they released that was universally lampooned. I know this does strike a very raw nerve for the member for Wentworth because prior to their long-awaited plan 73 per cent prior supported Labor's NBN and, after the coalition plan was released, that went up to 78 per cent. So it is very clear that this does strike a very raw nerve with those opposite.
Some of those who have come into this debate here today and over the last few days have suddenly become experts on asbestos. No-one needs to tell me about asbestos and how harmful it is, because, as the AMWU has well documented, two out of three homes in Australia built between World War II and the early 1980s still contain asbestos. There is what is called the asbestos belt around metropolitan Sydney, the suburbs in which asbestos is rife in dwellings. The top three on that list are actually in my electorate and include the suburb in which I was born and where my family home, which probably does contain asbestos, still is. Those suburbs are Seven Hills, Lalor Park and Blacktown.
No-one needs to tell me about the importance of making sure that this material is properly handled and disposed of. When you go around those suburbs, and many of the other suburbs in what is known as the asbestos belt, you see a lot of knockdown rebuilds happening, a lot of fences up, a lot of asbestos removal taking place. So the importance of safe asbestos handling practices is very well-known to people of my community and not lost on me.
People have come here in this debate in the last few days suddenly bemoaning the issue of asbestos and things we need to do to protect people. Where were they, particularly those from New South Wales, when the New South Wales Liberal state government recently slashed workers compensation laws, resulting in the prospect of asbestos victims losing access to their rightful workers compensation entitlements in New South Wales? I find it absolutely extraordinary that those people come in here and start talking about their commitment to asbestos clearance.
I probably could not have put it better than Bernard Keane, just reading some of his comments from today about the performance of the member for Wentworth. I think the member for Lyne put it very succinctly when he talked about this being an attempt to promote a policy of the opposition which is actually failing and a policy from Labor which is actually very popular in the community. I think Bernard Keane took the words out of my mouth, listening to the member for Wentworth yesterday in particular. He wrote:
Alas, the Turnbull of Godwin Grech fame, rather than Spycatcher fame, showed up …
Well, Turnbull, perhaps humming Janet Jackson's What Have You Done for Me Lately, demanded to know what else Shorten had done, beyond stray outside his own responsibilities to pursue the issue.
Then we reached the point in question time yesterday where the opposition reached to the old faithful of turn back the boats.
I find it absolutely extraordinary also that the member for Wentworth should come in here and again talk about and out down the National Broadband Network and say that it is not meeting its targets. As could be very clearly seen at the end of May, NBN Co. is on track to beat its revised June rollouts. It is on track to pass between 171,836 and 185,808 premises with fibre by the end of June, far exceeding the target that is set.
On the issue of the opposition claiming Labor's NBN is going to cost $90 billion, this figure somehow appeared on the day fraudband was released. Shortly after that we had an NBN public hearing where questions were put directly to NBN Co. specifically asking—and the chairman knows that very well—(a) how could you possibly come up with this $90 billion figure with no credibility to that figure whatsoever and (b) if you were to properly cost an alternative proposal, what are all the other things you would have to do such as the operation and maintenance of the pits and the ducts and so forth?
I will end by saying the member for Lyne very rightly points out that, if you look at this fraudband document where the opposition is saying publicly that the risk is far diminished under their policy, it is exactly the same risk and same pits. So we will not have any of this nonsense coming from the opposition. They have no credibility on this issue whatsoever.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (16:52): In rising to speak on this very worthy motion, I want to note that the member for Greenway—the only thing that is failing in relation to this is the NBN rollout. The member for Greenway is disingenuous to say that our policy is failing when the targets for the NBN rollout have been downgraded for a third time by the government. Can the member for Greenway answer this question: now, with the third downgrading, it will take 109 years for the full rollout of the NBN to happen, so why has she neglected to mention it? It is 109 years on the current targets, but the member for Greenway comes in here and says that the revised targets are being met. After three downgrades—three downgrades, member for Greenway! 'We didn't meet the first target, so we'll downgrade them. We didn't meet the second target, so we'll downgrade them. We didn't meet the third target, so they'll be downgraded.' That is straight out of the New South Wales Labor play book. 'The trains aren't running on time? Our solution is let's change the timetables. The trains still don't run on time? Well now operating running is going to be 20 minutes instead of five minutes either way.' That is straight out of the New South Wales Labor play book, and nobody in this country is going to fall for it.
Today, on a much more serious issue raised in this matter of public importance by the member for Wentworth, I will talk in relation to the botching of the NBN rollout in suburbs around our country. This is a serious issue. I do think it is disingenuous of the member for Lyne to get up here and say this chamber has to ensure that pits are managed safely. That is the problem about this approach to government by the government supported by the member for Lyne: it thinks it is expert in telecommunications. We have so many frustrated telecommunications executives standing in this chamber, but perhaps there is really only one—that is, the member for Bradfield—I would say to you, Member for Lyne. The reality is we do not know how to roll out these things properly; they have to be done by the experts, the telecommunications companies.
When government gets involved, when government tries to rush these things for a political agenda, this is the thing that happens. If you do not do a cost-benefit analysis for a major project like an NBN, and if you do not support us in moving for a cost-benefit analysis, Member for Lyne, you will find that these are the consequences: things are rushed; things get missed. A cost-benefit analysis was not conducted in relation to the biggest piece of infrastructure expenditure in this country's history. No cost-benefit analysis. Are we then surprised that nobody thought, 'What is the cost of ameliorating asbestos in pits?' That would have been one of the considerations of a cost-benefit analysis in relation to the NBN, consideration could have been given. That is the problem with government taking over this style of project and that is the problem with what is happening today.
With the time I have remaining I particularly want to turn to the experience in Western Sydney. This is where this problem with asbestos first got raised. In the rushed pre-election broadband rollout, we have seen a potentially risky situation emerge in the seat of Lindsay. I am surprised that the member for Lindsay has not chosen to speak on this matter of public importance given that in his electorate today we have his residents in the Penrith City Star raising the concerns of asbestos in their front yards and asbestos in their houses. It might have been prudent of him to come in here and speak on this matter of public importance today given it started in his electorate.
The matter was raised, as we saw, by many of his constituents, who found and had to bring it up themselves that asbestos had been leaked into their front yards, where their children play. We have seen many concerns raised by the Penrith City Council and by the local Liberal representative there, Fiona Scott, who is our Liberal candidate, who has had to take on the member for Lindsay in relation to this because he will not answer the questions, just as the government will not answer the questions, in relation to the NBN rollout.
The questions are real. When you see Mr O'Farrell from Lindsay raise the concern that his wife and two daughters, aged six and nine weeks, have been moved to a nearby hotel in Penrith while authorities decide what to do with the asbestos filled pits, everybody in this chamber ought to be concerned. It is not conflated, as the member for Throsby said, to raise that people in ordinary situations in Lindsay now are finding themselves with pits in their streets with asbestos signs around them. Why is that the case? Is that an accident? Is that something that has just occurred out of nothing? Of course it is not.
This is unseemly haste that we have seen in major infrastructure projects, because they are politically driven. Let us not run away from that. The pink batts program was politically driven. It was politically driven to attempt, as some sort of conflated economic policy, to change the global financial crisis, to say, 'If we can stimulate the insulation industry, we can change the climate and we can produce better economic results.' This is just nonsense. What we saw there, in that mad rush to rush pink batts into people's roofs, was the industry collapse. We saw many good providers collapse, we saw the unreliable providers receive money and benefit, and we saw, sadly, many people's houses burn and people lose their lives from a mad political rush.
And now here we are again: before an election, in a mad rush to meet unreasonable targets. The government's own targets for the rollout of the NBN have been revised downwards three times, showing everybody in this nation that the original targets were unreasonable, could never have been met. Trying to provide fibre to every single premise in this country on the timetable the government said was untenable by any of the experts' predictions, any of the experts in this field. It was never going to be possible and it was never going to be affordable, which is why our own costings show that not only will this cost $40 billion—the biggest expenditure at $40 billion—but this could also cost up to $90 billion to run this into everybody's houses. That is because most of the cost comes from the final end production, what we are seeing now. The issue with the pits, the issue with the infrastructure. And if you rush it—if you do not do a cost-benefit analysis; if you do politically driven infrastructure rather than properly funded infrastructure and properly planned infrastructure—you get a bad outcome, and that is why we should not have had government driving this.
The reality is in most of our metropolitan cities people get the internet speeds they need and they get good telecommunications provision in our country. It is the third most profitable sector in the country, telecommunications; it has a well-established foundation in this country. And you could argue for government to get involved to provide better broadband services to those areas that cannot afford it or that cannot receive it because of the nature of our geography, but that is not what the government is doing. That is not what the member for Lyne is supporting them to do. The rollout just happens to be in Western Sydney. You can draw a map of key Liberal electorates, like my electorate, and there is no NBN rollout in my electorate for another four years. But across the road in Greenway, a one per cent margin seat, they are rolling out NBN straight away. You can go to Liberal electorates across this country and you will find no NBN rollout for years to come. Yet if you go to a marginal seat you can bet your bottom dollar there will be an NBN rollout going through it right now.
So who is to blame in Lindsay when you have an unseemly rollout there and you have got this situation? These questions are very pertinent and they ought to be asked of this government, because it is not the expertise of this government to run a telecommunications company. I note the member for Throsby said, 'We helped Bernie Banton in his situation.' Bernie Banton happened to be one of my constituents when I came to this place and his untimely demise was very unfortunate. The efforts of unions in fighting for his case are where unions are at their best. It is where they do the right thing for those kinds of workers who have been in this situation against a company and receive justice. But that does not qualify the member for Throsby to then go on and talk about his expertise in the telecommunications field. Standing up for an injured worker in a compensation claim against a company does not give him any special knowledge of how the telecommunications sector works. The two do not translate. His argument is false. He knows as little about telecommunications as I do and yet he is attempting to tell us how to run a telecommunications company in this country. Can you see why we are going wrong in this place?
There is no doubt that this rollout is being mismanaged by this government. They have form in mismanaging major projects. They do not do government well, and we know it—everybody in this chamber knows it. Not only is government being badly done but this infrastructure rollout is being mismanaged. It is being mismanaged because of unrealistic expectations, no proper planning and no cost-benefit analysis. It is being mismanaged because of the political drive from the government to achieve political objectives—not telecommunications objectives, not objectives for ordinary Australians, but to meet an unrealistic set of political objectives of the government. So when they say, 'Don't politicise this,' well, when I look at the map of Western Sydney and I look at Liberal seats and marginal seats and I see the NBN rolling out in those marginal seats, who has politicised this debate? Who has already sought to put it where they need it the most rather than look at the real telecommunications needs of this country?
There is a better way to do government and that is to have an adult government—to have a measured government, a government which does a cost-benefit analysis for the biggest infrastructure project in Australian history, a government which has former telecommunications executives in its ranks and people of stature like the shadow minister for communications and the member for Bradfield. These are people who understand that government cannot solve all our problems all at once but can fix those areas of need which need it the most. That is the policy of the coalition—to rein in NBN Co. to something that can be managed, can be delivered, is affordable and is reasonable.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:59): I rise to speak on today's MPI, 'The threat posed by the Government's mismanagement of the National Broadband Network rollout'. There have been quite passionate speeches here tonight. I have heard supposed Independent members raising their voices and the member for Mitchell talking about his issues. There was also the member for Fraser saying that some people should not talk on this. The reason I am talking on this is the fact that in my electorate of Swan, which is a marginal seat, the government decided to promise at the 2010 election to roll out the NBN and start in June 2011. They did not get around to starting until about October 2012. I agree with the member for Mitchell that it was a political move.
With the problems we have heard from the member for Wentworth, it is clear that once again the government is demonstrating that it cannot handle major projects. The government's NBN has been a disaster from day one. Three years ago at the start of this parliament they promised 1.3 million premises would be passed by the end of this month. They will struggle to pass 200,000 premises instead. As we heard from the member for Mitchell, it has been downgraded three times.
Labor is seriously incompetent when it comes to managing major projects. What makes this matter worse is that the government is refusing to take any responsibility for the problem. Yesterday, we saw Telstra do what Labor's communications minister and the Prime Minister will not do, and that is take responsibility. This is something the government has not done well. We all know it is its incompetent management and policy settings that have created a situation that is utterly unacceptable when it comes to the management of asbestos.
Telstra are taking responsibility for getting things right from their end. This government needs to take responsibility for policy settings. They need to acknowledge that contractors for the NBN are dealing with asbestos on a daily basis, that there has been a mishandling of the asbestos and that their practices have failed.
This government knew there was a problem with the NBN as early as 2009. To be frank, ever since these types of projects have been envisaged, everybody has known Telstra's pits carried risks with asbestos. It should have been understood that the NBN construction involved remediating ducts where asbestos was present. The government's NBN contractors should have planned for this and should have been aware of their responsibilities and obligations. What the government needed to do was make sure they had the policies in place to handle it properly from day one. The government did not do their homework and they have let the Australian people down yet again.
History has always been kind to people who observe it. Cast-iron pipes were originally laid down in Victoria to run town gas to all the residences around Melbourne. That was to be replaced by natural gas. In that particular period of time they found out that natural gas actually dried out the joints on the cast-iron pipes and created leaks, so they had to work out that eventually those pipes were to be replaced—they went to PVC. That is a simple story telling anyone who is going to do a major infrastructure project that there are lessons to be learned from previous situations. Putting new fibre through old pits is a very obvious one.
Telstra announced an audit of its contractors yet there has been no such move by NBN Co. Both Telstra and NBN Co. are responsible for the contractors' work in asbestos lined pits and ducts. NBN Co. is responsible for enlarging ducts where there is insufficient room for the fibre. This issue first came to my attention in February when I was contacted by a resident in Teague Street, Victoria Park in my electorate. Syntheo at the time were involved in the rollout of fibre. Syntheo was a subcontractor to the government. The constituent reported a serious risk of asbestos spores being liberated into the air after an old Telstra hub was hit with a mash hammer to break it down by a worker wearing latex gloves and a P95 mask. I was told the worker picked up bits of asbestos from the sand and put them in a bag while a Syntheo worker without a mask worked close by. I actually have a photo of that. I seek leave to table that. It shows a worker without a mask working close by. Syntheo cannot say that they have got their processes and procedures in correct order for dealing with asbestos.
The highest priority for NBN Co. here must be the safety of these workers and the communities where this work is taking place. We can have all the rhetoric about who is right and who is wrong, but at the end of the day major infrastructure projects must protect the workers and the people in the communities who could be affected by such things as asbestos spores.
I reported this incident at the time to WorkSafe and then Comcare on 19 and 20 February. I am yet to receive a response from Comcare, another government department. I find it unbelievable if they say it is not relevant or not really an issue. They have taken so long to respond to an issue that is deeply concerning within the electorate of Swan. I did receive a written response from Syntheo and I will go into that later.
We heard the member for Wentworth talk about this as being the most mismanaged infrastructure project ever in Australia. As we have also heard from other speakers, there was no cost-benefit analysis done when we went to the election with the promise of rolling out the NBN. As I said before, if they had done a cost-benefit analysis maybe they would have taken into consideration the fact that these pits needed to be upgraded. They should have done a cost-benefit analysis when they did the pink batts as well. The pink batts debacle has been mentioned by a few coalition speakers. This is just a gentle reminder that this government is out of control and cannot handle major infrastructure projects.
I mentioned just before dealing with the communities and the people who are actually affected or potentially affected by the asbestos. Because of what happened in Teague Street in Victoria Park in my electorate I ran a survey through that street to find out what sort of reaction those people had to the NBN experience. I would like to read some of them out to you. One person in the street said in an email:
We had a street meeting at the weekend and discussed issues relating to the damage caused by the NBN Co / Syntheo.
A high percentage of residence on the even numbered side of Teague street from No 72 onwards have lodged complaints with the NBN regarding the damage caused to their properties and damage to the nature strip and items such as reticulation. The response from NBN, anecdotally, has been abysmal. There seems to be a lot of platitudes but no action.
It sounds familiar. The email continues:
We wonder if the NBN/contractors think the residents will just go away?
Two residents came home to their property and the NBN/contractors had entered the grounds and used their watering hose/s to water down machinery used for digging up the path, breaking the hose fittings and leaving the water running.
The neighbourhood is looking disgraceful and we wonder who in authority is going to champion on behalf of the residents the restitution of the streets back to how they looked prior to the NBN arrival.
I have attached some images taken of the damage, concrete splatter on walls and general mess left by the NBN/contractors.
We had a flyer delivered recently to offer connection via Telstra to the NBN and in the Centro shopping Centre is a large advertisement for residents to connect to the NBN in this suburb. It asked residents to check availability for your area and we did, but surprisingly there is no connection in 6100 postcode—
which is where we live. It continues:
We are aware that there is NO ONE able to connect to the NBN in this suburb and there is no availability for the foreseeable future, what is the point of sending out this flyer? Is this simply NBN propaganda?
We are keeping you updated as it seems nothing is tangibly happening at street level.
In response to one of my surveys, Mr John Vivian and Mrs Glynn Vivian wrote to me. Their comments on their experience were initially negative. They said:
In 2012 contractors dug up our footpath and road to lay cable to Ursula Frayne High School. Contractors were rude, lazy and totally unskilled. Damage was sustained to our water meter when contractors stepped over the fence, through the hedge to prepare and lay new footpath. A leak was developed within a short period (approx 7 days) and had to be repaired at our expense. Spoke to supervisor who would not take responsibility.
John's wife also wrote:
Please note that my husband had cause to speak to the Supervisor on several occasions regarding the quality of the workmanship that was used to replace the footpath that had been dug up. When he drew the water leak to his attention, the claim was dismissed our claim as being irrelevant and "not possible". It's a shame he (the Supervisor) was not around to see the workmen climbing through our fence and stomping through our front yard with their picks and shovels.
They then received a bill for $370 from Charter Plumbing and Gas to fix their plumbing, which NBN and Syntheo refused to do. This is again another debacle of an infrastructure project by the government. We must remember that it is about the communities and the workers, who must be kept safe. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): There being no further speakers in this discussion, this discussion is now concluded.
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (17:12): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 438: Advisory report on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr OAKESHOTT: The report I have tabled today is the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's advisory report on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013. On 16 May the Selection Committee referred the bill to the committee asking us to form a view on whether combining the two acts into a single act would impose additional and unnecessary reporting requirements, result in any reduction in transparency or remove important oversight—that is, the CAC Act and the FMA Act. With the bill being introduced and referred in the last sitting period prior to the scheduled end of this parliament, the committee's examination of the bill has sought to balance the need for speed with the importance of providing sound advice to the parliament. On this basis we did not examine the bill clause by clause but instead focused on the broader issues raised in the explanatory memorandum and those mentioned in the referral. We held a public hearing and received 20 submissions that helped inform our views.
This bill stems from the Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review undertaken by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. The reforms coming out of the review are important for Australia's public sector and look to be broadly supported by key stakeholders across the board. However, in talking to a range of stakeholders we noted a level of nervousness in regard to the transition from the general concept of reform to this principle based legislative framework and around the next stage then onto the detailed rules. On this basis the committee recommended that the objectives of the bill be supported, but the timing of its passage be a matter for the broader parliament to determine, including executive government and the minister.
The committee recommended support for the introduction of additional coherence to the Commonwealth financial framework, including through improving the planning, performance and accountability processes. We also endorsed the introduction of: more mature approaches to risk management; the concept of earned autonomy; positive obligations to cooperate and partner with others; better recognition of the resource management cycle of planning through to evaluation; and the intent of improved performance reporting and transparency to the parliament and the public.
Responding to matters raised in submissions and by witnesses at the public hearing, the committee also made a number of recommendations around independence, transparency and ongoing evaluation of the reform. While committee members agree that there is merit in modernising the Commonwealth financial framework, in this case we did not reach full agreement on the issues of timing and the development of the rules. Ultimately, it is a choice for the minister, the government and this parliament as to when and under what basis to progress this legislation
But there are a number of factors that are critical to the long-term success of this important and wide-ranging reform. These are: as much as possible, bipartisanship on the principles and rules and, where possible, agreement on the process; as well, adherence to the commitment given by both the finance minister and the department regarding the development of the rules of details; and ongoing consultation with Commonwealth entities, the private and not-for-profit sector and the parliament.
On behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank the organisations and individuals who participated in this inquiry for their time and their valuable input. I would also like to make a particular note of our parliamentary Hansardcolleagues for the rapid turnaround of the committee's public hearing transcript. I make mention of the secretariat—David Brunoro, Vikki Darrough—and others for their swift work. This enabled us to progress the inquiry and report today before the resumption of the debate on the bill, scheduled for tomorrow. I commend the report to the House.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (17:16): I move:
That orders of the day No. 2 and No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Australian Education Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that the:
(1) objects of the bill should be amended to read:
(a) families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs;
(b) all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education;
(c) student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, and transparent criteria distributed according to socio-economic need;
(d) students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling;
(e) as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems;
(f) schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students;
(g) every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth Government;
(h) schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future;
(i) parents who wish to make a private contribution toward the cost of their child’s education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment; and
(j) funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding toward education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality;
(2) definitions in the bill should be supplemented to define a non-systemic school as a non-government school that is not a systemic school, and a systemic school as an approved school that is approved as a member of an approved school system; and
(3) bill should provide that the current funding arrangements be extended for a further two years, to guarantee funding certainty for schools and parents.”
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (17:17): On 28 November last year the Prime Minister introduced the Australian Education Bill 2012 into this House. As the Prime Minister said at the time, no more important bill was introduced last year and, similarly, no more important bill will be put to a vote this year. During the period of the debate, the choice before the Australian public this year became even clearer. As this debate unfolded, the Australian public has been able to hear two very different views on the future of education in Australia.
The bill before the House exists for a very specific reason. On this side of the House we are acutely aware of some facts about school funding and education outcomes. The fact is that Australia's school results are just not good enough. We now have more information about what is happening within schools and we should be compelled to act as a result.
Information from My School—information only available because this government understands the importance of transparency and evidence driving policy—and other sources like international tests across the OECD show us we must go further. Four of the five top schooling systems in the world are in our region. We are not one of them. The average 15-year-old maths student in Australia is two years behind a 15-year-old in Shanghai. By year 3, 89 per cent of children from the poorest quarter of Australian homes are reading below average. By year 9, the average child from the same families is two years behind children from the most well-off quarter of Australian homes in reading and maths.
Today, in very remote Australia, the average Indigenous year 9 student is reading at the year 4 level. This is unacceptable for those children who, quite simply, are not being given the education they deserve and need under the current system. Further, while we have skill shortages now we know that the jobs of the future will demand higher skills. These skills can only be developed if every child is leaving school with a high-quality education.
Australian businesses, and our economy, will not be able to compete if we accept these statistics as good enough. It has been said often, and it is true, that we cannot win the economic race if we lose the education race. Our children cannot get the jobs of the future if they do not get a great education now.
Why are our results not good enough? Because Australia's school funding system is broken. Today, schools that are teaching similar children get different levels of resourcing. Today, some schools funding is maintained and some schools funding is guaranteed while schools in comparable positions are treated differently. Today, state government cutbacks automatically feed into Commonwealth rates of indexation. This not only makes it difficult for schools to plan for future levels of funding but also means that without a change to the current system schools can expect indexation to fall in the future.
Today, too many schools in our country do not have the resources that we know they need in order to give the children in their school a great education. Today, we all have a responsibility to address these facts about our current funding system. Today, we all must act because until this bill passes the worst fact will still be true: school funding is not tied to school improvement. Perhaps the greatest of all the absurdities spread by the opponents of this bill is the notion that money does not matter in schools. Well, we know it matters. I see the impact when I visit national partnership schools right around the country.
More importantly, this bill is precisely drafted to create a new connection which has never existed before, precisely making additional school funding conditional on agreement to school improvement. This bill does exactly what the opposition failed to do in government. It specifically makes sure that money does matter in schools, yet they come in here and accuse us of their own sins of omission yet oppose our attempts to make satisfaction for their failures of the past.
Reforming the funding system and improvement in classroom teaching must continue for our children's sake, for our nation's sake. It is a great national moral cause. The Prime Minister did not exaggerate when she proclaimed this as a crusade. It is a great national imperative. It is a great national economic imperative. Ours is a nation-building party and this is nation building of the mind, and it is the pathway to informed, resilient, innovative and capable citizens such as will have the stewardship of our nation into the future.
The amendments circulated today which will be put to the House following a vote on the second reading ensure that we right a moral wrong and that we secure our economic future. The amendments will ensure that through this bill the Australian government will deliver long-term funding certainty to all Australian schools using a needs-based funding model that calculates Commonwealth funding according to a new school resourcing standard, or SRS. In April, the Prime Minister put $9.4 billion over six years on offer, committing 65 per cent of the $14.5 billion additional investment required to lift schools to at least 95 per cent of their SRS by 2019. On top of this, we have committed to lock in Commonwealth indexation at 4.7 per cent at a time when the current approach to indexation has been falling and is predicted to go even lower. If states and territories sign up, this extra funding will see the Commonwealth government invest an estimated $104.3 billion in schools over the next six years. This funding is linked to real reforms across five core areas that evidence shows will lead to better schools.
Since the budget, the debate has also allowed the more cynical members of the opposition to parade their preparedness to distort the budget papers and allowed the more naive members of the opposition to show how easily misled they can be. The claim made repeatedly that the budget delivers a decrease in education funding is of course quite false and no member of the House now has any excuse not to know this. Everyone has access to Budget Paper No. 1, page 6-20, table 7, 'Summary of expenses—education'. Fact: funding goes up for schools every single year. We have even heard the National Plan for School Improvement described as a plan for central control—this, when the national plan requires as a condition of funding that the states and territories sign up to more local control.
If half of the debate has been dismal and sort of instructive, half of the debate has been inspiring. Government members have shown their passion and their perspective, their knowledge of the needs of their own communities and their preparedness to fight for those interests in this parliamentary debate. My colleague the member for Capricornia shares the same passion I have and visits local schools in her electorate, speaks to students, goes to classrooms, listens to teachers and watches performances that the kids put on. Like her, I too notice the difference between schools when I go around the country—the difference in resources and why we need to keep investing in special schools and rural and remote schools. And the member for Deakin knows which are the really great schools, seeing firsthand the fantastic change that has occurred in other schools and those other schools as well that constantly face the challenge of recurrent funding—an issue that comes up time and time again when he speaks with principals and parents.
I also want to acknowledge and thank the member for Richmond for her contribution in the debate. Like her, I want to commend the outstanding schools and the contribution of teachers up and down the coast of New South Wales. We all know the benefits of Building the Education Revolution in transforming these communities and nowhere has seen that transformation better than electorates like the member's, with new science labs, halls, libraries and classrooms fit for the 21st century. These places of learning are something local communities like the electorate of Richmond or the electorate of Robertson can be very proud of. The member for Chifley knows the difference a good public education can make. Many of us on this side of the House had a public education and feel passionately about it. So many other colleagues on this side of the House also spoke to this bill.
I want to add to and place on record my thanks and personal appreciation to David Gonski for his central and significant contribution, as we strive to get this once-in-a-generation deal for better schools. I want to acknowledge the work done by those members of the Gonski panel. I want to thank them: Kathryn Greiner and many others who have shown a great commitment to the future education of students in Australia irrespective of which school they attend.
When this side of the House speaks about fairness, we mean that no child should be left behind at school. When this side of the House speaks about jobs, we know that every child needs great skills to succeed in the economy of the future. There is a choice in Australian politics this year. There is a bright dividing line and it runs right down the middle of the House this evening. I know the side that I am on and I know which side our government is on. Nothing matters more for Australia's future than better Australian schools for all and that is exactly what this bill delivers, enshrining a new National Plan for School Improvement with better and fairer funding based on the needs of all schools and students. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:32]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (17:38): The question is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (17:39): I present a supplement explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (18), as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
Mr GARRETT: I move government amendments (1) to (18), as circulated, together:
A copy of the government's amendments [BN269]can be found via the following link:
The amendments to the Australian Education Bill set out the Commonwealth's commitment to an Australian education system that will ensure high expectations for every student, regardless of their background, the type of school they go to or the barriers they face to educational attainment. They also show the government's commitment to a system that delivers the support to make these high expectations achievable.
The purpose of the amendments is to enshrine in law a national approach to funding school education that ensures that schools are funded according to the needs of their students. The amendments also link schools funding to key school reform directions that will provide the basis for achieving the goals: that Australian schooling provides a high-quality and equitable education for all students; that Australia be placed in the top five countries internationally in reading, mathematics and science by 2025; and that Australia be considered to be a high-quality and high-equity schooling system by international standards in 2025.
All recurrent Commonwealth funding for participating schools will be delivered through fair and transparent needs based arrangements, providing new investment to support reforms that will help to improve each student's achievement at school. For participating schools, additional investment will support the evidence based reforms in the National Plan for School Improvement focused on quality teaching, quality learning, transparency and accountability, meeting student need and empowering school leadership. And, for the first time, participating government and non-government schools will be funded on a consistent basis, with a new schooling resource standard for all recurrent funding to participating schools.
The states and territories and non-government approved authorities with more than one participating school will implement needs-based funding models approved as consistent with the SRS, but will be able to tailor their model to best address local needs. Funding for disadvantage will be fully publicly funded for both government and non-government schools and students. Families choosing non-government schools will still contribute to the base cost of funding their school, consistent with current arrangements. The new funding arrangements fundamentally change the way resources are provided by better linking funding to each student's needs. These reforms deliver transparent funding allocations for all schools and sectors.
The amendments provide financial assistance to states and territories for government and non-government schools from 2014 and beyond. Commonwealth financial assistance is provided to states in accordance with section 96 of the Constitution and to territories in reliance on section 122 of the Constitution. It replaces provisions in the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009, which authorises funding to states and territories for government schools, and supersedes the Schools Assistance Act 2008, which authorised recurrent funding for non-government schools from 2008 to 2013. Tomorrow I intend to introduce a consequential and transitional provisions bill to give effect to these matters.
The bill also contains a number of provisions where regulations will need to be made, following enactment of the bill, for key elements of the new arrangements to provide certainty to stakeholders on the relevant details and to ensure a smooth transition from 1 January 2014. Included in those parts are: grants of financial assistance to states and territories that I have referred to above; part 3, recurrent funding for participating schools, including the funding formula for base amounts and loadings, the capacity-to-contribute percentage and transitional provisions to move to the new funding model; part 4, recurrent funding for non-participating schools through a national specific-purpose payment setting out the financial assistance for non-participating schools; part 5, capital grants, special circumstances funding and funding for non-government representative bodies; part 6, approving authorities and bodies, including the application and approval of approved authorities for schools, the basic requirements for approved authorities, ongoing policy requirement for them, ongoing requirements for approved authorities for more than one school, approval and basic and ongoing requirements for block grant authorities, approval and basic and ongoing requirements for non-government representative bodies, and implementation plans for approved authorities for more than one school; and, finally, part 8, actions the minister may take for failure to comply with this act and to require amounts to be paid.
These amendments have been circulated. I commend them to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (17:45): I move:
That business intervening before notice of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (17:45): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the six private Members’ business notices by the member for Calare, relating to the disallowance of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plans made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, being called on immediately and dealt with together, with separate questions being put on each.
Question agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network Management Plan
Disallowance
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:46): I move:
That the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Baldwin: I second the motion.
Debate adjourned.
North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:47): I move:
That the North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Baldwin: I second the motion.
Debate adjourned.
North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:48): I move:
That the North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014 2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Baldwin: I second the motion.
Debate adjourned.
South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:49): I move:
That the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Baldwin: I second the motion.
Debate adjourned.
South-East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:49): I move:
That the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2013-2023, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Christensen: I second the motion.
Debate adjourned.
Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:51): I move:
That the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Christensen: I second the motion.
Debate adjourned.
Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (17:52): I rise to speak on the disallowance motions logged for each of the six Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plans moved by the coalition. The coalition opposes the flawed methodology underpinning the announcement of marine reserves. The creation of the marine reserves was not disallowable, but the management plans are. Disallowing these plans will allow the coalition to ensure that scientific rigor is restored and due process is followed.
The areas to be locked up include the following regions: the Coral Sea region; the south-west marine region; the temperate east marine region; the north marine region; the north-west marine region; and the south-east marine region. The government has offered a package of $100 million to the fishing industry to try to buy their silence after ignoring them in the consultation process. Australia's fisheries are globally benchmarked and recognised as among the best managed anywhere in the world. Why, then, do we need to lock Australians out of our oceans? The coalition is committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. Marine protected areas are intended to protect and maintain biologically and culturally significant marine areas of Commonwealth waters.
It was the previous coalition government which commenced the process of establishing marine protected areas around Australia's coastline, in line with Australia's internationally declared commitments. For this purpose, the Commonwealth waters surrounding Australia were divided into five bioregional planning regions—the south-east, south-west, north-west, north, and east. The regions cover Commonwealth waters only, not state waters. The boundaries are usually from three nautical miles from the coast out to the outer limits of Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone, approximately 200 nautical miles from the shore.
The coalition guided development of the south-east marine bioregion plan, which was formalised in 2006. It included a network of 14 marine reserves, which were agreed after careful consideration and consultation with all stakeholders, including the recreational and commercial fishing sectors. This consultation ensured an appropriate balance was struck between protecting marine biodiversity and minimising social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and coastal communities, and better outcomes. The final result was a greater area protected with less impact on industry. The Gillard government does not have a track record of effective consultation, in fact quite the opposite. It is renowned for its sham consultation process.
There is considerable angst amongst fishermen regarding the declaration of marine national parks. Their concerns have not been heard. The consultation process was flawed and so the results are flawed. Industry was given just 30 days to consider and respond to the draft plans, which covered 2.3 million square kilometres. That is a huge workload, particularly for those who had to consider more than one management plan. How could industry possibly examine the detail of the impact around the entire Australian exclusive economic zone and comment in just 30 days?
Australia's $2 billion fishing sector was treated with complete contempt by environment minister, Tony Burke, yet again, and was given only 30 days to review management plans for his huge, unscientific ocean grab. Industry groups asked for 90 days but were ignored. On 16 November 2012 the minister declared 2.3 million square kilometres as marine reserves.
Fishing is an industry which provides 16,000 jobs for Australians. It is about time that Tony Burke and his government started listening to a productive sector and not to their Green coalition partners, who are intent on shutting industry down and locking Australians out of their own country. And what about the minister for fisheries, Senator Ludwig? Was he standing up for industry or using his department to support industry? No, not a chance. He was overruled by Minister Burke.
The socioeconomic analysis done by ABARE did not even consider the impact on recreational fishers or on coastal communities. So, rightly, recreational and commercial fishers, as well as the many related businesses and communities that rely on fishing, have raised substantial concerns about Labor's handling of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The Australian Fishing Trade Association estimates that the economic contribution of recreational fishing to the economy is between $10 billion and $15 billion per annum—that is not peanuts but we have monkeys running this show. Minister Burke's only response is that these parks are too far away for anyone to care. Well, Minister, if you had not noticed, it is the 21st Century and we have moved on from the canoe.
Now let us talk about the science. Surely a process that locks up 2.3 million square kilometres in marine reserves would be based on robust scientific data. I will now outline the science Minister Burke used in deciding on where to put the national parks, and all the scientific factors that went into the decision. This is the big issue, the science. Hang on, there is nothing on that page and nothing on this page either. There is no science. I set aside half of my speech to debate the science but alas there was not any.
Tony Burke's own department admitted that he has to put marine parks 'somewhere' and that there is no science behind the proposed lock-ups. Minister Burke has admitted that the scale of lock-up in the Temperate East zone is a payoff for the vast lock-up of the Coral Sea zone. Minister Burke's own department has been telling stakeholders there is no science behind the lines on the maps. I refer you to the Senate estimates hearings and to Senator Boswell's questioning of Mr Oxley, who was in charge of it then. He said the marine environment is generally not well understood. We have a relative dearth of information about the diversity of the Coral Sea but we really do not have the money to deal with it.
Minister Burke traded areas back and forth, playing stakeholders off against each other, in order to get the quantity of locked-up areas he needed for the ultimate appeasement of extremists. Minister Burke's tactics have included shamelessly playing commercial and recreational fishing interests off against one another, and playing both off against the environment groups.
Proper, grown-up government makes policy on its merit, on fact. There are key scientific reasons we should lock up more national parks only where the evidence is available. As Dr Ray Hilborn, Professor of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Washington, has explained: 'Australian fisheries are well managed', sustainable and do not need further locking up to protect them from overfishing. The existing tools are working. There is no threat to marine conservation. Closing Australian areas to fisheries will not increase food production from fisheries; it will reduce it. Reducing access to Australian fish stocks is irresponsible. It results in Australia importing more fish, often sourced from areas with less sustainably managed fisheries at much higher environmental cost, effectively offshoring our domestic requirements. Well-managed fisheries are more environmentally sustainable than most other protein sources. If we close the ocean and take less seafood, the environmental cost of the alternatives is much higher than the environmental cost of fishing. In Australia, the US and a number of other countries, stocks are rebuilding, not declining.
In the Senate inquiry into this issue, many of the substantive submissions and the coalition's dissenting report supported this view. Minister Burke claims tens of thousands of submissions in his sham consultation process but does not differentiate between the vast majority of electronically generated campaign emails, many from overseas, and the substantive, genuine submissions from affected communities and industries with valid concerns. The lack of process is extraordinary. For example, Professor Kearney highlighted three fundamental steps to be taken in order for an area to be adequately and appropriately protected, and stated that these have not been systematically applied to the declaration of Australia's marine protected areas. They are: (1) all significant threats must be identified—article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity; (2) the processes that constitute these threats must be addressed—EPBC Act, Commonwealth of Australia 1999; and (3) the management action that is taken must not be disproportionate to the significance of the environmental problems—Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, government of Australia 1992. And the government has failed on all three measures. It is not looking good.
This is not about marine parks. This is not about saving our environment. This is about the member for Watson, Mr Tony Burke, trying to get a few extra lines on his CV as he pushes his own case to be the next Labor prime minister. He is the best man for the job; just ask him! This stunt demonstrates aptly how little this government has learnt about good public policy—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Order! I am having difficulty hearing the member for Calare because of the constant static across the chamber.
Mr JOHN COBB: a failure of process and a failure to understand the responsibility of government. The lack of methodical, systematic and collaborative government process is an unfortunate feature of a government built on reactive, populist policies.
The ban of the fishing trawler is perhaps the best or, I should say, the worst example of this government—again, led by the member for Watson. The member for Watson as minister for agriculture appointed the Australian Fisheries Management Authority board members and signed off on the management plan that invited the supertrawler to Australia. Then, as minister for the environment, he backflipped on his own policy and invented laws so he could ban it, ignoring the science, ignoring due process and ignoring good government practice.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong is not in his place.
Mr JOHN COBB: Unfortunately, hopeless government has infiltrated the whole Labor Party. At the moment we have legislation from the Gillard government wanting to fix up their own mess in pulling money out of everybody who does not use an account for three years. We actually have a farmer with a farm management deposit, money designed to be put there so that a farmer can use it a few years later when he strikes trouble. What happened? He did not use it for three years; it is gone—a farm management deposit designed to be put there and not used. They have taken that.
Mr Lyons interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bass will cease interjecting.
Mr JOHN COBB: No wonder the government need to put in amendments to their own legislation.
The live exports ban is perhaps the best example which defines this government. The government's first decision was to ban live exports from the seven abattoirs where the terrible, inhumane practice took place, but the government, disappointed at being outdone by the Greens, then banned it unilaterally without even so much as talking to the Indonesian government or even contemplating the impact on industry. Just like the marine parks, it rolled out a $100 million package to solve its problems, but, as history now shows, the package did not even look at addressing the problems. This has led to the current crisis in northern Australia.
The live export ban imposed by this government and the resultant cut in live export and boxed beef quotas to Indonesia have led to a major unfolding animal welfare disaster in northern Australia. Our northern cattle farmers have carried over hundreds of thousands of extra cattle from last year, and now they have had a lean wet season and have this year's calves on the ground. Combined with a feed shortage caused by a dry autumn in the rest of Australia, this means that the whole cattle market is depressed and local abattoirs are booked out months in advance. Have we seen Labor, the Greens or Animals Australia coming out to help the animals who are starving because of the environment they created? No, we have not. In fact, we have seen the opposite.
The member for Watson has led the charge of those opposed to putting these animals into reserves as an emergency measure, even though many of the parks are former cattle stations and even though sensitive environmental areas are to be excluded. The member for Watson should be ashamed. He does not care about the humane treatment of animals; he just cares about keeping the greenies happy. The member has feebly offered the government Farm Finance package as a solution, but, even if the states signed up tomorrow, it would be months before that could take effect.
This marine park process—or lack of it—is just another in a long line of Labor disasters that shows just how much Labor has alienated its working-class base. We all remember the Prime Minister's pre-election commitment: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' We all know that this turned out to be a major—
Mr Lyons interjecting—
Mr JOHN COBB: You are still getting sick of it, are you? It turned out to be a major broken promise, although I have heard somewhere—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bass knows better.
Mr JOHN COBB: a somewhat justifiable claim that the Prime Minister has never led this government and that it is the Greens that are running the country. Nevertheless, we have the carbon tax that has accelerated the demise of our manufacturing and processing industry as well as devastating the wafer-thin profits of the agricultural sector.
Labor used to stand for the workers. Now it stands for closing the manufacturing industry, closing the food-processing industry and squeezing out the mining sector. The fishing industry is also hit by the carbon tax, with its high reliance on refrigeration and the resultant high electricity costs. Add to that the world's largest marine park networks shutting out the fishing industry, and we have another sector alienated by this government. But the government does not care. The government has built on its disasters—on backflips, broken promises and policy disasters. The coalition will not stand for it. Australia is a fantastic country and it can be again. Its people do not deserve to be treated like mugs. These marine parks are thought bubbles by the minister for the environment—poorly designed, poorly implemented. I implore the parliament to support this disallowance motion so that these marine parks do not become another symbol of the scourge of the Rudd and Gillard governments.
I would like to repeat something I said in this place earlier today when the member for Watson, the minister for the environment, accused us of wanting to get rid of a park that we had designated under the Howard government. In actual fact, I do not know whether the minister was telling untruths or he just does not know his own legislation and does not know the facts. On reflection, the latter is likely, because the disallowance motion does not—I repeat, does not—get rid of the maritime area the Howard government put in place. It does not get rid of the interim management plan put in place by the Howard government. In fact, it enshrines it, make sure that it stays there. It does get rid of the management plan being put by the Gillard government and the member for Watson.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, this order of the day will be debated cognately with the other orders of the day relating to the disallowance of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management plans. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (18:11): I rise to speak to the disallowance of the six Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management plans, noting that this is a cognate debate across all six regions. The six management plans were introduced into the House of Representatives and the Senate on 12 March 2013. Management plans are enabling documents that allow certain management of recreational and commercial activities to occur that would otherwise be restricted under the EPBC legislation. These plans are prepared by the Director of National Parks in accordance with section 368 of the EPBC Act. The management plans cover the following areas: the Coral Sea, north, north-west, south-west, temperate east and south-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Networks.
I must correct a misleading statement made by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities at question time today. He said that we are moving disallowance of a management plan put in place by the former Howard government in 2006. That is incorrect. By repealing this minister's management plans of 2013, what will stand is the interim management plan introduced by the Howard government in 2006. In fact, as I said, that plan was put in place in 2006. I am really concerned that this minister is not even across the detail of the marine reserves network management plans that he has put in place.
I was honoured to second the motions of disallowance on the south-east and temperate east plans. Unlike the minister, I am fully aware of what I am talking about. These are the proposed management plans, Minister, not the one that is already there. I have done this because the very reason I came into parliament was to stop bad policy and to make good policy. This management plan is bad policy. The government's handling of the whole process has been an extreme disappointment. It reflects an attitude of disdain towards the five million Australians who partake in recreational fishing in one form or another. I also reflect on the complete disgust of our commercial fishing industry in the way that they have been approached by this government. As I said, an estimated five million Australians go recreational fishing each year. The contribution by the recreational fishing sector to our economy is estimated to be $10 billion per year. That $10 billion is largely spent in rural and regional areas. There are some 90,000 Australians employed in supporting the recreational fishing industry, as well as some 3,000 fishing tackle stores across Australia. This is not a small sector of our community.
Another thing that really concerns me is this minister's continual statements that these management plans will not affect anyone because they are all too far offshore.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr BALDWIN: I am glad to hear, Minister, because I will go through a couple of select ones. In the area of Port Macquarie, where the member for Lyne is based, the Cod Grounds, which are fished by thousands of people annually, are a mere 27 kilometres offshore. The Coffs Harbour Solitary Islands are 12 kilometres offshore. From Yamba, it is 29 kilometres offshore. In Tasmania, from St Helens, in the Freycinet area, it is 60 kilometres offshore. From Bicheno, again in the Freycinet area, it is 32 kilometres offshore—
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to put up with this? Are you going to bring him to order?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Order!
Mr BALDWIN: There are a range of places—and they are only to name a few—that are close and approachable.
I am one of two people in this parliament who have actually had a master's ticket, who have worked in the commercial and recreational fishing environment. The other is Senator Nigel Scullion. If I have left anyone out, I apologise. I understand how far tinnies go offshore; I understand how far charter boats go offshore. And let me tell you: they can all travel more than three miles offshore, which is where the Commonwealth waters actually start. Admittedly, not too many of them will go out 200 miles to sea, but a number will.
These plans are flawed. They are in the face of what the industry, both recreational and commercial, want. I am very concerned. I am concerned as the member for Paterson, representing two areas which relate to fishing—in other words, the Nelson Bay and Port Stephens area and the Great Lakes region.
I am also concerned as shadow minister for tourism and shadow minister for regional development, because the impact of these regulations will affect my portfolios right around the Australian coast, from Cairns—which is in the electorate of the member for Leichhardt, who is here and who is going to speak—a critical fishing area, down through the Whitsundays and the Mackay area, which my colleague Mr Christensen represents.
I have visited many areas and I have talked to a lot of the fishing people. I have spoken to people in the fishing tackle shops, fishing clubs, fishing co-ops, commercial fishermen and even abalone divers, and they all have grave concerns about this minister's process. When he talks about accountability and transparency, that must only apply to the discussions and negotiations with the Greens and the environmental groups, not to those who are actually involved and those who will be impacted.
There are many compelling reasons why the coalition has moved these disallowance motions today. Firstly, there has been inadequate consultation; secondly, a complete lack of transparency; thirdly, a lack of understanding of the science that the minister purports to espouse; and, fourthly, a predetermination that these plans were to be to the detriment of the fishing community and for the benefit of a small select group.
As I said before, the marine park's regions cover Commonwealth waters only, not state waters. The boundaries range from three nautical miles from the coast out to the outer limits of Australia's exclusive economic zone, approximately 200 nautical miles from the shore.
These new marine reserves take the overall size of the Commonwealth marine reserves network to 3.1 million square kilometres, by far the largest representative network of marine protected areas in the world. In fact, prior to this, Australia had 25 per cent of global marine protected areas. With the Coral Sea and the other planned expansions it now comprises about 50 per cent of the entire global marine parks, just in Australia.
So any perceived biodiversity protection obligations are already overfulfilled. Yet the minister argues science. It is all going to be based on science, but only when the science suits him. The arguments put forward by Minister Burke, who changes his mind as regularly as the direction of the wind, do not stack up.
Firstly, we had his personal approval and imprimatur, as the fisheries minister, of the MV Margiris and the 18,000-tonne allowable catch. Then the wind changed and so did his mind, all allegedly based on science. The first science said it was okay; the second load of science, when the political winds changed, said it was not. And the minister did not even explore regional total allowable catches, which would have been based on common sense.
The minister at the time then wanted unfettered legislative powers to shut down any fishery—I repeat, any fishery—at any time based on social uncertainty. In its original form, it would have included any recreational fishing, as I said, based on social uncertainty. That social uncertainty might have come through a campaign against recreational fishing groups by green groups or groups like GetUp! or Pew, just to shut down something, because this government is a slave to the green vote. There is a definite lack of understanding and effective consultation other than with the green groups. They were going to rush through the process with these Commonwealth marine reserve network management plans without proper understanding of the implications of these plans for the broader communities. If that is not so, Minister, then why are the communities up in arms?
This minister will talk about science and sustainability. Minister, are you aware that there is a general global agreement that the EEZ fishery harvest rate is about 1,000 kilograms per square kilometre? I seek to inform the House that Australia's harvest rate is about 40 kilograms per square kilometre. In fact, the latest global survey of coral reefs, produced in 2010 by the World Resources Institute, states that well-managed reefs can sustain an average harvest rate of 15,000 kilograms per square kilometre, and I seek to inform the House that the harvest rate for our Great Barrier Reef is just nine kilograms per square kilometre. So, Minister, there is no scientific argument that you could put about sustainability in relation to fishing in these areas.
I have grave concerns that we have pushed our fishing from Australian waters into other waters yet we turn around and buy that fish back into Australia. You see, Australia imports around $1.7 billion worth of fish—in particular from areas where sustainability is in question. I quote Dr Ray Hilborn from an interview with Eleanor Hall on The World Today on Wednesday, 29 February 2012:
When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.
I believe that the actions of this government are unconscionable to say the least. We have a minister who says he wants to save our fish, and he is saving them all right—for fishermen in other areas to catch and sell back to Australia.
In the time that is left to me, I want to make sure that people understand that the coalition will never deceive the people by promising not to do something prior to an election only to do the direct opposite after the election, as this Prime Minister did with her promise, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I want people to know and to understand that the coalition's position is very, very clear. There are no misleading or secret agenda. Our policy—and I quote from page 29 of the coalition's 'Our plan—real solutions for all Australians'—is:
Building on our strengths in Agriculture Exports
We will unleash the real economic potential in our agricultural industry by removing the shackles and burdens holding the industry back and by making the industry more productive and globally competitive. We will … support our fishing industry and review the declaration of new Marine Protected Areas. We will establish genuine consultation with the fishing industry on research and strengthen the connection between science and fishing policy …
I further quote from page 46:
Supporting communities—creating a sustainable environment
We will adopt a practical, balanced and sustainable approach to environmental issues based on linking sound scientific findings with the needs of all users resulting in more sustainable commercial activities and better environmental outcomes.
As I said, our position on this is very clear. We are not going to do one thing or make a promise to one group ahead of an election with the intention of deliberately doing something diametrically opposite after the election. We will support the fishing industry, both recreational and commercial, without any reservation, because you can do the two together in good management practice. We will adopt a more balanced approach by setting up a more rigorous assessment for new marine protected areas that will mean areas are assessed in accordance with objective science and economic and social evidence.
I have grave concerns about where this government is taking the fishing industry and, in particular, the recreational fishing industry. There is no doubt that the best thing that can occur is for those five million people in Australia to go out fishing—recreational fishing. It is a boost to our economy, spread right around the coastline of Australia. There is no doubt that there are good social outcomes when families are out enjoying the outdoors together rather than being parked in front of a television or a computer. One of the key ways they can do that is out there, recreationally fishing.
I say to this minister: why all the rush? What are you scared of? Are you scared of qualified information coming along that contradicts your position and your sell-out to the Greens at the expense of five million recreational-fishing people? You stand up in the parliament and talk about how you can stand in a tinnie and how you cannot visit here. I would suggest that, like your bureaucrats, you get out from behind your desk, get out in front of the people, talk to them and understand the industry. Failure to do so will only lead to dire results for our recreational and commercial fishing industries here in Australia.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (18:26): This place never ceases to fascinate me. I have great respect for the member for Paterson and have worked with him on other issues. But there is an onus upon you to do your homework; there really is. If he had done his homework he would have known that it was his party that destroyed the fishing industry of North Queensland. There were 2,000 jobs in my electorate that vanished—
Mr Baldwin: If you'd been here you'd have heard me say that.
Mr KATTER: I take back the implied criticism of the member for Paterson because I am very pleased to hear him say that. But the complete destruction of the fishing industry and the prawn and fish-farming industries was done by the LNP. A Nationals party member got up and said that all you are leaving us is 18 per cent of the North Queensland seas.
An opposition member interjecting —
Mr KATTER: He said, 'a good Labor man'. I will tell you, my friend, that when I come into this place I represent the people of my electorate, and I could not care less whether it is the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. But you will have to stand and defend your party's decision to close two-thirds of the fishing industry of North Queensland and take 2,000 people's jobs out from under them. The minister might today be doing a little bit of fence building and face-saving before the election, but we will see how you vote when I move the resolution that it be cut back to one-quarter of its existing area. We will see how you vote. I welcome your support, but I doubt I will get it.
There were 7,000 people who turned up to the meetings. I heard the Liberal member advocating the closures, and the National Party member for Dawson had gone completely silent upon the issue. Before an election you were out there saying how terrible the Labor Party is. Unfortunately—and sadly for you, my friend the honourable member for Dawson—you will be judged upon the performance of your party, which closed the fishing industry of North Queensland. And not content with that, they proceeded to close the prawn and fish-farming industries.
I will stand by my record. The Courier-Mail, in a front-page article on me as the minister for northern development, said, 'Since you became the minister for northern development there has not been one single square inch of North Queensland declared a national park.' I said, 'Could you please put that on the front page of your newspaper and watch the ALP savage me over it!' Every time they savage me I hope and think that my fellow North Queenslanders will take a position and say, 'Good on you!' So I will stand on my record, my friend. But, unfortunately for you, you have to stand on the record of your party—and the record of your party smells to the high heavens.
And if someone is out performing—and I think that the federal government is performing on this issue, just grandstanding before an election—at the expense of my fishermen in the Gulf of Carpentaria and at the very great expense of the fishermen in the Gulf of Carpentaria, they have already done colossal damage to them. One of the remaining fishermen there has just said: 'I am going to throw the towel in, mate. If they don't get me now, they will get me later on.' He said this on the John McKenzie program in North Queensland.
We watched as Australia very proudly exported $300 million or $400 million of seafood product more than we imported. But thanks to the actions of the free marketeers and to the free-market policies of the two parties that dominate this parliament, and thanks to the closures of the Liberal Party—the Labor Party were not there but I am sure that they would have done it if they had been there; I do not have any illusions that the ALP would have done if they were there; but the Labor Party was not there and the Liberals were—they did the damage.
Let me just go back to the seafood figures. There are about $300 million more in exports and imports. I think this year it will be $200 million more imports and exports. You could draw a graph. You could talk to Alistair Dick, who is the leading authority probably in prawn farming in Australia. I rang Alistair and I said, 'I am looking at these figures from China on prawn farming and fish farming.' If you extrapolate them out—and the graph is almost vertical—then I would say that within about 40 years all of the world's protein will be coming from China. There will not be any moo-cows walking around or piggy-wiggies or chickens or anything like that. I am not saying that the graph will continue to be vertical, but at the present moment it is.
As a minister I was given great credit for founding that industry and most certainly we played a key role. Dr Joe Baker from the Institute of Marine Science and those great heroes—the Wardays, the Sharkers, Jimmy Riles, the Irwin Viadors—and many others were the people that risked their money and pioneered this industry and created for Australia some $600 million a year of income. Now I think that our prawn production is down to about $20 million and I cannot see the industry lasting much longer.
We have got to clean the water four times thanks to the environmentalists on both sides of this parliament. We have got to clean the water arguably four times, most certainly three times, before we put it back into the river system or into the sea. Whereas our competitor nations put raw sewage into the Yangtze River and all the other rivers up there. They just pump the water out of the river into the ponds and then dump it straight back in. We just simply cannot compete against that sort of practice.
All right, if you say that it is fair enough to impose those conditions upon Australian farmers, do not let the product in from the countries that are not measuring up to those environmental and health requirements. If you put raw sewage into water that goes into the ponds then you have a very high bacteria level and what you then have to do is to kill the bacteria. So you need a very high antibiotics regime. So the prawn and fish farming product coming in here is rife with bacteria and rife with antibiotics. But there is no labelling. It would be interesting to see whether the honourable members on my right will vote for the labelling laws. I will leave it to them to explain to the growers of Bundaberg and Bowen and all of those other areas why they are not voting for labelling laws. If you are going to let this product come in, at the very least you should be warning consumers that it is coming in and it has not been grown or processed under Australian conditions.
I applaud the LNP for moving this resolution. I applaud them but I have got to point out to the House the overwhelming hypocrisy of their actions as most of them were here when the marine parks were declared. They declared them. They voted for them. They created the marine parks. It is a weird situation.
A very good friend of mine, a very famous North Queenslander, was out with his grandson. He used to go out with his dad when he was young bloke—his dad migrated from Italy about 70 or 80 years ago—and they had been going out fishing there for nigh on 70 or 80 years. A helicopter came down and he waved to it, as he is a very friendly bloke—I do not think that he has ever got a parking ticket in his life. Then the helicopter took off and a police boat came out. He said good day to the police and asked whether they would like a stubby with him—a very friendly bloke—and they said, 'We are here to arrest you. You have gone into a green zone.' The green zones were created by the Liberal Party and the National Party.
Mr Entsch interjecting—
Mr KATTER: No, you will cop it, my friend! It is your hypocrisy and you will sit there and you will cop it. You voted to impose upon North Queensland the closure of all of those areas.
Mr Entsch interjecting—
Mr KATTER: You voted to impose that upon all of those areas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Cheeseman ): Order, member for Leichardt! The member for Leichardt will stop interjecting!
Mr Entsch interjecting—
Mr KATTER: I went along to every one of those meetings and did everything I could possibly humanly do. You voted for it. You are the architect of it. This gentleman over here from Leichardt making all the noise, the temporary member for Leichardt, and his party voted for it.
I want to go back to this gentleman. Let us call him Fred. The police boat came in and Fred waved and he offered the police a couple of beers and they said, 'No, we are here to arrest you.' This person came to see me. He was dreadfully upset. In all of their years in Australia—and his family had migrated many years before—no-one had ever been arrested before. He was left with a criminal conviction. We had enormous difficulty having the criminal conviction removed. I for one grovelled on my bended knees to the government and government officials on both sides of the parliament—it was a transition of government—to try and get the criminal charges removed and the criminal record expunged.
I will conclude on this note, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recommend to everyone to go along and see that wonderful movie of Russell Crowe's called Robin Hood. It is very historically correct. It is a rundown to the Magna Carta. I raced home and got out all my books on Magna Carta because I would bet London to a brick on that it would be in that great piece of architecture for our culture and our laws called the Great Charter—Magna Carta in Latin. Sure enough, there it was: the people have a right to sustenance from the land and the sea. The Crown has no right to take away their right to sustenance. Our right of sustenance was taken away from us on a massive scale by the Liberal Party and now today it is being taken away from us by the ALP. If members on my right, on the opposition benches, are in any way genuine, when we move the motion and divide the House to get the marine parks back to one quarter of their current size, I would expect that if they are consistent they will support that resolution of the parliament. I will deeply appreciate their support.
My family go back 130 or 140 years in North Queensland. For all of our history North Queenslanders have farmed those areas and there has been no diminution in the fish populations. There was never any evidence produced at any stage that there was diminishing of the fish populations. When you consider that the average fish has about 20,000 eggs it lays every year then you can realise that it is a bit silly to talk about some bloke going out there destroying the fish populations. So the argument was very spurious and the Liberal Party were playing to the environmental push and influences in their own party. The ALP were most certainly playing to those influences and under the puppet masters the Greens, which please God in the forthcoming election will be eliminated. They will be eliminated by my party.
Mr Entsch: Oh!
Mr KATTER: You laugh, which gives me an excuse to explain it, because these things are a bit complicated for you, I know. I will lay it down in the simplest terms. When we went in there we got 12 per cent of the vote; their vote dropped from 12 per cent to six per cent. My case rests. We are out there to destroy the Greens, let there be no doubt about that. Let me add that we will be determined that we will use the power given to us to cut back and give back to our boys the right to go fishing, camping, hunting and shooting, the right again to be boys, to give back to the people of Australia the freedoms that our forebears died for at Magna Carta in 1215 at Runnymede. They wrote down and they died for a principle that the land and the sea do not belong to the Crown, they belong to the people. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:41): I hope the member for Kennedy will stick around because I want to respond to some of the things he said. When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park green zone system was introduced, I was actually working for a member of parliament, the former member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly. De-Anne remained inside the tent with the coalition and we fought that long and hard. I was one of her key advisers, and it was done by regulation; it was not done by legislation. I have got to tell you that I was one of the people who went and saw the fishermen, saw the heartache that this great betrayal of the farmers of the sea was causing them. It tore you to pieces. Blokes whose livelihoods for generations had depended on farming the sea, fishing, were destroyed by the stroke of a pen with little real consultation, with little real science. What it was was a push from an overseas organisation called Pew dictating to Australia. It is to my great shame as a member of the National Party that it was the National Party in coalition that allowed that to happen. We were fighting against it, make no mistake. But there was no convincing the environment ministers at the time.
Now we are faced with the same situation once again where more of our marine area is going to be locked up and fishermen locked out—recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen. The member for Calare and the member for Paterson have both spoken on this motion and spoken very well outlining a number of facts, but I have to tell you that there is no doubt in my mind that these marine parks, and certainly the management plans associated with them, need to be disallowed. We do not have the opportunity to disallow the marine parks themselves. The people in this place, the representatives of the Australian people, should have that say. Unfortunately we do not, so we are resorting to disallowing the management plans here, the things that will give the marine parks the teeth. These management plans, indeed the marine parks that this government has imposed, are opposed by just about every representative of recreational and professional fishing organisations in Australia: the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, the Australian Marine Alliance, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, Sunfish, Tuna West, the Australian Fishing Trade Association, Recfish, the Australian Sportfishing Association, the Game Fishing Association of Australia—I could go on and on with names of representative organisations in the recreational and professional fishing game that are against this marine park proposal. You name it, when it comes to fishing they are against it. They are against it because of what is actually in these management plans.
Let us have a look at what this marine park proposal will do. It will effectively lock up 1½ million square kilometres of marine environment around this nation. There is no scientific integrity at all about this process. The science was kept secret—secret from the industry and secret from recreational fishermen. When they wanted to see it—
Mr Burke: It was tabled in parliament.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: It was kept secret for way too long. And the science was not real science; it was based on political horse trading with the coalition partners of the Gillard Labor government—the Greens.
This proposal is going to result in lost revenue for fishing industries and fishing businesses right around the country. There are at least 60 regional communities that this will impact upon. It is estimated by the Australian Marine Alliance that there will be a six per cent gross downgrade in local government revenue as a result. There will be thousands of jobs lost as a result of this fishing lockout. There will be 70 to 80 trawler operators displaced and an increase of probably $1½ billion in seafood imports into this country. We already import into this country 70 per cent of our seafood. That figure will increase. It will probably be at 80 per cent within a few years of this marine park proposal coming into effect.
The southern eastern scale fishery is threatened as a direct result of this. We have basically wiped out a $2 billion commercial aquaculture industry. The Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is threatened. There is $12 million displaced in Jervis Bay and we have $58.2 million in management costs for closures around the country. The minister and the government say that compensation is around $100 million, but the industry is saying that it could be closer to half a billion dollars. One of the big things that I am worried about is the complete closure of the Coral Sea to any form of fishing. This is ridiculous. This is clearly ridiculous.
Mr Burke: And untrue.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: It is not untrue. The Coral Sea will effectively be closed down to commercial fishing. You shake your head, Minister, but it is in your plan. Your plan closes down fishing right around this country, and the Coral Sea is front and centre of that closure. The minister has treated the industry and the recreational fishermen with absolute contempt—contempt because there has not been genuine consultation in his approach. The member for Calare talked about 30 days of consultation when the industry begged the minister to give them at least 90 days of consultation.
The minister comes in with here with a bundle of books saying, 'This is the science behind it; look at this bundle of books.' There is one simple question to prove that there is little science at all behind this, and that simple question is: what is the conservation value of the places that you are locking up? I have not heard what the conservation is. There is another question as well: what is the threat that is imposed upon the biological diversity in the area that you are locking up? The threat simply cannot be recreational fishermen. It is hardly likely to be commercial fishermen either.
The minister always gets up and has a bit of a belly laugh: 'Oh, you can't take a tinny off the coast that far—ha, ha, ha!' Go to the Mackay marina and have a look at some of the boats that are there. I can tell you that they go pretty far off the coast. Some of them go out to Marion Reef, which is also being locked up. The Keep Australia Fishing movement have been campaigning very strongly against this proposal. They say:
The proposed marine parks start three nautical miles to sea and extend to the limit of Australia's 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It's true to say that many of these areas are a fair distance offshore but the fact is it doesn't matter where the zones are. The main point is that these anti-fishing lockouts are discriminatory, unfair and not necessary. Many of the proponents of these lockout zones go to great lengths to say that these zones, especially those in the Coral Sea in northern Queensland, are too far out to be of interest to the average angler. But they then talk about these areas as being fantastic locations for recreational divers and other tourists to visit. If these places are within range of divers and other groups, then surely it's reasonable to expect that anglers also have the ability to access these areas? The fact is anglers can and do travel big distances offshore in their own vessels and with charter operations, just like recreational divers and other marine tourists. The argument that the marine parks are too far offshore just doesn't stack up.
And I have to say that it does not stack up. I also have to say that you cannot have it both ways. If there is no fishing happening out there—if there are no tinnies going out there, as the minister says—then what is the threat? Why are we locking these areas up? It just simply does not make sense. The fact is that there is fishing happening out there but it is not a threat to these areas.
One operation that actually goes out there is Nomad Sportsfishing. Nomad Sportsfishing takes boats out of Mackay and they go out to Marion Reef—again, one of those areas that is going to be locked up under this proposal. One of the people who runs Nomad Sportsfishing is a fellow by the name of Damon Olsen. Damon has an interesting letter on the Nomad Sportsfishing website. It is a letter to all of his customers. He takes people out there on recreational fishing trips. He says in the letter:
I've been in Canberra recently, and been to meetings with the federal environment minister, Tony Burke, and had a significant involvement in this process so far. The previous letter that everyone sent to the minister, through the Nomad Sportfishing website, made this meeting possible, and made the government realise that this is a serious issue for recreational anglers.
All we want to achieve here is to ensure that our marine reserves are implemented with thorough scientific planning, scientific principles and practical outcomes that work for all user groups. All recreational fishing groups support closed off areas, but only when thorough scientific processes have shown that these closed off areas are required. The current process is closing off huge areas to recreational fishermen simply so the government can keep green groups happy and stay in power.
The massive problem that we face here is that Science has long ago been abandoned by the politicians, and they are now playing a game of drawing colours on maps simply to keep the powerful and well funded green lobby groups at bay.
When I read that about drawing lines on maps, I thought, 'Oh, he is being a bit metaphorical there.' But no—he is actually being literal. Listen to this:
I have a first hand example of this from the meeting with the federal environment minister. The current process is proposing to close off the main area of the Perth trench to all gamefishing activities, essentially shutting down the entire gamefishing industry and community in Perth. We asked the minister why this zone had been placed in it's proposed position. We were told that the minister drew that zone himself because they needed one in that area, and there was no information to tell him where to put it, so he just placed it where he thought was appropriate.
That is great science—fantastic science! That is science by texta: 'We'll get out a whiteboard and a map and we'll just circle an area and say, "That is what we need to lock up."' How ridiculous. So all the books you want can be brought in, but here is something that was said to a recreational fishing business, and the minister has to answer to that allegation, because it is quite damning.
We have a major impact, which has been spoken of before by the member for Calare and the member for Paterson, on our domestic commercial fishing industry, and they are really going to feel the squeeze from this. But we are removing all of their effort—protecting these marine parks from the recreational fishermen and from the commercial fishermen.
The minister raised the prospect earlier today that, 'If we do this, we could have oil rigs suddenly popping up there.' But actually there is a process that that would have to go through. If we were to pass this tonight, they would not simply be set up tomorrow; they would not be set up at all, because there are processes that they have to go through: the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation process is one of those.
So what is actually being stopped in this area? It is not recreational diving, it is not tourists, it is not pleasure boats and it is not commercial shipping. Not even naval vessels will be excluded from the zone. A huge oil tanker could actually go through some of these zones. There are no restrictions on that sort of stuff. But there is a restriction on the fishermen. There is a restriction on the commercial fishermen. There is a restriction on the recreational fishermen. This is basically demonising an Australian pastime, saying that it is wrong and harmful to the environment. But there is no proof of that.
I sit on the House's Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, and I have heard the testimony from the government-funded Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, and they have actually said that our commercial fisheries here in Australia are sustainable. There are no unsustainable practices taking place. That is what the Fisheries RDC said—the Fisheries RDC that this government helps fund. So we have government policies at loggerheads here. On the one hand, we have the policy before us saying, 'There is a threat posed by fishing to the marine environment,' but on the other hand we have the people who actually know—the guys doing the research—saying that there is not.
This disallowance motion should be passed by the House. We need to knock this off the agenda and let people just get on with fishing—the pastime that they enjoy. (Time expired)
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:56): I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking tonight on this motion and of speaking up for all the coastal communities around Northern Australia. In my view it is a great disappointment that the creation of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves network is not disallowable. But, given the management plans, maybe we can make the best of a bad situation.
I seconded the motion on the north and north-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves, and I have something to say to the member for Kennedy, who earlier on made a lot of noise in here, about a bit of history in this area. If we go back to the introduction of green zones in 2004, I am on the record as being vehemently opposed to the introduction of those, and, again, to the texta 'science' behind it. It was, at that stage, members of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that had actually encouraged the fishermen to come forward and identify the areas that they could not afford to lose. And then, when the next draft was released, every area that had been marked in purple texta had been turned into a green zone. At the time, I was highly critical. Obviously, the member for Kennedy had no idea what he was talking about, in so much as there was not a vote; these changes in the green zone were done by regulation.
At the time I spoke up against my own minister because within that regulation there was a compensation package of $10 million, and, at the time, I said that that was absolutely ridiculous and that the impact that this was going to have on the fishing community and on these coastal communities was going to be well in excess of $200 million. I was told by the minister and his bureaucrats at the time that exaggeration like that really did not do me any favours in relation to my credibility. Yet what is the compensation package so far? Over $240 million, and that is nowhere near the damage that has been done to the businesses and communities that were affected by this very, very flawed regulation.
I might add that the member for Kennedy had nothing to do in relation to trying to deal with that compensation; that was me and Senator Boswell. He mentioned his mate Fred being prosecuted in this area; again, it was Senator Boswell who effected the changes that allowed these people to get a fair hearing in relation to that issue.
On the western coast of Cape York Peninsula, fishing is a highly valued commercial, recreational and tourism staple, and I doubt that that changes much as we move further west. I share the concerns raised by my good colleague here, the member for Dawson, specifically addressing the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves.
Just to highlight the lack of common sense and of science that surrounds the restrictions on the use of our marine resources under the existing management plan, I would like to highlight a number of businesses based in my electorate. The Northern Prawn Fishery extends from Cape York in Queensland to Cape Londonderry in Western Australia. An article in the Cairns Post on 20 November celebrated the fact that overseas buyers are:
… lining up to take product from the Northern Prawn Fishery after its sustainable certification by the Marine Stewardship Council.
Gaining this certification is no mean feat. It proves that the operators in this fishery are using world best practice to harvest their catch very sustainably with less impact on the environment and on bycatch.
So what does this government do? It takes this certification and it rubbishes it absolutely by declaring the North and North West Marine Reserves, shutting down effectively 20 per cent of the Northern Prawn Fishery. What about the millions these operators have invested and the thousands of jobs they support? I just shake my head in disbelief.
I will talk about a couple of our small marine businesses in Cairns. Wayne and Sally Bayne have operated Mitchell's Marine since they founded it in Sydney over 40 years ago in 1972. They moved to Cairns in 1981 and had a highly respected, very successful business. Because of the uncertainty that has been created by this nonsense that has been peddled by this minister, four months ago they shut that business down. It is completely gone. The same goes for Marcel Marjean of Cairns Custom craft. He has been building recreational and commercial vessels in Cairns for 25 years but has shut his business down completely. It is little wonder that we have such high unemployment—the highest in the country—in my region, and a lot of this has contributed to the nonsense that the minister has been peddling as he continues to be a slave to cancerous organisations like the Pew foundation in the United States.
We also have Daniel McCarthy, owner of Big Fish Down Under. He will be heavily impacted because of the restrictions on big game fishing in the Coral Sea. Bob and Annie Lamason of Great Barrier Reef Tuna in Cairns really take special consideration and the minister is very aware of this family. They have been beaten senseless over what was an incredibly successful business. It used to pay about $2,000 to $3,000 per vessel per year for licences in the 1990s and had seven boats that cost about $20,000. I opposed the impact the green zones had on them but it has continued to compound. Back in the 1990s Bob was catching about 1,200 tonnes of tuna a year. Back then, there were no by-catch restrictions, there was no wire trace, there was no VMS. Bob also had a much wider range that he could move around. Now the area where he can catch has been totally constrained. He is restricted down to four vessels for which he is paying on an average more than $40,000 per year—a total of $160,000 per annum—and is now permitted to catch 600 tonnes of tuna a year. Due to the fact that he has been forced out into areas where the species no longer congregate because of the science that this minister talks about, last year he only managed to catch 300 tonnes. In addition, since the announcement of the government's marine park network—another challenge and it is death by 1,000 strokes—he has lost two of his skippers because of the uncertainty of the industry. Bob says:
We are catching less than half a percent of the Western Pacific Yellow Fin and Big Eye tuna, so what is the government really managing for their money?
It is just an absolute outrage. I say that if we do manage to change this, we need to be reintroducing a sustainability requirement into this area so that people can go out there and fish. We need people like Bob and Annie. They deserve to be paid out and we should be selling and expanding licences based on sustainability. We can use some of the reserves that we get from the sale of those licences to assist people like Bob and Annie, the last family standing in that area, to give them a chance to get out with some level of dignity.
I talked to Annie tonight. T hey are in a bit of an unusual situation. They are in their 60s and they cannot sell their business. It is no longer viable because of the restrictions that have been put on them. They want out and I believe we have an obligation to make sure that they have access to a package that allows them to move forward with their lives because they have really copped the brunt of a lot of these flawed decisions.
Cairns Marine Aquarium has another three generations who have been catching reef fish for aquariums from where there was no sustainability issue. They were forced to withdraw from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I managed, working with them, to get them compensation of some $3.8 million. They used that money to purchase bigger boats that enabled them to go further out into the Coral Sea to operate and set up the infrastructure at their Cairns base. But now with these new Coral Sea Marine Reserve restrictions it is likely that, out of 16 operators currently working in the area, only three will be able to continue. The casualties will include line and trap fishermen, the rock lobster and beche de mer fisheries, along with other aquarium operators.
The major issue here is that the government is looking for 100 per cent cost recovery. The total cost of the management is currently about $300,000. Instead of spreading it around 16 licences, it will have to be spread over three.
As Ryan Donnelly said:
The funny thing is that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority holds us up as a 'poster child' for the fishing industry on the Great Barrier Reef. These are the people who you'd think would want us to stop fishing on the Reef.
If we're forced out of the Coral Sea, the infrastructure and boats and buildings at our Stratford site will all have to go.
Of course we do not need to talk about the impact that it is going to have on our restaurants in the area, from Cairns and Port Douglas through to Cooktown et cetera and right across. They will be seriously impacted by the lack of fresh fish. As the member for Dawson said, we are already importing something like 70 per cent of our seafood. It is amazing: we have the largest economic exclusion zone, one of the largest in the world—there is nowhere at all that there is any pressure at all on this—and we are underfishing to blazes, and yet we are shutting it down.
The classic example is the Coral Sea. Bob Lamason said that out of our percentage of the Coral Sea, we took 300 tonnes; Papua New Guinea, 1.7 million tonnes; and New Caledonia, 2.1 million tonnes. I just wonder how much of an impact on the environment our 300 tonnes will have when we shut it down. Absolutely none at all. We would have been far better off talking to Papua New Guinea and to New Caledonia about doing a sustainable arrangement instead of getting on our knees and crawling across and sucking up to putrid organisations like Pew. They won't touch them in Papua New Guinea; they won't touch them in New Caledonia. Why? Because it is American licensed fishermen who are working in those areas, and they have not got the guts to take them on. Unfortunately, this minister over here, Minister Burke, also does not have the guts to take these people on. He would rather sacrifice Australian businesses than take on his mates from the Pew foundation. It is an absolute disgrace.
The other thing that worries me—of course a lot of this stuff has been based not on flawed science but on no science whatsoever. It is also based on a whole lot of claptrap and lies. This went out at 4.15 this afternoon. It was a bulk email sent by one of our senators and a minister in the other place—Senator McLucas. I will just read this to you. This went out, as I said, at 4.15, and it said:
Just last year, Labor declared the biggest network of marine parks in the world. But what we've fought so hard for could disappear in just a few months.
If the Liberals get their way then as of tonight, it will be legal to drill for oil and gas off Margaret River. It will be legal to drill for oil and gas in the Coral sea.
What a load of hogwash! This is the rubbish that these people try to peddle.
One of the biggest problems we had when we tried to deal with this in 2004 was that 80 per cent of the population lives in this little golden triangle on 20 per cent of our landmass. For the rest of us who live out there in regional Australia and try to make a living out there, using our natural resources, it makes it very difficult—that is, the 20 per cent of the population. And all of this rubbish that gets peddled goes into metropolitan Australia. They see it on their TVs, on these flash ads that are put up by these gangrenous organisations like Pew and others. Not only does the minister believe it—or is silly enough to believe it—but it is also rammed down the throats of people in our metropolitan areas. But people started to realise when they came to places like Cairns that it was not the fact. I think we will see a very different situation now.
She goes on to say:
It will be legal to use long lines, gillnets, trawls and spears in the marine national park—
This is just absolute rubbish. This is the sort of scare tactic these people have continually used to justify their actions. We should be using the resources that we are blessed with. We should be going to out there using them sustainably. There should be no restrictions on the access or the use of this. We should be using it based purely on sustainability— (Time expired)
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (19:11): In addressing this disallowance motion for the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plans, let me begin with a simple proposition: we support marine parks where they are based on appropriate science, appropriate consultation and the outcome is a balanced outcome. What we do not support is a lockout of mums and dads and people who will go fishing recreationally, the ability of families to access their local areas. That is the problem with what has occurred here.
Let me be absolutely clear. It was the Howard government that started this process, from a balanced perspective. It was the Howard government that created the south-eastern marine approach, and we are very proud of what we created—and I am going to deal with one of the falsities that the minister put to the House today, and which he knows is false. But, against that background, our approach has been balance: what is it that we need to protect; what is it that will allow families, recreational fishers and others to be able to participate in the great Australian pastime of casting a line for a bite? That is not a great threat to Australia's marine environment; that is not a great threat to our fish resources, our marine stocks, to our ability to protect and manage our environment because these families, these recreational fishers, are actually conservationists. These are people who care about the marine environment. They are not the folks who should be demonised, as has been the case from the ALP right throughout this process. So we stand up for recreational fishers, we stand up for people who care about the marine environment and we stand up for conservation. There will be a marine parks process that will continue under us if we are successful and if this motion is successful, but it will be based on common sense, fairness, science and consultation. They are the practical things.
Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, representing as you do the seat of Corangamite—I just wanted to put that on the record—I want to deal with four items that came about today from the government's statements and the minister's statements. Firstly, this notion that we would be voting against the Howard government's plan: false, untrue, incorrect, inaccurate and the minister knows it. He has been caught out on that one. We put in place a regional plan, and with that we also put in place a management plan. What is being voted on here is a variation to that, and the default position is that which was the case will be the case if we are successful.
This, I am sorry to say, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, brings me to your own work. I have in front of me today a statement which has been sent out: 'Our marine parks in danger.' It makes the point that, 'Just last year Labor declared the biggest network of marine parks in the world.' It is a big area—it is a massive area—and people will be locked out of that area. So that is right. Then there is the false statement: 'It will be legal to drill for oil and gas off Apollo Bay. It will be legal to use long lines, gillnets and spears in these areas.' That is untrue. That which was the case will continue to be the case. The default position will continue, and that is the Howard government plan. It was a good plan. I helped negotiate it myself. I spoke with the fishing community. I worked with the fishing community and we actually reached an agreement with the fishing community, as opposed to what has occurred in this place on this occasion.
So I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, to say that what was sent out in your name today—I can only assume it was done without your consent!—was untrue. I am sorry, Minister, to say that what you said before this chamber today was untrue. There will be no lack of protection. The default position remains the case. You know it; we know it. It is what it is, but in the grand scheme of things it was, of course, a small deception.
On the same front, a simple statement—not that the world will collapse, but there had been no media coverage. I want to present the front page and page 4 of the Surf Coast Times from today, showing our candidate for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson, with Rex Hunt. The article on page 4 is headed, 'Fishers fight against marine parks'.
Mr Burke: Read the final paragraph of the article.
Mr HUNT: Yes, absolutely, the minister is quoted. I noted in question time today he talked about going out of where we were today and turning left. Well, actually, if he went out and turned left, he would have ended up in the Barwon River. It doesn't matter—another minor deception. Let me table—I am sure the minister will allow it and I am sure Deputy Speaker Cheeseman will be delighted for me to do so—the front page of today's Surf Coast Times, which shows the rally, and on page 4, 'Fishers fight against marine parks,' Tuesday, 4 June, 2013: Rex Hunt and Sarah Henderson, candidate. I seek leave to table them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Cheeseman ): Is leave granted?
Mr Burke: Is that the same document that says that the nearest shut-out zone is 460 kilometres away?
Mr HUNT: The minister's comments are in there.
Mr Burke: It is the one that says 460 kilometres away?
Mr HUNT: The minister's comments are in there.
Mr Burke: Then you are welcome to table it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave granted.
Mr HUNT: Let me come to the last thing and the most important here, and that is the work which has been done on precisely this issue of the proximity of these marine parks to local communities. Let me run through some names. Mindarieand Two Rocks are within seven kilometres offshore. Busselton and Geographe Bay are nine kilometres. You travel around and you have other names: Fremantle, Karratha, Kalbarri; in Queensland, Karumba, Cooktown and Mackay; in South Australia, Ceduna and Streaky Bay; in the Northern Territory, Nhulunbuy; in Tasmania, Bicheno and St Helens; in New South Wales, Port Macquarie, Yamba and Byron Bay. These are all within 12 kilometres. These are all, according to the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, places where up to tens of thousands of people would otherwise have visited for recreational fishing purposes each and every year.
Let me just read the number of groups that are involved here. We have AFTA, ANSA, the Australian Underwater Federation, the Game Fishing Association Australia, Keep Australia Fishing, the PFIGA, Recfish Australia, the Recreational Fishing Alliance of New South Wales, Recfishwest, Sunfish Queensland and TARFish from Tasmania. We have USFA and VRFish. That is a summary of the groups which are involved. That is a summary of the places which have been affected.
So, very simply, this has a real impact on recreational fishing. This has a real impact on fisherfolk, on families, on the ability of people to do what they have normally done. Tens of thousands of people in each of these places, according to the advice of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, will have their ability to carry on one of life's simple pleasures impaired. That is why these boundaries on this day in this form should be rejected. We will continue with the process. We will make sure that there is real protection, but not in this way and not in this form.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (19:20): Can I start by saying that I am not a fisherman's bootlace. As a matter of fact, my father-in-law and my brother-in-law are excellent fishermen. They go down the Burdekin River and out from there. They sat me down in the shed at the farm and they said to me, 'Look, we'll give you all the fish you can eat, we'll give you all the crabs and prawns you can eat—just don't come fishing with us.' That is my involvement in fishing. I have been out to the reef once in my entire life. I had an absolute ball and I can understand why people go out there, but it is not for me.
Can I take the minister on a bit of a history trip. In 2010 I was the candidate for the election. The boundaries had been redrawn and Labor was the favourite to win in the electorate. Global warming and climate change were issues. I did not know what the answer was. But being an auctioneer my stock-in-trade is the people I know. I knew the then CEO of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, so I went down and I spoke to him about climate change. He explained to me in layman's terms about what it is and how it works. He convinced me that we should trust the science. So in all my conversations since 2010 with James Cook University, CSIRO, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science I have entered into these conversations by saying: 'We've got to understand the science. If we get good science to start off with, we're okay.'
During that campaign, Senator Ron Boswell, as only 'Bozzie' can, came and was ramping up—'They will close down the Coral Sea!' I was on a fishing show on 4K1G Too Deadly, a syndicated radio station all throughout the cape and around Townsville. It is a community radio station that has a fishing show on Saturday mornings. I was on there with the Fishing Party representative and the then Labor candidate for the seat of Herbert. He was adamant: 'There is no way known that we will close the Coral Sea. It is absolute rubbish that you guys are peddling. It is not going to happen.' He jumped up and down and he swore at me on the radio and said: 'This will not happen. I will cross the floor. We don't do that. That's not the Labor way. What we say before an election counts for what happens after.' That is what he said. We hit the boat ramps and the car parks. We went and saw everyone we could to make sure this message got across.
I got elected; I won the election. I took over from the sitting member, Peter Lindsay. I like a beer in a public bar. One public bar I frequent is in the Commonwealth Hotel. That is also frequented by the fishing fraternity. There are lots of fishing people there. Lots of people off trawlers drink there. I was sitting in the public bar there one day and a bloke came up to me and said: 'You're that bloke who just got elected, aren't you?' I said, 'Yes, I am.' He said: 'For the first time in my life I voted Liberal, I voted for the coalition. Do you know why? Because I don't believe they are not going to close down the Coral Sea.' How right he was.
Pretty soon we started getting emails from the Protect Our Coral Sea people. Once again we are guided by science straight out of James Cook University, Terry Hughes at the ARC down to the Australian Institute of Marine Science. I rang Russell Reichelt: 'Mate, where they're talking about the Coral Sea is not really about GBRMPA from where you are concerned because it is so far off. Don't worry too much about it from GBRMPA's point of view.' I went and spoke to John Gunn, the new CEO. He said, 'The problem we have with the Coral Sea is that there is so little real science done because it is so big.'
In fact, the only real science ever done there was when they used to put scientists on the Japanese fishing fleets that used to go through there, because it is so expensive to get there. From Townsville, from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, it takes about 36 to 48 hours, depending on the weather, to get to the area that has been proclaimed. That is how far away it is from Townsville. They used to put a scientist on a fishing boat to see what was pulled in, make their notes and go on from there. When we phased out the commercial Japanese fishing fleets in the 1980s that stopped and so did the science. Up until then we had no real science.
I keep hearing about the Pew Foundation and them being everywhere. I have checked with all my local science based organisations and they are not being engaged by the government in any way, shape or form on this. They are not being asked and they are not being engaged. The Pew Foundation comes to Townsville and spends a maximum of 48 hours in Townsville. They go to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, walk through the fantastic aquarium that is there, spend a couple of hours at James Cook University—they do not go down to the Australian Institute of Marine Science—and then they are out. Lo and behold, we get the world's biggest marine park. We get the biggest set of marine parks in the world.
The worst part about it is that straightaway the campaign to expand that starts from Protect Our Coral Sea. It has already started to expand. Immediately the minister said we are going to make this decision Protect Our Coral Sea started the campaign to expand it—more into the area of Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt. I want to touch briefly on the green and yellow zones. Once again, I am not a fisherman and I did not go to the meetings there. The member for Leichhardt was 100 per cent correct when he said that all the local fishermen were asked to nominate those areas where they went fishing and what we could not possibly lose and then they were made into green and yellow zones. Every fisherman was devastated by that. I have got blokes there now who still will not share a single bit of information with anybody about where they go just in case GBRMPA find out about it.
The one thing you must say, and the one thing I do say to every recreational fisherman, is that they work. The minister is 100 per cent correct when he says that we have got better coral trout. They do migrate. The yellow zones are better. There are things I would like to deal with on that, but that is for another time and not necessarily for tonight. There are things that we could do there. The green zones work.
The difference between what the minister has done here and what the Howard government did then is that Ian Macdonald and Peter Lindsay fronted the entertainment centre in Townsville, which is capable of holding 5,500 people and was pretty full of recreational fishermen who felt devastated. The Labor candidate against me in 2010 was the then Mayor of Townsville and he was front and centre leading the charge as to why this was wrong. That is what happens when you muck around with recreational fishermen. But they fronted, they made the decisions and the science was proven. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority proved that it worked and it has worked.
I say again that from Townsville the Coral Sea, the marine park, is a long way away, but if you ban commercial fishermen from being there the commercial fishermen will have to shift and over time they will put more stress on where the recreational fishermen go. The minister has stood at the dispatch box more than once and said that no-one in a tinny is going out to the Coral Sea, and that is 100 per cent correct. But if the commercial fishers are trawling beside you and netting beside you while you are sitting in your 5½-metre Quintrex that is a very uncomfortable place to be. That is what puts the pressure on the recreational fisher. That is why I say to the minister this motion should be carried—because of what the consequences are going to be and where we are going to go.
It is easy to close the Coral Sea. It is easy for people in the cities to just see the seas rolling and say: 'Yes, you can shut that up. There's nothing out there.' But you do not see what is in Townsville, what is in Mackay and what is on the wharves in Cairns. I hope the minister has been to the Solomon Islands to see the fishing tracking places they have set up there that track all the fishing vessels throughout the Pacific and the amount of fishing being done. They go right up to the boundaries and have tracking beacons on. Who is to say that, because we do not have any commercial fishing out there and do not patrol it, they do not just turn the beacon off, go in there and rape and pillage the place forever?
Even in the parliamentary dining room here the barramundi is from Taiwan. Senator Bill Heffernan asked the chef to bring out the box. He said it was from the southern part of the ocean
The box said 'Taiwan'. I can tell you right now, Minister: if you have ever tasted fresh barramundi you will know that stuff up there is not from North Queensland.
We need to protect our industries. We need to protect our things. So you see out there that there is no alliance and there are no jobs missing, but there are tonnes of good jobs and tonnes of dollars missing from Australia. This gets down to an argument about good government. This gets down to the fact that what you say before an election should mean something to the rest of the world after you are elected. There are two major things that this government said before an election that they would not do and that they have done. One is, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and look where that has got you. The second is, 'We will not shut down the Coral Sea.' That is what this government said, and look what they did. They are going to expand the area and the government simply does not care that the recreational fishing industry and the commercial fishing industry in North Queensland will be the losers. Australia is the loser if that happens.
I say to you, Minister, that you should let this motion pass. We should get rid of it. This is my Mr Smith Goes to Washington moment and, on the strength of my oratory and the passion of my cause, if I could go on all night I would. You must change this, Minister. The minister must allow this motion through, because this is right. This is what you and your government said before the election and if you want to change it you should take it to the people. You should take it to the people at the coming election. What you have done is not right. I thank the House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:31): I am very pleased that the minister is at the table to hear my contribution—
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: And what a contribution it will be, I hear him say. I would like to share with the minister and the House a couple of really interesting quotes:
Australia has a great record for when it comes to the sustainability of our fisheries, and these reports —
and I will refer to the reports in a minute—
are a fantastic information base for governments, researchers, fishers, industry and the community to work from to make sure that remains the case.
The person speaking says:
Fishing is a big part of Australian culture and is an important local industry for many communities around our coastline.
Those words are from the agriculture minister, Senator Joe Ludwig, and these are part of the first international snapshot of fish stocks, which was released on 11 December last year. More than 80 of the country's leading fisheries, researchers from Australian state and territory governments and research agencies collaborated to produce the reports, which assessed 49 species representing more than 80 per cent of the value and 70 per cent of the volume of Australian wildcatch fisheries. I am sure the minister is well aware of the reports to which I am referring. Of the 49 key wildcatch fish species selected, 150 stocks were assessed and 98 were classified as sustainable stocks. Only two stocks were classified as overfished and these have management plans in place for their recovery.
That is the first lot of quotes I would like to share with you. The second is another interesting one which I am sure the minister would also be well aware of:
We are a great food-producing nation and the old phraseology is that we could be the food bowl for Asia. That's an idea that's been around for a long time, but we can make that a reality. There are already seven billion people on earth and another two billion to be added by 2035 … in addition to that big increase in population the rising middle classes of Asia are demanding more high-protein foods. And for Australia that means more beef, more sheep meat and more dairy products.
Those words were uttered on 13 March last year by the trade minister, Craig Emerson.
Tonight, we are talking about a disallowance motion of the six management plans introduced into the House of Representatives and Senate on 12 March this year. The management plans are as follows: Coral Sea, North Commonwealth, North-West Commonwealth, South-east Commonwealth, South-west Commonwealth and Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves. This is the second disallowance motion I have spoken to in recent months. The minister would be well aware of the last disallowance motion I spoke on because that was to disallow the Murray-Darling Basin plan.
Mr Burke: You gave a great speech.
Mr McCORMACK: And it was a good speech. Thank you, Minister, I really appreciate it. I know he is being very genuine. That speech was on the last parliamentary sitting day of last year. Unfortunately, it did not receive the support of the House. Indeed, it was resoundingly defeated, but just by moving that particular motion I know that I got a guarantee from the coalition that we would, in government, cap buybacks to 1,500 gigalitres, which means that only 249 gigalitres remained to be recovered.
I know the minister has been to Griffith on at least three occasions this parliamentary term. I can recall him being there on 22 October 2010, 14 days after the release of initial guide to the Basin Plan; on 29 November 2011; and 15 December 2011, when 14,000 Griffith people turned up to protest against what they feared was going to be an erosion of their water rights. Certainly, this is all relative because we are talking about the erosion of the rights of fishers to fish in Australian waters. That is why this disallowance motion is so important, and that is why we are asking the government to agree with us on this.
We heard the member for Dawson give a very passionate address earlier. He is very concerned as well, not just for his electorate but for the rights of Australian fishers to be able to do what they have been doing for generations. It is an Australian right.
The Australian Marine Alliance highlighted in a 5 July 2012 media release—'United States' tuna purse-seine fleet steals the show in the Pacific as Labor and Greens relinquish support for Australian industry'—the relationship between the Australian Greens, the Gillard government and Australian industry and the fact that it had reached at that time a historic policy low. Goodness knows what that organisation would think now, because it has gotten progressively worse. Anyway, the chief executive of the Australian Marine Alliance, Dean Logan, said that, within days of the announcement to close millions of square kilometres of the ocean in the Coral Sea to Australian fishermen of all persuasions on the basis of protecting the environment, the massive USA tuna purse-seine fleet had agreed to pay Pacific Island countries US$630 million to catch in excess of four times Australia's total fish production in the same region—four times as much!
Mr Christensen: Unbelievable.
Mr McCORMACK: It is unbelievable. They are paying them US$630 million. We are imposing these restrictions on our own fishers, yet here we have a catch that will be four times Australia's total fish production.
The summary of the concerns of the AMA is that the government has not identified a single threat to substantiate large-scale marine closures. Here is an interesting statistic: Australia imports in excess of 70 per cent of its seafood, yet compensation for consumers and how to deal with our food security concerns have not been addressed in any way. We have heard that time and time again. We heard the shadow agriculture minister—more importantly, the shadow minister for food security—talk about the lack of consultation by this particular government on so many matters concerning agriculture. Again, here we have another example of the government's lack of or poor consultation with those affected in the industry. They do not care if people go out of business. That is the crux of the matter. They do not care about the farmers and the fishers of Australia. They just care about the cobbled way this government is held together by the so-called regional Independents and by the Greens.
To those people listening, I would say that the very worst Labor member is better than the best Greens member. I thought the parliamentary secretary at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, was going to interject on me. But he is not going to interject, because he knows what I say is true. To anybody listening, I would encourage them to put the Greens last on their ballot paper on 14 September. Put them last because they do nothing but damage our country. They are job destroyers. They hurt our farmers and they hurt our businesses. They have a social agenda which is un-Australian. I know the minister at the table, Minister Burke, and the parliamentary secretary beside him are in full agreement with me because otherwise they would be going to the dispatch box to tell me to get back on track.
This disallowance motion—
Mr Burke: They voted with you on the Murray-Darling.
Mr McCORMACK: That was only because they wanted more water. Yes, that was very interesting of them. If they had their way, things that they call 'diversions' and that we call roads, towns and bridges in the Riverina would be constraints on the Murray-Darling system. I am glad you raised that because, honestly, there are so many people who are worried that their farms are going to be flooded because of these environmental water plans that your government in conjunction with the Greens have put in place. It is just a disgrace. You know it, I know it and the member for Dawson certainly knows it.
We saw this last year in the debate about the supertrawler. We saw that that vessel was encouraged by this government to fish in Australian waters and, because of a social media campaign, the minister at the table acted, and all of a sudden we saw legislation to stop the supertrawler rushed into the House, along with all the other legislation that gets rushed into this House due to some knee-jerk reaction from this government. Honestly, if you want to get policy into this place, start up a Twitter campaign. Get on Twitter and bombard the government, because that is all they react to. It is not good public policy; it is Facebook and social media that are running this government. We saw it with the Four Corners program. Because it was on air on the ABC, all of a sudden the Prime Minister banned the live cattle trade. There was no consultation with industry. They just brought it in and industry is still feeling the full effects of that dreadful legislation.
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I hear the parliamentary secretary at the table calling out something. He has been promoted to a role in trade and, unfortunately, he is very against the live cattle trade. I can hear him saying something. Tell that to the Aboriginal stockmen who have been put out of their jobs. Tell that to the trailer manufacturer in my electorate who has had stock crate orders stopped from above. Tell that to the—
Mr Kelvin Thomson: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House is debating a disallowance motion concerning marine reserves. The member has spent something like 10 minutes talking about anything other than marine reserves. It might help if he got back to the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! The parliamentary secretary does point out a very valid matter. I ask the honourable member for Riverina to come back to the matter before the chair.
Mr McCORMACK: The truth hurts, Mr Deputy Speaker. Australia's fisheries are globally benchmarked and recognised as among the best managed anywhere in the world. Why then do we need to lock Australians out of our oceans? The coalition are committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. This government are not. They are government by social media.
Marine protected areas are meant to protect and maintain biologically and culturally significant marine areas in Commonwealth waters. But they are locking them up to everybody. It is a shame we do not lock up some of our northern waters to the 42,000 boat people who have arrived on our shores. It was the previous coalition government that began the process of establishing marine protected areas around Australia's coastline, in line with Australia's internationally declared commitments. But this move by the government goes a step too far. It is locking up so much more of the ocean. The coalition guided the development of the south-east marine bioregional plan, which was formalised in 2006—and I know that the minister brought this point to question time today. It includes a network of 14 marine reserves, which were agreed after careful consideration and consultation—note that, Minister Burke: careful consideration and consultation, something that the minister's side of politics ought to learn from—with all stakeholders, including the recreational and commercial fishing sectors.
But the Gillard government does not have a track record of effective consultation. We heard the member for Calare say that. This consultation, back in 2006, ensured an appropriate balance was struck between protecting marine biodiversity and minimising the social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and coastal communities and achieving better outcomes. The final result was a larger area protected with less impact on industry.
I know that the minister at the table is extremely keen about regional areas, even though he was the architect of dismantling the single wheat desk, he was the architect of a bad Murray-Darling basin plan and, if this disallowance motion is not passed, he will be the architect of locking up Australia's marine reserves. But I was not aware that Canterbury City Council and the seat of Watson were actually a region. But indeed they are, because in the projects just announced in round 4 of the Regional Development Australia Fund we see that his—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will come back to the matter before the chair and not bring in matters that are not relevant to the disallowance motion.
Mr McCORMACK: Thank you, but RDAF is spending $4 million of—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The matter before the chair is about this disallowance motion, and I ask the honourable member to come back to that matter.
Mr McCORMACK: Okay. I think this disallowance motion needs to be supported. It is important for the regions—regions which are not included in the seat of Lalor, are not included in the seat of Ballarat and certainly not included in the seat of Watson
Mr Kelvin Thomson: Not included in yours either!
Mr McCORMACK: No, they are not included in mine. But I care about regional people and I care about coastal communities, because I know that my colleague here, the member for Dawson, represents one of them. And I certainly care about the fishers of Australia. I do not like to see $19.845 million in RDAF funding spent on seats such as Watson, on the Prime Minister's seat and certainly on seats such as Ballarat, where the member has only just received a role through the latest round of Labor shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Probably Titanic II will also be locked out of the marine coastal areas.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (19:46): It has been an interesting debate—at times, a test of patience, but an interesting debate that we have had on this. There has been some terrible and extraordinary misleading that has happened during this discussion. Let me deal with a couple of those issues first.
The first thing is that I have made clear for a long time in this parliament that the Commonwealth water areas where new protected areas were put in place in Western Australia were closer to shore. They were still in Commonwealth waters—certainly not at the beach line—but were closer to shore. The ones on the east coast and the rest of Australia were further from shore—some hundreds of kilometres, most of them. The ones in Queensland are a very long way from shore—a significant number of hundreds of kilometres before you get out into the areas where you cannot fish.
A number of speakers have sought to take issue with that, and they have referred to a number of areas that they found where there are protections. They have referred to areas in Tasmania—Freycinet was one that was quoted a couple of times in the speeches that we heard. True: closer to shore—but a restriction put in place by the Howard government. The area off Port Macquarie known as the Cod Grounds was put forward as an area. Yes—that one is close to shore. I was told that it was a very popular fishing spot for people near Port Macquarie, true. But it was put in place as a restriction in 2007 by the Howard government. We were then also told about the Solitary islands being one of the places—that they were closer to shore. Yes, and that restriction was put in place in 1993, and yet that is being argued by those opposite as though it is something brand-new that we are seeing for the first time now.
The truth of what has been done in the bioregional planning and the establishment of marine national parks is that we were determined, first of all, to get the science to identify the different bioregions—to identify the different sorts of environments and features that there were within the ocean. Then, whenever we could get that same area captured as environmentally protected—whenever we could get the same environmental outcome, but do it in a way that had less impact on recreational fishers and less impact on commercial fishing—we took that option. And I make no apology for taking that option. I do not know how anyone can say that there is a lack of scientific rigour if the process you follow is to say, 'We'll get the scientific data to identify the different features and to identify the bioregions, and then we will try to get the same environmental outcome while minimising the impact on people.' That is the right way to conduct your consultation; that is good public policy. It is something which people have pretended did not occur.
So we had extraordinary claims about the Perth Canyon, and a claim raised by the member for Dawson where he was saying, 'Here is evidence that there was no science.' I will tell you exactly what happened: the geographical feature and the nature of the bioregion was for the Perth Canyon. It is underwater, but larger than the Grand Canyon. If it were on land it would be known by all Australians—an extraordinary area. But there are three heads to the canyon, so the science identified the bioregional values of those three heads. But each of the three heads of the canyon had similar environmental values, so we said to the commercial fishing industry and we said to the recreational fishing industry: 'So long as one of these three heads goes into a high level of protection, or the areas around it, we get the environmental outcome. Do you have a preference as to which of the three?' I make no apology for making that offered to the commercials and to the recs. The commercial fishers came back and they said: 'Well, actually, there is one of those three heads that would have less impact on us. We would prefer that you chose that one.' The recs came back and the recreational fishing bodies said: 'We will not tell you which one. We will not provide you with that information'. So the one that went into highly protected was the one that the commercial industry had said was their preference to go into highly protected. And that is what happened. Then, afterwards, the recreational organisations came back and said: 'Oh, look, by the way, maybe we don't actually like the one you picked. Can we now have a talk about it?' The whole value of consultation is when people talk back. And it is a bit much to have the recreational sector from WA—or a minority of the recreational sector of WA—claiming that is evidence of lack of consultation, when it is the exact opposite. And do not pretend that it is evidence of lack of science, because the scientific values of the three heads of that canyon all matched up.
We had a similar situation with Geographe Bay. Geographe Bay in Western Australia is an area which is very popular for recreational fishers, and it is often the example that people point to where it is closer to shore. On the original maps that we had for the bioregions, much of the seagrass across that bay had similar environmental values. But when the recreational fishers came to us they showed us the locations of the boat ramps and they said, 'We don't want you to do anything but, if you are going to move these lines around that you have at the moment, can you do it in a way that they move away from where our boat ramp is, because at the moment you are going straight across in front of it.' So the lines were adjusted—not through a lack of scientific rigour, because the scientific values matched up no matter where you chose within that region; but through good consultation we made sure that we moved them to minimise the impact. That is the right way to conduct your processes.
As the member for Riverina probably knows better than most, I do not shy away from turning up to hostile public meetings. I know that the shadow minister for the environment wanted me to turn up to this one, in this photo, which he had advertised as having 1,000 people in attendance. Unless there is some strange game of people hiding behind cars the moment the camera turned up, that is not a rally of 1,000—and I table the photo. I would advise the shadow minister for the environment to spend some time with the member for Riverina: he knows how to run a demo. Also, don't pick a site that is 460 kilometres away from the nearest area that is locked up for recreational fishing. Not only is it 460 kilometres away; that is the nearest one, and that was put there by the Howard government.
The other argument that has been put consistently in the speeches we have heard from the opposition is that there is a lack of science. The shadow minister for agriculture, who has just returned to the room, right on cue—
Mr McCormack: He's a good man too!
Mr BURKE: Yes, I actually like him. He had a great sight gag when he said, 'I want to talk to you about the science.' For people listening on the radio—as I am sure he had good ratings while he was speaking—I can tell you that as he flicked through the pages he then had some blank pages in the middle so he could say, 'Oh, there was no science!' I then asked for the scientific studies, many of which were commenced under the Howard government, on which this work was based to be brought into the chamber so that people can see exactly what the opposition is claiming does not exist.
This is the scientific work that has been going on, some of which was commenced shortly after this process began. We are talking about a process which has been going for 20 years, a process that continued for the whole of the life of the Howard government. Many of these documents that I have brought into the chamber at the moment are documents which are simply large references for other documents which are not here but go further with the scientific rigour. After all of this, I am not sure what we have to do to avoid an accusation from the opposition that there is no science—and I am glad I am tall; otherwise I would now be out of the camera frame. This pile of documents represents the first cut of the scientific information on which these maps were based, where we identified the bioregions, where we looked at what was the environmental outcome to properly protect the oceans in Commonwealth waters around Australia. Yet those opposite still have the audacity to come in here and, I have to say, in the face of a mountain of documents like that, to lie and claim that no such documents exist.
Mr John Cobb: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for that to be withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! The honourable member would like the word 'lie' to be withdrawn.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw. But, as testament to the truth of what I have just said about the science existing, I have just been warned by member for Paterson that if I leave these here they are heavy enough that they might break the dispatch box.
Mr Baldwin: Table them.
Mr BURKE: They are all publicly available; some of them were previously tabled by the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth has his photo in one of those documents, proclaiming it as an example of good science.
The other argument that we had from those opposite was that there was no consultation. What they have conveniently done is only refer to round 5 of the five rounds of consultation, and they have said it went for 30 days and that industry wanted it to go the 90. Why were those opposite wanting it to go for 90? There is one reason, and one reason only, they wanted it to go for 90 days: so that the disallowance period would go right to the end of the year. That is the only reason, because those who had been engaged had been engaged for years in this process, with five rounds of consultation. Against that was a situation where the different arguments had been put, there were rounds of consultation I had attended personally, roadshows and full days where people would come in at community meetings and meet directly with my department and work through the different issues, and three-quarters of a million submissions. Yet even though my department specifically disaggregated those submissions so that it was clear which ones were campaign submissions, which ones were individually written, which ones came with detailed scientific back-up from peak bodies and things like that—even though that disaggregation was provided and fully documented—people opposite had the audacity in this debate to pretend that that never occurred and to say that the three-quarters of a million were all presented as though they were all the same. That is fundamentally untrue, but that has characterised the entire argument we have had from those opposite.
During this debate, I heard the member for Dawson expressing shame about the Howard government's actions on the Great Barrier Reef—and I will give him points for at least being honest on that. But the member for Dawson also said, 'The Coral Sea is closed to all forms of fishing.' That is just factually untrue.
Mr Christensen: Do you want to see the map? Have a look at the map.
Mr BURKE: That is just factually untrue. The whole concept of multiple-use zones is that various forms of fishing are allowed and some things are excluded. So that was fundamentally untrue—and he is holding up the map where you will see the different colours. I should ask him to table the iPad! If you go through the map there you have a situation where you have large multiple-use zones. Don't forget as well that as a result of the consultation, where the charter industry in particular wanted to make sure that where there is that line of reefs—starting north at Osprey, down through Shark Reef, down to Vema Reef—they got better access to that. What did we do? We made sure that, once you got south of the major dive sites, the contours of the boundaries went right into very closely matching the contours of the reef itself. Shark itself got recoloured from green to gold so that it came in as an area open to recreational fishing. But, according to those opposite and according to this debate, none of these changes happened. According to those opposite, every detail, every part of consultation that I have gone through, every part of the scientific research that has been happening for more than a decade—none of that ever occurred.
Mr Baldwin: Why is the industry offside?
Mr BURKE: None of that ever occurred, in the eyes of those opposite. Within 100 kilometres of Australia's coastline, 96 per cent of our Commonwealth waters remain completely open to recreational fishing. I repeat: within 100 kilometres of our coastline, 96 per cent. Yet those opposite go and hold rallies trying to scare local fishers, without letting them know that the nearest no-take zone is 460 kilometres away—and it was put there by a Liberal government. This debate from those opposite has had deception every way through it.
There has been deception in every part of how they have argued it. But no-one should be deceived by the two other facts though, that marine protected areas work. In the Great Barrier Reef, where you have the multiple-use zones where rec fishing is allowed but commercial has been taken out, coral trout numbers tripled from what they otherwise are, but where you get the areas that are completely highly protected it goes to six times. In the areas that are highly protected as well, the crown of thorn numbers go down because you have got the improvement in biodiversity, and those crown of thorns numbers go down to a quarter of what they otherwise are. Lots of people have wanted to talk about fisheries management science. Fisheries management science is important, but it does not protect habitat, and what this is about when you establish a national park in the ocean is that you do not only protect individual species; you protect the habitat itself, and that gives you a way in which the fish species bounce back like they otherwise would not.
But be in no doubt: in the vote that we are shortly going to have, all of that is at risk and exclusions that have been part of these plans go out the window as well. We have before us plans that prohibited drilling in the Coral Sea. That gets disallowed if the vote goes through. We have rules here that prohibited drilling off the Margaret River area. That disappears as a prohibition if this goes through. We have areas that are highly protected—all of that out the window if this goes through.
But I am glad one thing in this debate. Those opposite kept referring to the super trawler. They are right. They have absolute consistency when the choice is whether or not you protect the ocean. Their choice is not to—our choice is to protect the ocean.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (20:01): In summing up the debate, there is one thing that is repeated time after time whether it is by members of the coalition, Independents or whoever it might be. The actual consultation with the industry, be it the fishing industry commercially or be it the recreational fishermen, being given 30 days to look at this was simply not sufficient. The minister is very strongly saying that what he has done—these six management plans—really are not going to have much effect at all. They are not such a big deal. If that is true, why are both the commercial fishermen and the recreational fishermen so totally opposed to these six management plans?
Quite apart from the consultation and the science—and, yes, the minister is quite right, I did turn over three blank pages—there was nothing about science on them and there is nothing about science in this. The minister's own staff confessed that they did not have very much knowledge, and one of his people who was in charge—and I think it was the Coral area from memory—actually said that he did not have the money within his department to do it, and they did not do it. So how can he stand there and keep reiterating that we have done the science and that it is not such a big deal? I keep repeating that if it is not such a big deal why are those whose livelihoods and those whose enjoyment depend upon these areas so totally opposed to what he wants to do?
The three fundamental steps that must be taken in order for an area to be adequately and appropriately protected have not been systematically applied to the declaration of Australia's marine protected areas. Firstly, and I will repeat them again: all significant threats must be identified—article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity; second, the process that constitutes these threats must be addressed—EPBC Act, Commonwealth of Australia, 1999; and, third, the management action that is taken must not be disproportionate to the significance of the environmental problems—Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, Governments of Australia 1992. These are almost entirely Australian, Australia's own laws, Australia's own requirements and, as our American professor said, they must be done.
As I said earlier, while the minister does not seem to want to go there, his own department admitted that marine parks had to go somewhere, and there is no science behind the proposed lock-up. I will conclude here, but I will conclude by repeating once again: if this is so minor, if it is going to have so little effect on commercial and recreational fishermen, why are they so totally opposed to it?
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Coral Sea Commonwealth Maritime Reserve Network Management Plan 2014-24 be disallowed.
The House divided. [20:10]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
North-West Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
The SPEAKER (20:17): In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this sitting, I will now put the question. The question is that the North-West Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-24 be disallowed.
The House divided. [20:18]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
The SPEAKER (20:20): In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this sitting, I will now put the question. The question is that the North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-24 be disallowed.
The House divided [20:21]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
South-West Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
The SPEAKER (20:22): In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I will now put the question. The question is that the South-West Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024 be disallowed.
The House divided. [20:24]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
South-East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
The SPEAKER (20:25): In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question. The question is that the South-East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2013-2023 be disallowed.
The House divided. [20:26]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan
Disallowance
The SPEAKER (20:27): In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question. The question is that the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024 be disallowed.
The House divided. [20:28]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
BILLS
Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (20:30): This has been a government that has been engaged in a debate with private health cover ever since they came to power. They were quite happy to make promises before an election. Now they have steadily, progressively nickel and dimed the 10.7 million Australians who take control and fund some of their own health cover. The 30 per cent health rebate, the lifetime health cover and the community rating are the three legs upon which private health cover now covers more than half of Australia's population but one side of politics does not have the foresight and the vision to allow the public health system to be sustained.
Many parts of the world have moved on from this puerile and petty debate, this class warfare and this hatred of anyone looking after their own health care. Go through most parts of Europe: they acknowledge that there are two sectors that working together can look after the health of the citizenry. But that is not the case here in Australia. We are engaged in a multi-decade fatwa against private health cover, on the one hand building up 12 new bureaucracies costing a billion dollars over the forward estimates to run and on the other hand ripping money out of the MYEFO retrospectively. What a curious act from a Labor government that since the mid-2000s has engaged in criticising this opposition about ripping money out of health care because they did not increase it as fast as they had in the previous government agreement.
Now the government have the duplicity and the hypocrisy to come in and rip money out of state hospital budgets to the tune of $1.6 billion when that money is already committed and promised. It has already been transferred to state governments. It is already paying the wages of doctors and nurses. Then they tell you in this futile and desperate struggle to come up with a budget surplus—that ephemeral and ultimately futile and impossible budget surplus that they had to rip money out of public hospitals. What foolish and short-sighted conduct these health ministers have engaged in. Let us run it through just one more time. We are not talking about forward estimates. We are talking about money already transferred—ching, ching—already in the bank account, already paying the salaries of nurses and doctors and that money has been removed.
Ms Plibersek: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member is both wrong and irrelevant. I ask you to call him back to the legislation being discussed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ): Order! I ask the member for Bowman to return to the legislation at hand.
Mr LAMING: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have made my point. On the one hand, there has been nickel and dining of the 10.7 million Australians. For every $2.60 they put into private health cover to take responsibility for their own health care, the government puts in an additional dollar and says, 'Thank you.'
We are in a nation where if we want to redistribute income, we use a tax system—progressive income and company tax. But when it comes to social services, we deliver to those in need. We deliver health services to the sick, educational services to those who need education and childcare services to those who have children but not to this government. This is about an attack on everyday Australians who pay their way in the tax system and then want to fund their own health care. It is a simple proposal that most nations have moved on with but the fatwa continues on the other side of the chamber.
This is a government that has sought to downgrade the value proposition for caring for your own health care. I can understand there is one story and one narrative in the cities, but let us also remember there are regional Australians who are far away often from healthcare providers and private hospitals. They do not have the same value proposition to keep their private health cover, do they? Instead, we have seen relentless attack that is hitting regional Australians first because they are the ones most likely to drop or downgrade their cover or seek out exclusions so that it remains affordable.
Let us look at the detail of the bill. The one that concerns me greatest is the removal of the 30 per cent rebate from the lifetime health cover component. This is the extra amount one pays for one's private health cover if you do not take it out from the age of 30. That premium is increased by two per cent for every year of life after 30 years of age that you fail to take out private cover—a maximum of a 70 per cent loading—and that can continue for 10 years after you take out the cover.
Let me hypothetically paint a picture for you of a couple that did take it out late in life—five years too late perhaps. They have paid 10 per cent for nine years and now we have the nickel and diming from a government that has never ever trusted someone to fend for themselves and pay for their own private health cover. They are at risk of dropping and downgrading when they are only a few years away from actually having that whole lifetime health cover removed and the premiums becoming more affordable. Let us take another instance: living in a small country town where there are perhaps one or two private providers, no private hospital. So you are paying these large amounts of private health cover but effectively not being able to access as many of the services.
Every time a family makes a tough decision around the kitchen table, the father speaking with the mother about whether to cover the family for another year or so, looking at the increasing private health insurance costs, they are now being slugged by a government that has found every tricky way in the book to make it harder for those families. Those 10.7 million Australians will not forget this. Many of them are low income earners, they are not all the high-flyers. I guess this other side of politics tends to forget that. The first thing that they will do in a conversation across the kitchen table is say, 'How can we keep our private cover to know that we will always have some access to hospital if something calamitous occurs?' The first thing that will drop will be the extras—and that just sounds fine to this government, doesn't it.
That is until you remember that the local private physiotherapist, the local OT and the local pharmacist in town are in many cases supported by people who pay the extra, who have a much higher Medicare safety net and in many cases will only use those private covers if they are insured. Up to 50 to 60 per cent of the work of the local physiotherapist in town is private. They do an amazing service and they reduce the need for country Australians to travel down to the big cities. Once you erode the value proposition for private health that whole exquisite balance that has been achieved over two decades of hard work by governments prior to this one is eroded. People ultimately lose a general practitioner. Let us not forget that. It is the very presence of a general practitioner in town that supports all of the allied health workers around that GP and that is being undermined. Right across this country, the impact of this legislation is for Australians to say, desperately, in an eye-to-eye conversation: 'How can we keep our cover? We've been in it for this long.' The punishment is significant, the uncertainty is incomprehensible if we do not keep our private cover, and you have a government that is doing everything it can to undermine that.
To put it in the simplest possible terms: what we have is a government that came to power in 2007 but in that time has really fixed no problem in the health system. I can make a list of all the challenges the Australian health system faces and, after all these reforms, we still have them today. And that may well be the long-forgotten epitaph that is written when we consider the health performance of this government. Sure it was good at the back-end financial dealings in restructuring our health system, but it never got to the front line to work out what it takes to keep practitioners and providers supported and to keep Australians with private health cover.
I concede that so far the numbers pulling out have not been as high as they could have been—the reason for that is simple: there are significant penalties to pulling out—but watch for the downgrading. The downgrading of cover is something where we cannot trust the modelling that has being done. We do not accept the modelling that has been put together, and I think that even with these changes they are yet to feel them because $1.2 billion was prepaid and none of these people have faced increases in their premiums yet.
But this is a government that does not see more than five minutes into the political future. It is quite happy to make financial commitments for the year 2017, when it is unlikely any of its members will be around, but it does not govern for today. It does not look after today's families, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that it completely forgot health reform through the GFC period. It did not invest a single cent of the stimulus package in health. And now, with its private health cover, in a futile and late attempt to fund a government surplus—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bowman will resume his seat.
Mr Dutton: How can this not be relevant?
Ms Plibersek: He is talking about the GFC and the Health and Hospitals Fund. It is so way off private health insurance. If he has got nothing else to say, he should sit down.
Mr Dutton: That's not a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please be silent. Minister?
Ms Plibersek: Deputy Speaker, I just made the point that if the member has run out of things to say about private health insurance, he can sit down and we can all go home a bit earlier.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bowman has the call.
Mr LAMING: Thank you. We are moving into the inane here. There is a significant history here of a tax on private health cover, and there is a complete record of commitments that have been made by that side of politics never to touch the private health rebate. Why are we here today if we could believe a single word that came out of the mouths of the leaders of that side of politics? The truth is we cannot. The truth is it has always had a vendetta against people who care for and fund their health cover, and we think that is highly regrettable.
I can appreciate if those over there fundamentally do not like people who want to pay for their own health cover. That is okay; that is something for their caucus and their policy. But there are 10 million Australians quietly taking notes on what is happening tonight, and they will not forget. They will not forget that at every opportunity those opposite took a chance to reduce private health cover and to make it way less affordable. I know that premiums go up every year, and that is simply a reflection of increasing health costs. But you need to be able to look your own government in the eye and say, 'If you won't touch private health cover, give me the confidence that you won't do a double deal on us.' But in fact that is not what has occurred. What has occurred is an attack on a 30 per cent rebate with means-testing. We have now seen an attack on Lifetime Health Cover, all of this in the spurious and ultimately futile attempt to run a budget surplus.
The great question is: now that you have waved the white flag on a budget surplus, why are we persisting with these minute changes to try to save a little bit of money off the people who pay for their own private health cover? I would be happy to contemplate some of these propositions if those opposite were running the public health system better, but the great fear of most Australians now is that is not the case. The COAG Reform Council has clearly said that there have been no improvements in waiting times for operations over the period of this government. And the government will tell you that is because some other party removed some of their funding. Isn't it possible to write up an agreement that locks in those jurisdictions? No, these agreements were not sophisticated enough, and this is a federal government that has basically been seeing additional money being committed with no difference for Australians.
The great concern here when you are taking private health cover is this: I am hoping not to have to leave my footprints in the public system; I hope to fend for myself, pay my own way and be more self-reliant. That is something that needs to be supported. It always will be by this side of politics. There are 10.7 million Australians who look to us to fight for those who fend for themselves. And of course we support a decent public hospital system. Of course we support workers on the front line. But the latest extraordinary proposition is that we have 3,000 people now working in Medicare Locals around the country, of which apparently 80 per cent of them are front line. What is the definition of 'front line'? This is money that is being devoted to Medicare Locals that potentially is meant to be improving primary health care. I would like to see evidence of where the money that is being collected here, in this attempt by the government to steal from the pockets of those who are privately covered, is going to be invested, because there is no cogent and convincing explanation that that money is leading to either better public health or hospitals.
In conclusion, this is a government that tends to mess up everything it tinkers with. It is a government that promises not to do something and then does it. And it is a government that, fundamentally, inherited a series of challenges that all health systems have. In the end we may well see by 14 September, in a retrospective look at what has changed in our health system, plenty of administrative changes, plenty of health reform by press release, but ultimately this health system will carry on. The same challenges it had in 2007 it is still vexed with in 2013. The only difference will be life will be far tougher for those who have attempted to pay their own way and fund their own private health cover.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ): I call the member for New England.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (20:43): Lyne, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Lyne! Sorry!
Mr OAKESHOTT: You're right; I'm not sure whether it is named after you in the chair, but it is a good name. Named after Sir William Lyne.
An opposition member: Are you offended?
Mr OAKESHOTT: I am not offended.
These issues in respect of the balance between public and private health are always some of the more challenging ones when they come before this chamber. Anyone who believes the nostalgia that there is such a thing as universal public healthcare system I hope, with debates such as these, would be left in no doubt that they are exactly that—that is, nostalgia. There has to be a balance between public health care and private health care in Australia. I hope that is a shared commitment from all members in this chamber. It is very much a judgement call of getting the balance right between the two.
The previous speaker, indeed, assisted me when he made the comment that in his view these were somewhat 'minute changes'. It confirmed some concerns about various aspects in both of these bills that I may personally have. I am very aware that there are some in the private health industry and in households who do believe that they are paying too much for their private health cover. I have also been watching very closely the statistics on private health insurance to see whether or not there is continued growth in the industry and to try and get the best read possible as an observer of the industry on what is happening with dropouts, take-ups and movements within membership packages and whether that does sit alongside the public system in making what I would consider Australia to have—that is, the world's best health system. What we are arguing about tonight when it comes to health care is not anything to do with Third World conditions; we are arguing about a level of excellence in health care that, again, I hope everyone in this chamber acknowledges and celebrates as to the level of care that we have got in both public and private health care.
I am also very conscious that Australia's health economics does remain unsustainable and many difficult decisions have to be made by all governments if we are to have a sustainable health system with an ageing population. I understand that next year, 2014, an intergenerational report is due. My view is that that will say what the others have said: we have a huge ageing bubble coming through and public policy on so many fronts is not treating with urgency many of those challenges faced by the ageing bubble that is coming through. At the front end of those challenges is Australia's healthcare system.
I will be supporting both of these bills, as I do think that we need to do more in regard to the sustainability of health economics in Australia. I do so with a continued eye on the figures that come out in regard to membership and profits in the private health sector and the question of whether there is continued growth in issues like infrastructure and services in regional communities that rely on the balance between public and private health care being right.
The final point I want to make is in that regard. We have an excellent expansion going on of the public hospital in one location I represent, Port Macquarie, where a combination of Commonwealth and state work and money—$96 million from the Commonwealth and $14 million from the state—is seeing a significant expansion of Port Macquarie Base Hospital with what is known as the fourth and the fifth wings currently under construction. Next to that, as well, we have some excellent expansion work with the Joint Health Education Facility, which is bringing together a range of education providers. The University of New South Wales is leading on the project. They say that this is a first for regional Australia, bringing together TAFE and several universities—including the University of Newcastle and the University of New South Wales—to deliver a range of health services and courses with the lead being a Bachelor of Medicine from first through to sixth year at the one location. That is an exciting project that is underway, and we continue to see expansion in a range of services within existing infrastructure.
Right next to the hospital, though, is a block of land that in 2002 was sold by the local council to an individual on, effectively, a promise that a 100-bed private hospital would be built next to the public facility in an exercise of getting the balance right and dealing with the growth in regional community. Four years later that was on-sold at a profit of $1 million. That is now being purchased by the majority private health provider within our community. In many people's views, including mine, it is being bought to sit on to prevent any growth in the number of private beds and the actual delivery of the council facility that they sold the land for and rezoned for, which was the promise of a 100-bed private facility. It is disappointing that, through that journey of 11 years, what started as a horse in a paddock next to a hospital is still a horse in a paddock next to a hospital.
If we are about getting the balance right, I would just urge Minister Plibersek at the table to talk to state colleagues and private providers to actually deliver on the aspirations of a community—that is, for a council which rezoned and sold a block of land to deliver a community a 100-bed hospital to ensure that we actually get it and that a private individual does not make a million bucks and the main private healthcare provider in town does not just buy out the facility to control market share. That is not community building in any way and does not assist community growth and health care in any way.
I would hope that that could be explored by the minister and that we can get a resolution to what should be a really good private facility sitting alongside some very exciting public upgrades at the hospital and university and education upgrades in health degrees happening alongside the hospital. That would make it a fantastic all-round reflection of a growing community, dreaming big and doing what it can to meet its large demands as an exciting regional growing community. But, as far as the substance of these two bills goes, they are supported, they are judgement calls and I hope we can get health economics on a more sustainable footing sometime soon.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (20:52): I rise today to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 with much sorrow because it is, unfortunately, yet another nail in the coffin of private health insurance in this country. Why have private health insurance? A former very excellent health minister understood the reasons. Dr Michael Wooldridge knew that, by having and encouraging private health insurance, you would encourage people to be more self-reliant, you would allow people to make choices about their health care and their health providers, you would give them flexibility in that choice and, importantly, you would take pressure off the public health system.
This is not something the government have ever understood; in fact, it is certainly not something they have ever been committed to. Despite all of the rhetoric—and let me just give you a bit of a history lesson on that—it is something the government have been philosophically opposed to from day one. The Prime Minister said:
Labor is committed to the maintenance of this rebate—
the private health insurance rebate—
and I have given an iron-clad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.
She also went on to say, when comparing herself to Tony Abbott:
On Thursday, October 13, the Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, asserted in parliament that prior to the last election, I had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate and he cited Mark Latham’s diaries as proof of this proposition. Yesterday, Matt Price reported this claim by the minister as if it were a fact. The claim by the minister is completely untrue and should not have been reported as if it were true. The truth is that I never had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate, and contrary to Mr Latham's diaries, do not support such a claim … For all Australians who wanted to have private health insurance, the private health insurance rebate would have remained under a Labor government. I gave an iron-clad guarantee of that during the election. The difference between Tony "rock solid, iron-clad" Abbott and me is that when I make an "iron-clad commitment", I actually intend on keeping it.”
I think we all know from the bills tonight and from what the government has done to private health insurance that this certainly is not true. We know that this government has been intent on pulling apart the private health insurance rebate and making health insurance more expensive for Australians.
The people of Higgins will be hit very hard by this. About 83 per cent of the people in my electorate have private health insurance. This means that more than 80 per cent of my electorate see the value in being self-reliant, taking pressure off the public health system through their taking out of private health insurance. I am constantly canvassing my electorate for their views and opinions. I do this in a number of ways—through mobile office meetings, through community forums and in particular through communitywide surveys. In my two very large communitywide surveys right across the electorate, private health insurance rebates are always at the very top of their concerns.
These changes, though, will affect not just those people with private health insurance but also those people who do not have private health insurance. What the government stubbornly refuses to accept is that, when people abandon the private sector due to increased costs, the burden is shifted to the already stretched public health system, to our already stretched hospitals, which in Victoria have also taken another hit from this government when it ripped out $107 million of hospital funding. In addition to the higher premiums, it actually puts private health out of the reach of the average Australian.
The government have said that this will have no impact whatsoever on the number of people who have private health insurance nor on the public health system, but they cannot say that with any knowledge or understanding, because the real impact of these changes will not be felt for another 12 months. The Private Health Insurance Administration Council has reported that there were $1.2 billion in prepayments in the June quarter so as to take advantage of the 30 per cent rebate. Many policyholders prepaid for 12 months or more, delaying the pain of Labor's cuts. The government should be encouraging people to take out private health insurance, not making it more difficult. They should be striving to encourage more choice, not limiting it.
Make no mistake: the government ripping more than $4 billion out of private health insurance is nothing more than a tax grab to shore up their budget bottom line, and they have done that in the knowledge that they are finally fulfilling their philosophical dream to take apart the private health insurance system. The problem is that this government does not appreciate that 12.5 million Australians have private health insurance. It is not just those people who this government claims are wealthy; it is people on lower incomes as well. There are 5.6 million people with private health insurance who have an annual household income of less than $50,000 and 3.4 million of those people have an annual household income of less than $35,000. The government's increase to the cost of private health insurance will hit those people. They will hurt everyday Australians by raising the cost of living and hitting their hip pocket.
So why is the government introducing these bills? Why is it putting more pressure on our hospital system and why is it encouraging people who do have private health insurance to downgrade their cover? It is doing so because of its philosophical objection, as I have said, but also because of its utter mismanagement of our economy. This is a government that inherited no net debt. We had taken the time to pay off $96 billion of Labor's debt but we did more than that. In delivering surplus after surplus, we put some money aside into the Future Fund—
Ms Plibersek: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am wondering whether the speaker has run out of things to talk about when it comes to private health insurance. Could she return to the legislation?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ): The member for Higgins has the call.
Ms O'DWYER: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am simply trying to educate the minister that it is as a result of the fiscal mismanagement of this government that we find ourselves in a position where this bill is being brought before the House. As I was explaining to the minister—and she may learn something if she does listen to this point—the previous coalition government in delivering record surplus after surplus was actually able to put enough money away into a Future Fund to help cover the contingent liabilities of our public servants—$70 billion in net assets. What this government is doing, though, is that it has been accumulating more than $192 billion in deficits and it has promised another two deficits, which will add up to more than $220 billion. But we know we cannot rely on the Treasurer's figures. We know there will probably be bigger blow-outs than that if the Treasurer is still in his job after 14 September. More than that, we have more than $300 billion of gross debt, and counting. It is quite wrong that Australians are having to pay for the government's incompetence. They are having to pay for this government's incompetence through higher costs and through higher costs to their private health insurance rebates.
The government have coupled the bill that will index the private health insurance policy base premium by the lesser of CPI percentage change or the change of the premium charged by a private health insurer with a bill introduced last year—the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012. There is only one reason why they would do this—that is, to avoid scrutiny and to try to force it through parliament even more quickly. It is because they know that the changes to lifetime health cover in this bill will increase premiums by up to a reported 27.5 per cent on 1 July 2013. I stress again: an increase of up to 27.5 per cent on 1 July 2013. They are reneging on another promise despite their iron-clad guarantee. They are going to increase the cost of living for all Australians and there is no smoke-and-mirrors spin that they can use to disguise that fact.
It is only the coalition that understands the need for a strong and accessible private health system to ensure that the public health system remains viable and sustainable. After all, it was the coalition government's private health insurance reforms in the form of rebates, the Medicare levy surcharge and lifetime health cover that saw the number of people with private health insurance increase 75 per cent from 6.1 million to over 10.7 million, consequently alleviating stress and strain on the public sector, which was then at breaking point.
That is why only the coalition has committed to restoring the private health insurance rebates once we can responsibly do that. It is only the coalition that understands that choice in health care should not just be for the elite, the wealthy, the rich—however it is that the government would like to choose to term the phrase—but instead is accessible to all those who wish to provide options for themselves and for their families. It is only the coalition that will again deliver hope, reward and opportunity for all.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (21:04): I rise to sum up on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013. It has been extraordinary listening to the contributions of those opposite. If you listened to the contributions, you would not know that they are actually supporting one of these pieces of legislation. The extraordinary comments of the previous member missed the point entirely.
I thank the members of the opposition and, indeed, the members of the crossbenches who will be supporting the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013. It is very important legislation. It makes our continued contribution to private health insurance affordable into the future and it also allows us to pay for some very important commitments we have made in dental care to pay for kids' dental needs—our Grow Up Smiling program with $1,000 worth of dental care for every child and the family tax benefit A for 3.4 million children, who will find it as easy to see a dentist as it is now to see a doctor—and DisabilityCare Australia, another huge change and as big a change as the introduction of Medicare was.
I am also very pleased that members who are supporting the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 understand that if you back these important spends in disability and dental then you have to back the saves. What we have opposite are members who have had five different positions in a month on private health insurance. They have backed one save; they have not backed the other save, for no apparent active logical consistency other than that one shadow minister had to win one fight and the other one had to win the other fight so that they could sit in the same shadow cabinet room together. If you back the spends, you have to back the saves. I commend these bills to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [21:11]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (21:12): (In division)The member for Denison! Could he report to the tellers, as he moved after I said, 'Lock the doors.' Could the member for Denison report to the tellers—that is all I am asking—to clarify where he is voting.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (21:16): I move opposition amendment (1):
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 5 (line 7) , omit the Schedule.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided. [21:18]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Third Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (21:20): by leave—I move:
That this bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 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.
Third Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (21:21): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (21:22): The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 is a bill to amend section 96 of the Australian Constitution to make a specific provision allowing the granting of financial assistance to local government bodies. These changes are made in two ways. First, the words 'and local government bodies' would be added to the heading of section 96. Second, the words 'or local government body formed by a law of a state' would be added into section 96 after the words 'to any state'. If this change were approved, section 96 would then read:
During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or local government body formed by a law of a State, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
This change would establish a specific power that the Commonwealth may grant financial assistance to local government bodies formed by a law of a state. This financial assistance can be for a wide range of services and facilities. The Commonwealth would thus no longer need to rely on other, less specific sources of power to provide financial assistance to local government bodies.
The proposed changes to the Constitution were developed by two inquiries: firstly, an expert panel, chaired by Jim Spigelman, which reported in December 2011; and, secondly, a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, which published its final report on 7 March 2013.
The coalition has previously expressed support in principle for the financial recognition of local government. The coalition formed this view after two High Court cases created doubt over the Commonwealth's powers to make direct payments to local governments. To make direct payments to local governments, the Commonwealth government has historically relied on its appropriation powers in section 81 of the Constitution or its executive powers under section 61 of the Constitution, as supported by section 51(xxxix). Recent High Court rulings imply that the Commonwealth can only appropriate money under its specific legislative or executive powers. For instance, in the Pape case, Chief Justice French commented on section 81:
These are not words of legislative power in the ordinary sense. They are words of constraint.
The manner of appropriation is shortly specified in s 83 and requires that it be made "by law".
That can be taken as a reference to appropriation by a statute enacted by the parliament of the Commonwealth or otherwise authorised by the Constitution.
In addition, the Williams case, concerning the funding of school chaplains, called into question the Commonwealth's ability to make appropriations under executive powers where those payments are not backed by a law. While a majority of the court recognised that there were some categories of executive power that could be exercised without statutory authority, such as prerogative powers, the ordinary administration of government departments and the nationhood power, the court did not back a 'broad' view of the Commonwealth's spending powers. As Professor Anne Twomey submitted to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government:
Is this direct funding at risk of being held constitutionally invalid? Yes, much of it, in my view, is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge … Some might well be supported by a Commonwealth head of legislative power, but much of it, including the Roads to Recovery program, is probably not so supported and therefore invalid.
All up, direct payments to local government amount to around $500 million a year, although the amount varies depending on the success of local governments submitting for grants. Direct payments could, in theory, be made via grants to state governments, such as the way financial assistance grants are paid. For instance, Professor Anne Twomey stated:
Is this a significant problem? No, because the same amount of money can be validly given under section 96 grants, as has been done since the 1920s.
In practice, however, removing the ability to directly fund local government would change the relationship between the Federal government and local government—a relationship that is a strong one.
Over the past five years, more than 6,000 projects have been funded through direct payments from the Commonwealth to local government. In particular, almost $2 billion of stimulus spending was granted to local governments to spend on local community infrastructure, and this money was spent without the waste and scandal that beset stimulus spending from the Commonwealth and state governments.
Not making the change to the Constitution puts at risk the status quo and could lead to unintended consequences in the relationships between different levels of government. For instance, local governments often submit for Commonwealth grants such as from the Regional Development Australia Fund or the Building Better Regional Cities program. Having to make a section 96 grant every time a local government was successful in a Commonwealth tender round would be an unwieldy process.
Moreover, the proposed change has been worded to protect the subordinate nature of local governments to state governments. The proposed change explicitly states that the Commonwealth can only grant payments to a local government 'formed by a law of a state'. This recognises that state governments will continue to have the power to merge local governments, dismiss local governments or curtail the spending of local governments.
We recognise that the views of state governments are mixed. The Victorian, Western Australian and New South Wales governments have opposed the change. The Queensland government supports financial recognition of local government, while the views of South Australia and Tasmania are unclear. Nonetheless, the proposed change to the Constitution has widespread support from local government and from the community. For instance, a poll conducted for the Australian Local Government Association found that 61 per cent of Australians support recognition.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:30): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Electorate of Leichhardt: Civil Aviation Safety Authority Cairns
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip) (21:30): I rise tonight to outline a very serious issue—the seemingly corrupt and anticommercial conduct of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority office in Cairns, which appears to hide in the shadows and cites 'safety' as a reason to advance personal vendettas against local aviation operators. Numerous operators in Cairns have been subjected to incompetence, threats and demands from individuals who make decisions outside of CASA's authority. Barrier Aviation is the most recent victim, but I know of at least three other operators who have been irreparably damaged by the gestapo tactics of a few individuals, namely, Phil Lister, Mark Ayrey and Gerard Campbell, and with the Director of CASA himself turning a blind eye.
The complaints include: totally incorrect interpretations of regulations, requiring operators to jump through unnecessary hoops at the inspectors' commands; the inexperience of inspectors, not knowing how to interpret regulations or legislation; inspectors entering aircraft unauthorised and unsupervised and interfering with master control switches; inspectors threatening regulatory action if operators do not do as they are told even when the inspectors are wrong; formal complaints being buried and never responded to.
It is common knowledge within the aviation industry that, if CASA want you shut down, they simply bury you with regulations and wear you down with costs until you go broke. In Cairns the personal vendetta against David Kilin, an industry stalwart of almost 40 years, has led to the closure of his life's work. It started back in 2011 when a complaint was made by Barrier to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. This complaint implicated a number of individuals within CASA Cairns who had displayed incompetent, unethical and irresponsible conduct towards Barrier. In a blatant conflict of interest, the main subject of the complaint, Mr Phil Lister, remained as an inspector of Barrier Aviation and associated companies and, incredibly, received a promotion. Despite requests, CASA's office refused to assign Barrier to another CASA office. Meanwhile, the complaint was never responded to and, in retaliation, CASA spent almost 18 months setting Barrier Aviation up. This included a complaint that was lodged against Barrier by a disgruntled ex-employee, who then fled back to his home country of New Zealand, resulting in the cancellation of Barrier's AOC.
Barrier has serious concerns with CASA Cairns's procedures, including the total lack of collaboration between CASA and the industry, unilateral decision-making, reversal of the onus of proof and the lack of procedural fairness and rights of appeal. At no time did CASA try to work with the operator to address their concerns. It was simply a witch-hunt to seek revenge on David Kilin. CASA has lied about evidence and padded their investigation to make Barrier into an unsafe operator despite Barrier previously excelling in this area.
What is also unbelievable is the abuse of process. Six months after Barrier was forced to shut its doors, they still have not been able to test a single allegation in court—and at the cost of $28,000 per day in lost revenue. And to top it off, CASA has sent press release after press release with statements that have never been tested.
Around 50 people have lost their jobs, investors have lost millions of dollars, and David Kilin has lost his life's work. And even now, CASA is not content with just burying Barrier, they want to dance on the grave as well. I was disgusted to learn that CASA Cairns has been speaking to potential purchasers of Barrier aircraft, threatening that they will not approve their airworthiness.
Since Barrier's very public demise, I have had numerous calls from right across the country from people telling me that CASA Cairns has a history of destroying small businesses. The most troubling thing is that, while these callers are keen to express a huge amount of sympathy for Barrier, they are too scared to speak publicly. This industry urgently needs an independent body and rights mechanisms to hold CASA Cairns accountable for their own inadequacies and conduct. After 14 September, I will be calling for a full inquiry. I will not let Barrier be destroyed without holding those individuals who are directly responsible for this sordid business accountable for their actions.
Electorate of Hindmarsh: Road Infrastructure
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (21:35): I rise tonight to talk about the announcement of a redevelopment of South Road in my electorate, between the River Torrens and Hayward Avenue and Torrens Road, one of the worst bottlenecks in the metropolitan area. It goes right through the electorate of Hindmarsh. In fact, it is right on the border between the electorate of Adelaide and Hindmarsh. I know that this project will deliver great benefits to my community, to the people of Hindmarsh and to all the people in the western suburbs.
Those who have travelled on South Road in that particular area around Torrensville through to Port Road will know what I am talking about. I was down there recently, a few days ago, and saw the stream of bottleneck bumper-to-bumper traffic. This was a Sunday morning. I went back that Tuesday afternoon and it was the same again. So this will be a great benefit to my electorate and it will be of great benefit for all of Metropolitan Adelaide, for all people travelling south to north. It will reduce travelling time greatly. It will reduce congestion. It will reduce car fumes and, most importantly, it will open up the bottleneck at the intersections of South Road, Grange Road and Port Road. It would also improve safety for road users and pedestrians.
There are many aspects of the redevelopment which will impact on local residents, some of whom have already raised issues with me, and I will be inviting them very soon to a public meeting that we are convening with the state member, the member for West Torrens, Tom Koutsantonis, and the other state member, Michael Atkinson, to discuss the issues and work through them and to inform the constituents of this major development
I know that this redevelopment will make a very big difference to the lives of many people in South Australia.
As I said, this government has a good track record regarding infrastructure and investment, especially in South Australia and in my electorate. This is not the only infrastructure program. Recently I was extremely pleased to go to the opening of the former King Street Bridge. There had been a battle going on between the council and the state government about who was responsible for this particular bridge. The King Street Bridge was known to have what is called concrete cancer. In fact, it was shut down for a number of weeks when cars and other traffic could not go over it because of the dangerous aspects of this concrete cancer. We were very lucky to be able to access $3.5 million from the federal government which went directly to the Holdfast Bay Council, and they put in some money as well to ensure that we got a brand-new bridge. The bridge has now been named the Michael Herbert Bridge in honour of a Vietnam veteran. I have to say that the mayor of Holdfast Bay, Ken Rowland, was a great supporter of getting this project up and running. With his help the bridge has now been opened, cars and other traffic are using it and people feel safe going over the bridge not having to worry about it being closed down. If this particular bridge was closed down, as had been done previously, it basically isolated a whole peninsula of about 2½ thousand people who live on that side of the bridge.
These are important infrastructure packages. These are good Labor reforms. We know that the infrastructure to ensure a future for investment, a future for business, a future for the people to use our roads to travel, for people to get to and from work, is very important. We know that if you have good infrastructure and good roads, even taking off 10 to 15 minutes each way means that people can spend more time at home with their families, ensuring that they have quality time with them.
There are many other projects in my electorate that I am very proud of. For example, in the Black Spot Program my electorate has been able to access $438,000 for the city of West Torrens for roads and $680,000 for the City of Marion. The government also announced an increase in the resources to be made available in the Black Spot Program. For those who are unfamiliar with the Black Spot Program, it is designed to target those dangerous intersections of local roads through funding of safety improvements such as traffic signals, traffic islands, U-turn signals and roundabouts. In West Lakes in my electorate in the northern part of Hindmarsh, the Black Spot Program has paid for the installation of traffic lights on the Frederick Road and Brebner Drive intersection. If you know this intersection, you know what a difference this makes to the people of Hindmarsh. (Time expired)
Lifeline Macarthur
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (21:40): It is no secret that I hold great pride in all of the community organisations and charities across Macarthur, so it is a great honour to stand here today to pay tribute to one of these amazing charities and its hardworking staff and volunteers. I am proud to be an ambassador of Lifeline Macarthur, which celebrates 35 years of supporting my community this year. Through its telephone crisis support, financial counselling and suicide bereavement support, Lifeline Macarthur has been an instrumental force in targeting and addressing mental health issues across the region and supporting those in crisis. Together with the University of Western Sydney, Lifeline Macarthur also offers psychology clinics for a range of mental health concerns including obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, depression, fears and stress. The anxiety and OCD clinic now runs four days per week to meet the demand.
Lifeline's financial counselling service helps with a number of issues including advocacy and negotiations, referral services, debt recovery, bankruptcy and budgeting. The service works closely with other support groups in my community to ensure long-term results for these residents so they can manage their own funds into the future.
At Lifeline's telephone crisis support centre at Smeaton Grange, more than 18,000 calls were answered last year alone by 100 volunteers. But, despite this huge accomplishment, times are tough for many in my electorate and more volunteers are needed. Across the nation there were 52,294 calls to the crisis support line in December last year. This number grew in the following months with 55,000 calls answered in January and 1,844 calls per day answered during February. Then more than 2,600 people reached out to the crisis line every day in March. Sadly, with the growing number of calls coming into the centre, some went unanswered. This is why Lifeline Macarthur is holding its next telephone crisis support training course later this month. I encourage anyone who has considered volunteering to contact Lifeline and sign up for this course.
To do such wonderful things for the people in my community, Lifeline Macarthur relies on many supporters. The organisation could not function without an army of volunteers in its telephone crisis centre, at Lifeline shops, events and fundraising activities. A volunteer dinner will be held on 19 July to thank the volunteers who support the programs run in my electorate. Local businesses across the region also offer a huge amount of support to Lifeline through its regular fundraising activities. More than 200 people attended the 2013 annual dinner in March at Western Suburbs Leagues Club. Through its balloon sales, a raffle, silent auction, ticket sales and sponsors, $35,700 was raised for Lifeline Macarthur.
This weekend I will volunteer at Lifeline Macarthur's Big Book Fair at its book shop on Queen Street in Narellan. The book fair will run throughout the long weekend and is expected to be one of the organisation's biggest fundraisers this year. It is a fantastic idea to use one of Lifeline's existing retail stores to boost fundraising for the charity and give local book lovers the chance to help raise money to support Lifeline Macarthur's free community services. Unfortunately, the seven Lifeline shops across the region are not immune to the current economic climate and the harsh conditions faced by retailers across the country. Market forces outside their control have seen sales drop and budgets not met. In March Lifeline celebrated its 50th anniversary with a 50 per cent off sale across its stores. The retail shops generated an additional $12,000 collectively, which is a great achievement for the retail staff, volunteers and Lifeline's marketing team. Our local media helped to promote the sale, and I am pleased to say are always a great support to Lifeline Macarthur and its community initiatives.
The annual Macarthur Lions Club Anzac Run is also a supporter of Lifeline Macarthur, donating funds to Lifeline's suicide crisis support service. Hundreds of people from my community turn out to take part in the run each year. This year 91-year-old Jock Wylie was the oldest to take part in the event and support the cause. Well done, Jock. Coming up on 26 July Lifeline Macarthur will encourage locals to take part in Lifeline's national campaign, Stress Down Day. The initiative to reduce stress and raise awareness for Lifeline involves wearing your pyjamas or slippers to work and hosting a stress free morning tea.
Today I would like to acknowledge all of the people who support Lifeline Macarthur, so it can continue to run its invaluable programs in my community, from volunteers in local retail shops and gift wrapping stalls to its corporate partners, ambassadors, friends and most importantly its staff members, who go above and beyond to make this organisation the great success that it is. On behalf of those you have helped, I would like to thank you for your commitment and dedication to a wonderful cause. Lifeline Macarthur brings great comfort to the people of Macarthur, especially those doing it tough. It is nice to know that, when things do go wrong or circumstances change, there is a highly respected, longstanding organisation in my community who are dedicated to helping others.
Lifeline Macarthur is a great asset to the Macarthur region. The organisation offers vital support for local residents, business owners, pensioners and families in my electorate, and for this reason I hope to see its support continue in my community for many years to come.
Recognition of the Republic of Macedonia
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (21:44): Tonight I am calling for bipartisan political leadership to recognise the Republic of Macedonia under that constitutional name. It is unfortunate that in Australia we are expected to use the anachronistic name, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in formal address. The constitutional name of the republic is the Republic of Macedonia. One hundred and thirty-five countries have recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, India, Indonesia and many others in our region.
The antecedents for the use of the anachronistic name go back into history. The Republic of Macedonia declared its independence from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 17 September 1991. It is well known that Greece objected to Macedonia's application to join the United Nations under its constitutional name, the Republic of Macedonia, leading to the country being admitted to the United Nations under the provisional name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 1993. Since that time negotiations to resolve the naming dispute have been held under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, but no agreement has been reached.
Australia and Macedonia enjoy friendly relations based on sharing common interests, common values and 100-year-strong people-to-people ties. I personally experienced the strong bond of friendship between our nations during my visit to Macedonia last year. Formal relations between our two countries were established in 1994. Australia recognised Macedonia, under the anachronistic name, as an independent state on 15 February 1994.
It is a matter of historic record that the Yugoslav Republic was in existence for 48 years. It was constituted of six republics: Bosnia, Herzegovina; Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia and Macedonia. It would be perverse if Macedonia, which has existed now for 22 years—and for 48 years as a state bearing that name within the republic of Yugoslavia—was still referred to as a former republic of Yugoslavia for longer than the existence of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia itself.
I am pleased to inform the House that the Macedonian community in the Illawarra is by far the largest ethnic community in the region, with well over 25,000 members. Macedonian migrants in the Illawarra arrived in large numbers during the period 1960 to 1975. Macedonians have made an immense contribution to our postwar economic effort and formed a large part of the workforce, particularly in the heavy industries like the iconic Port Kembla steelworks. Today, the subsequent generations of the Macedonian community are well established in various trades, professions and business in many electorates across Australia and they make a fantastic contribution.
However, it remains unfinished business for this proud community that their home country is not recognised here under its constitutional name. For the last 22 years, the Macedonian community in Australia has sought every opportunity to draw attention to this issue. I am pleased to note that the Macedonian community has organised a gala dinner in Sydney on 5 July 2013 to celebrate the advancement of Australian and Macedonian relations. This event creates an opportunity for a long-overdue act of bipartisan recognition. It is a position that could be embraced by all sides of politics. Nothing would be more significant that a bipartisan agreement to recognise Macedonia by its constitutional name.
I understand that the Macedonian will be shortly recommending to the President of Macedonia and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia to name prominent streets in the capital Skopje after the Hon. Senator Bob Carr and the Hon. Julie Bishop in recognition of their leadership and their importance. Let them truly earn this honour by this act of recognition and join other countries in acknowledgement of the importance of the Macedonian community to Australia's history and its culture.
Union Appointments: Superannuation Funds
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (21:49): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the issue of the economic power exercised by the major unions in this country through their capacity to appoint directors to industry and public sector superannuation funds, which have funds under management totalling hundreds of billions of dollars.
This power exercised by the unions through this mechanism reflects the playing out of a strategy adopted by the Hawke-Keating government in the early nineties under which the so-called equal representation model was established whereby directors of industry and public sector superannuation funds are appointed in large number by unions.
It is quite instructive to look at the superannuation statistics produced by the industry regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and look at the funds which APRA classifies as public sector or as industry funds. The most recent statistics issued by APRA in January show that there are 71 funds which APRA classifies as public sector or industry funds. If you look at the annual reports of these 71 funds you discover that the total funds under management exceeds $380 billion—so, by any measure, a very large amount. Across these 71 public industry and public sector funds, analysis of their annual reports reveals a total of 551 directors and, of these directors, 171 were appointed by unions and the majority of those directors appointed by unions were union officials.
It is particularly instructive to look at which unions appoint large numbers of directors across some of the major funds. There is a very clear pattern in which large unions and large union peak bodies extend their influence across a large number of major superannuation funds. Unions NSW, for example, appoints a total of nine directors across several superannuation funds. The CFMEU appoints 14 directors across four funds, including large funds such as Cbus, Auscoal and the Building Unions Superannuation Scheme of Queensland. The Australian Workers Union appoints nine directors across seven superannuation funds. The ACTU appoints 20 directors across multiple funds, and the total funds under management of the superannuation funds to which the ACTU appoints directors exceeds $100 billion. United Voice appoints 13 directors across six funds. The Australian Services Union appoints some 10 directors across multiple funds. And the Electrical Trades Union appoints 13 directors, again across multiple funds. So what we see is a very clear pattern in which the major unions appoint substantial numbers of directors across some very large industry and public sector superannuation funds which have large amounts of money under management. Of course, that allows the unions to exercise substantial economic power through the very large amounts of money that these large funds manage.
The other thing that is occurring is that, thanks to the arrangements that the Rudd-Gillard government put in place to give the industry and public sector funds preferred access to the stream of contributions through the so-called modern award system, we are seeing that the share of contributions going into industry and public sector funds exceeds their current share of funds under management. So they are growing their market share.
Of contributions for the year ended March 2013 according to APRA statistics, which totalled almost $93 billion, industry and public sector funds picked up almost 66 per cent, and that compares to their share of funds under management in total across the superannuation sector of 53 per cent as at the end of 2012. So their share of contributions exceeds their share of funds under management.
What we have is the effectiveness of a measure introduced by the Hawke and Keating governments to increase the economic power of the union movement, and that is continuing to play out today in a very significant way.
Coal Seam Gas
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (21:54): I rise to speak about coal seam gas mining—in particular, the federal coalition's stated policy that they will hand over environmental assessments for coal seam gas mining to the states. The coalition resources spokesman, the honourable member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, last week said in a speech, as reported by Lenore Taylor:
The Coalition says it will 'get around' a new law—
and the new law is one where the federal government takes responsibility for coal seam gas, but it will 'get around' that—
… giving power for environmental assessments to the states to speed up the approval process and boost the CSG industry.
And the coalition spokesman further says that the new law, even with the amendment referred to as the Windsor amendment:
… "contains nothing to prevent" the Coalition from proceeding with its stated policy intention to hand over environmental assessments to the states, including for gas wells, under strict standards set by the commonwealth.
"We can get around it,' he said. 'We want a one stop shop, and that's what we will achieve. We'll delegate approvals to the states. We already have an expert panel to assess water impacts—
That is referring to the independent expert scientific committee which we set up and established here. He further says:
Labor is assuming the state governments are incompetent and don't have processes in place to deal with it …
Well, in New South Wales, the state certainly does not have the processes in place to deal with coal seam gas mining in our area. We want an exclusion zone and a moratorium. At the same time, the coalition resources spokesman is pressing New South Wales to approve more coal seam gas wells because of what he calls the 'looming gas crisis'—and I will save that for another debate, but that is just not so; there are ample resources.
I turn now to Senator Birmingham, the coalition spokesman for the environment and the Murray-Darling Basin. In the debate in the Senate on the second reading of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill that has the water trigger in it, he said:
We have many concerns about this legislation. As I said, though, we understand the concerns of the community as well. We hear those concerns and we are not, by opposing this legislation—
I repeat: 'by opposing this legislation'—
… going to allow the government to politicise this issue. We will work to fix these issues should we succeed later this year. We want to work to ensure that we get community confidence for this important industry, because it is an important industry—
He was talking about coal seam gas mining. And he continued:
It is generating billions of export dollars and thousands of new jobs and is very important to the economic wellbeing of all states of Australia—to securing, in particular, our future gas supplies.
But the facts do not establish that at all.
I turn now to a statement just put out by the Nationals candidate for Page, Mr Hogan. He says that the coalition is voting in favour of the water trigger legislation, and has no plans to wind back the legislation if it wins government. He is either ignorant of his party and coalition colleagues and of their stated comments and published policy, or is deliberately deceiving and trying to gain political advantage. Either one does not bode well for someone who puts himself up to represent the people—particularly in my area, where people expect you to be absolutely straight down the line and to fight for them. He says:
I have spoken to my colleagues this week and have been assured that Coalition Senators will be voting for the water trigger legislation, and it will pass the Senate …
And we know—they have said—they are going to do that just so they can wind it back. I am not too sure who he spoke to, but obviously not the opposition spokesman on environment and resources. He goes on to say:
The only reason it hasn't reached the Senate is because the Labor Government is holding it up—
That is simply not true. Then he goes on to say that I am 'spreading baseless fear'. Well, he just needs to read what his colleagues say—and in Hansard, too. And he says that I say that:
… the Coalition has vowed to wind back this legislation.
And he says that:
This is nothing more than a bid to deceive people.
Well, it is not me deceiving; it is clearly him. Then he goes on to say:
… the Federal Coalition won't be handing back water protection responsibility to the State Government if elected.
Yet we have their comments—the comments of the resources spokesman. And he also says that, if he were elected, he would cross the floor. His vote would not count.
Goulburn-Murray Irrigation System
Dr STONE (Murray) (21:59): Ten years ago, the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system consisted of thousands of individual water entitlements which, together, were some 1,900 gigalitres of fresh water used to irrigate some of the nation's flattest country with the greatest soils and a superb and moderate Mediterranean climate. This huge area of this irrigation system had been commenced in 1886. It consisted of thousands of kilometres of earthen channels and was a miracle of the evolution of engineering in Australia where gravity brought this water from one point down across the Great Northern Plains, ending up as drainage into the great Murray River. All of this water availability in what is a very dry climate was converted into Australia's biggest dairy manufacturing region. There were thousands of hectares of magnificent fruit trees, vines and olive trees, with the country's most famous icon brands produced in more than 25 food factories. These brands included preserved fruit, cheese and butter. There were labels like IXL, SPC, Ardmona, Goulburn Valley, Rosella, Heinz, Murray Goulburn, Tatura Milk, Bonlac and many more.
In 2007, in the middle of the worst drought on record and the first time that the irrigation system had failed, we were reduced to some 1,600 gigalitres. Farmers were forced to sell their water in order to preserve their herds, to convert the price for water to fodder purchased on an obviously very expensive market. In what was a very cruel move, Senator Penny Wong, then Minister for the Environment, saw an opportunity and put out tenders for these irrigators to put their water into the Commonwealth environment water holders basket. This water then was taken out of production for all time.
In 2006, there were still 2,700 dairy farms in the five shires across the Great Northern Plains, but by 2010 at the end of the drought this number had reduced to less than half. Only 1,143 farms were still in production. But while the numbers of farms had been reduced by over half as so many had been forced to sell their water, milk production was only reduced by some 32 per cent. This was because of the massive increased levels of borrowing—often some 50 per cent—invested in buying the extra fodder, other supplementary feed or the purchase of additional temporary water, anything to rescue the pastures and to save their herds and to save the orchards.
It is ironic that in some studies over the period of the drought and at the end there was a suggestion that farmers could in fact survive with much less water that only dropped their milk supply by 30 per cent but their numbers had dropped by half. Those studies, particularly from the Grattan Institute, failed to take into account the fact that borrowings had doubled during that period of time, making some dairy farms very vulnerable to any dropping of price for their product. That has now happened, of course, and our dairy farms are in great strife even though they continue to produce some of the best milk product in the world.
You would think that, with the drought and with two of the worst flood years on record following that drought over, we would now be in better times, recovering back to the highly productive state we were before that 10-year drought. Sadly, I have to say that there are now forces at work which are making viability on our farms even harder. We could work through drought and flood, but we cannot work through a high Australian dollar, dumped food product into the Australian market and a voracious duopoly in the form of Coles and Woolworths, who will snap up these cheap imported preserved fruits, stuff them into their own generic brands and offer them to the householders at half the price of Australian produce.
Today there was a deputation in parliament with the AMWU from Victoria and grower and factory representatives from the Goulburn Valley and the Murray Valley. They begged this government to immediately act on the WTO consistent safeguard measures to put in an emergency set of duties to give them breathing space while an anti-dumping action is brought so they can survive as fruit growers into the near and further future. There is a great opportunity supplying great fruits to the rest of the world and the Asian century. This is not going to happen unless this government acts very soon.
Fowler Electorate: Cambodian Community
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (22:04): I have expressed in this place my sense of privilege to represent the most multicultural community in the whole of Australia. Fowler is truly the melting pot of diversity with individuals coming from all over the globe to create a colourful, vibrant and harmonious community. This evening I would like to speak about the contribution the Cambodian community makes in my electorate and for the country as a whole.
There are close to 30,000 people of Cambodian origin living in Australia with 5,000 of those people calling my electorate home. 2
3
3
Mrs Thida Yang from the Salvation and Cambodian Cultural Association of New South Wales is another individual who works hard to ensure the Cambodian community is well supported and represented. Her organisation raises generous funds for, for example, the flood victims of 2011 in Cambodia and a number of other causes, both within Australia and overseas.
The Cabramatta Lions Club, led by another prominent member of the local Cambodian community and a good friend of mine, Jenny Tew, has also made a great contribution in raising funds for important events. Jenny is a person very deservingly named as a People of Australia Ambassador. Her organisation has raised funds for such things as the Sovanapoom Care orphanages. These orphanages provide boarding and day school, emergency food relief and medical care for close to 3,000 people a week.
Although Cambodians have very successfully settled in Australia and make commendable contributions, their homeland is never far from their hearts and their minds. They never forget their roots and so many of them often send charitable donations back to Cambodia to support families and help build schools, hospitals and other forms of essential infrastructure. Organisations such as Cambodia Vision—led by its president, a very prominent local businessman, Mr Ming Lee—were established to assist Cambodian people in regional areas with free cataract and basic medical treatments. All volunteers, including doctors, reside in Australia and work on purely a voluntary basis, donating their time and their skills to assist people in need. They appreciate the great need for assistance back in Cambodia where many find themselves in very dire circumstances.
Cambodia is one of the poorest countries in the region, with a population of 15 million people and an extremely painful past that has left lasting scars on the community. Unfortunately, citizens of Cambodia are subject to numerous human rights abuses even today, with freedom of speech virtually non-existent and with the government suppressing all forms of media and communication. The people of Cambodia do deserve better. The Cambodian community in my electorate of Fowler, as well as other communities across Australia, has done much good work in our community on various issues. I remain committed to working with them because what they stand for and what they do is to certainly enhance and enrich the multicultural society of Fowler.
Banking
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (22:09): I rise to tonight to issue a warning to all Australians that their and their children's bank accounts are at risk of seizure by this Gillard Labor government. In yet another example of how chaotic, dysfunctional and incompetent this government has become, late last year, in a desperate attempt to prop up its budget, it passed legislation through this parliament enabling it to raid private bank accounts, trousering over $100 million this year, by declaring any money in any bank account as unclaimed simply if the owner of that bank account had not made a deposit or a withdrawal in three years.
There are many genuine and legitimate reasons why an account may be left untouched for three years. But that does not matter. In Australia today, if you have a bank account and you have not made a deposit or a withdrawal within the past three years, that bank account is liable to seizure by this Gillard Labor government. Just a few examples of this government's plundering money from private bank accounts. On 22 May a 77-year-old pensioner, Mr Alan Duffy, arrived home after spending 21 days in hospital following a quintuple heart bypass to find that $22,616 he had saved for once he was out of hospital had been taken and given to the government. On 25 May Seamus Hadfield, aged five, and his younger brother Eamon, aged three, found that almost $3,000 had been raided from their bank account. Their parents said at the time: 'We were pretty shocked. Who expects to see their kids accounts closed?' That is happening around our nation today. And on 1 June a 47-year-old mother of two, Marget Frankln, found out that $157,644 had been cleaned out of her bank account and used to prop up this government's debt. Mrs Frankln said she was 'shocked and angry beyond belief' when she found $157,644 had been taken from her account, leaving her with a zero balance.
But the government is not putting this money in a safe place. Although citizens can get it back, it is a process that could take months. The government is estimating to get $100 million this financial year from raiding citizens' bank accounts. And in nothing other than a giant Ponzi scheme, they are planning to pay it back next financial year having raided more bank accounts.
But the Gillard Labor government is not the only government in the world that is guilty of raiding private bank accounts to prop up its reckless spending. Recently, in Zimbabwe of all places, a Zimbabwean high court judge ordered the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe to pay back US$1 million it seized from the bank accounts of mining companies at the height of the country's economic problems in 2007. The article, published online in New Zimbabwe.com, states:
THE RBZ, which is saddled with debts of more than US$1 billion, has admitted raiding private bank accounts to help fund the Zimbabwean government's operations.
Speaker, that is exactly what we have here. Our government is doing exactly what the Zimbabwean government has done—that is, raiding private bank accounts to prop up its reckless spending and to fund the running of government. At least the Zimbabwean judge said:
There can be no doubt that the right to private property is one of the sacrosanct rights protected by the law the role of the courts is to protect bank deposits.
He added:
There is little doubt that the plaintiff should be protected against the arbitrary deprivation of its equity deposited in a bank. As a matter of policy the security of bank deposits should forever be protected by our courts. Our law, which protects ownership of property, is founded on a rock of wisdom.
Well those principles may apply in Zimbabwe, but they do not apply under this Gillard Labor government. So the warning is clear: for anyone who has a bank account in Australia, you need to make sure that you withdraw or deposit at least $1 from that bank account. If you do not do that within three years, this government will plunder it. (Time expired)
Moreton Electorate: Muslim Community
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (22:14): It is nice to inject a bit of common sense after that rant. I rise to speak about a number of events in my electorate dealing with my significant Muslim community. The first one I would like to tell the House about and commend was a roundtable organised by the Kuraby Mosque, one of the biggest mosques in my electorate. It was organised in particular by Dr Mohammed Abdullah, but also by other representatives who attended. Some 40 to 50 people were invited. I was one of the guests but the chief guest was the foreign minister, Bob Carr. It was great. It was a chance to kick around local issues in Moreton but also significant national and international issues. I particularly commend the questioners. I wish we had had more time. They were very thoughtful, considered and well informed. The foreign minister was certainly able to present a broad range of topics, hopefully to the satisfaction of the questioners.
Another event that I participated in just last Sunday was at the Holland Park Mosque, which is not in my electorate, I stress; it is actually in the electorate of Bonner. However, many of the people who attend the Holland Park Mosque come from my electorate. The Holland Park Mosque is 105 years old. I see the member for Blair in the chamber. He would well know the Deen brothers and the Deen sister. They are very significant stakeholders in the Holland Park Mosque. They are very loyal servants of the LNP but they are very great servants of the community and the international community when it comes to making sure that there is fundraising done if there is a disaster, be it a flood here or a flood in Pakistan or wherever. They are great citizens and I particularly value their contribution. The Holland Park Mosque has great plans ahead. I was pleased to be there with the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, who was the guest of honour at the event. It was great event.
On the Sunday before last I was out doing a five-kilometre run, part of the Crescents of Brisbane 10th anniversary event. They have a 2½-kilometre walk and a five-kilometre run. I actually did the run. I should say that I used to have the record three years running for the fastest pusher of a pram but, since my children are now four and eight, I did not wish to try for a fourth attempt at the title, so I went for a run without my children, which was a little bit more fun. It was very well attended.
Mr Neumann: How did you go? Tell us your time.
Mr PERRETT: I will have to look up my time, Member for Blair. I take that suggestion. I will have to find my time. I looked on their webpage and could not find it. Either it was too slow or they did not compile them. The Crescents of Brisbane event is very much a message of engaging with the community but also a healthy lifestyle.
The other event that I attended was with the member for Blair, the honourable parliamentary secretary, and was at Queensland Parliament House. I do not have a lot of good things to say about Queensland Parliament House at the moment, but on this occasion we shared the event with Minister Elmes, the multicultural affairs minister, and Mr Springborg as well. It was a federally funded program. The Muslim community went out to engage with the electors about the election process. They did this in a very clever way in that they had trivia nights about the election process where people turned up and they broke them into federal electorates where they would compete with each other about the electoral process, because the local, state and federal process is quite confusing.
They were four significant events that I have been to recently—all very well attended. These events are an indication of a healthy, democratically engaged, good, strong citizenry in my Muslim community. They come from all over the world. I have a strong Bosnian community. I see the member for Chifley walking into the chamber. I have a Bosnian mosque in my community that is close to being finished and I hope he will come up for the opening. It is a little bit slow but, like many of the mosques in my electorate or close to my electorate, it is their funds that are taking a while to accumulate. (Time expired)
Youth Mental Health
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (22:19): It is a great honour to be able to speak in this House at times about issues of deep and profound significance within each of our electorates. Tonight I want to address the issue of youth mental health. I have met at the grassroots level with those who have suffered from youth mental health issues, and of course I have had the great fortune and privilege to work with both Professor Patrick McGorry from the University of Melbourne and Professor Jayashri Kulkarni from the Monash St Vincent's mental health program.
Let me begin with some general statements before looking at the specific Mornington Peninsula youth mental health forum, which we are proposing, and then concluding with the push for a Million Minds initiative in relation to mental health. Right across Australia we are now at a point where there is growing awareness of youth mental health issues. In my own electorate that issue is emerging as ever more important. We all know, each of us in our own electorate, that mental illness can have a deep and profound impact on the lives of young people and their families. According to research, neglect of mental health problems in young people can cost Australia up to $30 billion a year. It is a profound disabler. It is not as obvious as many of the profound physical issues, but it can be equally debilitating, and people can live within the darkness of the soul.
Against that background I have had the honour and the privilege of working with Patrick McGorry on some of his early intervention programs. I think he has done great work, but there is an enormous amount more still to be done. According to Professor McGorry, in some cases in some areas at some time up to 50 per cent of adolescents suffer from some of the range of common problems, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, obsessive compulsive and personality disorders and—the fear of every parent—drug use. Fewer than half actually seek help.
Of course, the catastrophe at the end of everything is youth suicide. It is, sadly, still a major issue within our younger generation. Too often in the past—often for well-intentioned reasons—the true extent of this problem has been veiled in a shroud of secrecy. The politeness and the privacy, which were understandably the focus, have inadvertently hidden the issue and therefore in some cases may have prevented either the sufferers or those who are near to the sufferers from taking action. If a young person does feel suicidal, it is often the case that they are too frightened and in particular ashamed to ask for help.
We need to take steps by beginning, most importantly, with talking openly about the problem. In that context we will be holding a youth mental health forum on the Mornington Peninsula. We are doing that on 2 August at Dromana Secondary College. The forum will be aimed at year 10 and 11 students from across the peninsula and their parents. Students will be invited from Rosebud Secondary College, Western Port Secondary College, Somerville Secondary College, Padua College, Balcombe Grammar School, Flinders Christian College and, of course, Dromana Secondary College. We are very fortunate that Professor McGorry has kindly agreed to speak and preside at the forum. We want to encourage young people to speak about their experiences. We want to arm them with the way forward. The message is very simple: you are not alone, you are not to blame and support is available.
Beyond that I want to work towards the Million Minds program that Professor Jayashri Kulkarni from Monash St Vincent's has developed. This is the program aimed to ensure that by 2020 an extra one million people are able to receive assistance for mental health issues. It is about spreading the reach and about the task we have for our young people.
Live Animal Exports
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (22:24): Through the course of this parliamentary term orthodox views have shaped thinking about the issues that have dominated attention in this chamber. No doubt these views will inform those seeking to record history; however, what has not captured attention to the same extent is an issue that in my opinion has engaged a sizeable number of people within the electorate of Chifley. I dare say that it is probably one of the biggest issues that have attracted responses across my electorate. The issue is animal welfare—specifically the management of the live export trade in this country. Since this issue reached explosive prominence following a Four Corners expose in March 2011, it seems there has hardly been a week in which my office has not received some form of contact from a constituent deeply concerned by the terrible treatment of animals.
In response to public concerns, this government undertook groundbreaking reforms to help ensure exported animals would be treated in line with international welfare standards and to put the welfare of the animals at the heart of the live export system. We introduced strict rules and regulations in Australia's livestock export industry in an attempt to ensure that animals would only be exported if it could be independently shown that they would be treated at or better than international standards.
It is worth noting that before these changes there were not any rules governing the treatment of an animal once it arrived at an export market. The government changed that. It was a good move—one that should be congratulated. We worked with trading partners to help usher in these new regulations and we secured favourable support from these moves. These moves placed us in a special group. We are one of the few countries in the world with some of the strictest standards for the export of live animals. Over 100 countries are involved in live export. We have got some of the toughest export rules, looking after animals from paddock to processing.
I mentioned earlier how constituents would often contact me about this issue. People like Jeannine Barrett, Melinda McCarthy, Robert Zivkovic and Kirsty Matthews could not abide a system that would allow the mistreatment of animals. They were not unreasonable about their viewpoints. They understood that Australia's food exports provide a livelihood for people here and a source of fresh, clean food for our region, but they believed the live export trade was not sustainable and could not guarantee animal welfare.
When they first contacted me, my response was straightforward and direct. I did not want to see the immediate shutdown of a sector that provides jobs and economic security for so many Australians. I believed we needed time to see the impact of the broad range of reforms we had undertaken. But, since that time, something happened—actually, a number of things happened. We saw issues raised about the treatment of animals in Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey, Mauritius, Kuwait, Israel and more recently Malaysia and Egypt. It was at this point I began to reassess my own position on this matter. After everything we had done, following all the measures we put in place and despite the breadth of the reforms and all the oversight introduced, we simply could not get a guarantee for the welfare of our livestock once they reached the destination market. Seeing those repeated instances of mistreatment led me to the firm view that we now need to prepare for the transition from live animal exports to a domestic chilled, frozen and processed meat industry. This needs to be done right. It needs to recognise the impact on people here and overseas. It needs to be done. It has to be done. There are trading partners that we can work with to make this happen.
In the chamber last week my friend and colleague the member for Throsby outlined how Indonesia, which takes 40 per cent of our live export trade, is actively looking to contract its reliance upon live exports. The member for Throsby urged—and I agree with him on this—that we should and can come up with an approach that reflects the change in approach from Indonesia and that we should actively engage with them to transform the industry, protect jobs and secure vital food exports for our biggest regional neighbour. We should be building upon the success of this industry, promoting it among our export markets and making domestic food processing sustainable for the long term.
It has long been suggested that we need to evolve our practices in order that our farmers can capitalise on new and emerging export markets. We are certainly in the box seat for this to occur. Shifting from live export to domestic meat processing has the potential to grow employment in this industry, while maintaining the highest standard of animal welfare. It is the right thing to do. It is the proper thing to do.
House adjourned at 22:29
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Garrett: To present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters in connection with the Australian Education Act 2013, and for related purposes.
Mr Butler: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for the recognition of persons who are, or are at risk of, experiencing homelessness, and for related purposes.
Mr Butler: To present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Homelessness Act 2013, and for related purposes.
Mr Sidebottom: To present a Bill for an Act relating to service provision for the sugar industry, and for related purposes.
Mr Sidebottom: To present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Sugar Research and Development Services Act 2013, and for related purposes.
Mr Katter: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Reserve Bank Act 1959, and for related purposes.
Mr Katter: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for a Commissioner for Food Retailing and for various other matters in relation to market share of supermarkets, and for related purposes.
Mr Slipper: To move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Government to reverse its disappointing and retrograde decision announced in the Budget to close the Australian Embassy in Hungary, based in Budapest; and
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) close relationship that exists between our two countries, including our shared democratic values which see us cooperate in numerous international fora as demonstrated by our mutual support for each other’s candidature for non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, our joint support for peace building efforts of the international community, particularly in Afghanistan, and our mutual cooperation in difficult times, for example, Hungary’s consular assistance for Australian citizens in Syria;
(b) important interdependence of Hungary and Australia in providing a bridge for Australia into central Europe and Australia’s reciprocal role in providing access for Hungary in the Asia Pacific region, and that this growing bilateral relationship will further boost economic ties and trade particularly Australian investments in the Hungarian energy sector;
(c) close people-to-people links which see up to 250,000 Australians of Hungarian origin making an important contribution both economically and culturally to the relationship between the two countries and assisting to promote the close friendship among Australia, Hungary and other countries of central Europe; and
(d) fact that in addition to the Hungarian Embassy in Canberra, Hungary has recently opened a consulate in Melbourne to contribute further to the growing strength of the bilateral relationship.
Ms Hall: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Wednesday 19 June 2013 is Red Aussie Apple Day, part of the month-long national campaign throughout June to raise awareness of bowel cancer;
(b) more than 14,000 Australians will be diagnosed with bowel cancer this year;
(c) bowel cancer is Australia’s second biggest killer after lung cancer, claiming the lives of 77 Australians every week; and
(d) bowel cancer is one of the most curable forms of cancer when detected early; and
(2) recognises:
(a) bowel cancer can develop without any early warning signs;
(b) if bowel cancer is detected before it has spread beyond the bowel, there is a 90 per cent chance of surviving more than five years;
(c) that regular screening every two years for people aged 50 and over can reduce the risk of dying from bowel cancer by up to 33 per cent; and
(d) more than 12,000 suspected or confirmed cancers will be detected through free screening, saving between 300 and 500 lives each year; and
(3) commends the Government for its four year commitment to provide an extra $49.7 million boost to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program; and
(4) encourages Members to continue support efforts to raise awareness of the importance of early detection as well as the signs and symptoms of bowel cancer.
Ms Hall: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) rare diseases are complex, often with inadequate or no treatment;
(b) approximately 10 per cent of the Australian population is directly affected by one or more of the 8000 rare diseases and 400,000 of these people are children; and
(c) collectively there are around 1.2 million Australians with a rare disease, the same number as Australians affected by diabetes;
(2) recognises that:
(a) Australians living with rare diseases need the opportunity to be involved in national and international clinical trials; and
(b) in order to progress medical research in the field of rare diseases, the benefits of a national rare disease registry should be investigated;
(3) acknowledges:
(a) Rare Voices Australia, the first national organisation devoted to rare diseases in Australia that focuses on improving quality of life for all families, friends and carers that are impacted by a rare disease in their everyday lives; and
(b) the participation of advocates from Rare Voices Australia in a world first international Rare Diseases Research Consortium this year; and
(4) investigates establishing a national patient registry for research purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr BC Scott ) took the chair at 12:10.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014
Consideration in Detail
Health and Ageing
Proposed expenditure, $9,633,012,000
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (12:10): I will make a few opening remarks about the health budget as a whole, but I also have available with me my parliamentary colleagues the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, who will be able to make comments in his area, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, who will also be able to make comments in their areas.
The 2013-14 budget continues Labor's record of strong investment in health, with record spending again in the health portfolio. One of the key initiatives of the most recent budget is the world-leading cancer care package, a new $226.4 million package that will reinforce our position as the world's leader in cancer research, prevention and treatment. Australians now have the best cancer survival rates in the world, and we intend as a government to continue to invest, protect and promote that lead. Every Australian has been touched by cancer, either themselves as sufferers or by knowing someone who has been touched by cancer, and we are committed as a government to continuing to promote research, treatment, care and cure.
This budget is also committed to investing record amounts in public hospitals: more doctors, more nurses, more hospital beds, more acute services, more subacute services and more transition services. We are also expecting to invest $1.3 billion over the next four years in additional funding to help Australians see a GP. We have historic high levels of bulk-billing today, with rates at 82.4 per cent for Australians going to visit a GP, and 76½ per cent overall bulk-billing rates. These historic highs have been achieved with the cooperation of our excellent health and medical workforce here in Australia, and they paint a sharp contrast to the days when the Leader of the Opposition was health minister and bulk-billing rates fell to 67 per cent.
We are also investing in aged care services, and my colleague the minister will speak about aged care services. This budget alone allocates $14.9 billion for public hospitals in 2013-14, an increase of $871 million on last year. Unfortunately, this comes in the face of some severe cutbacks in health spending by states and territories. I am concerned that despite our increased investment—almost $1 billion extra between 2012 and 2013-14—we continue to see, for example, $3 billion of spending cuts in Queensland, and $3 billion of cuts in New South Wales in its last budget. We have a new Queensland budget out today, and I hope and expect that some of that funding has been restored, because we have seen the ill-effects of the cuts in the health systems of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria in particular every single day as patients are turned away from hospitals.
Our relationship with the states has changed, despite this extra investment in hospitals. We have invested a great deal in setting up hospitals to make the transition to activity-based funding. We have invested in new buildings, new surgical equipment, new wards and new beds.
We are transitioning to a time when activity based funding will be the way that hospitals increase their funding. We have made a commitment of an extra $16.4 billion of funding to the states and territories between now and the end of the decade. But our relationship will change. The Commonwealth will bear an increased share of funding as activity increases. There are billions and billions of dollars in extra support available and, of course, there are reward payments for states that meet their targets. But it will be important for states to increase their funding and to continue to improve the care of their patients to continue to see growth at both a state and Commonwealth level for the hospital system.
There have been more and more calls on our health dollars. We have an ageing population. We have access to new treatments, new therapies and new medicines all the time, and we need to make wise decisions about how to fund those exciting new developments.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (12:15): Minister, will there be a cost-of-capital component to activity based funding for teaching, training and research in hospitals?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (12:16): I propose to take all of the questions at the end.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:16): Minister, you have spoken about the National Health Reform Agreement. As I understand it, it is $16.4 billion worth of additional Commonwealth funding. In my electorate of Throsby in the state of New South Wales we are very keenly interested in this. If you picked up over the last week the newspapers which are circulated in any areas of New South Wales you will have seen a raging debate going on about hospital waiting lists and quite some concern about the capacity of hospitals and medicos within those hospitals to deal with a blowout in waiting lists. My question in this particular area is: how can we be seeing this increase in waiting lists at a time when the Commonwealth is actually increasing its funding to the hospital sector in states like New South Wales? Is our increase in funding going to the right places? Is it above and beyond CPI increases? What is going wrong here?
The second issue that I would like to hear from you about, Minister, concerns Medicare Locals. I understand that we have a number of Medicare Locals throughout the country who are already up and running, with a particularly successful one in the Illawarra which is well received within the community. I would like to hear from you about the importance of Medicare Locals in our overall delivery of primary health care and what that means and whether there is a threat to Medicare Locals and the benefit that they provide to the community.
Thirdly, I am also keen to hear from you, Minister, about the impact of this budget on the healthcare needs of people in my electorate. I will give you a little bit of a profile of the people in my electorate. The percentage of people in my electorate over the age of 65 is roughly 18 per cent, which is above the New South Wales average of 15 per cent and the Australian average of 14 per cent. So it is a greying electorate. Also, around 33 per cent of people in my electorate are classified as coming from low-SES backgrounds. That contrasts to the Australia-wide average of about 19 per cent. How are the measures within this budget helping to address the health needs of people from these two demographics?
Next, in relation to bulk billing, I was very pleased to see that over 92 per cent of the presentations to general practitioners in my electorate are bulk billed. This contrasts well with the national average of 82 per cent. What policies have we got in place to ensure that we can continue to see high rates of bulk billing for people who present to general practitioners in electorates like mine?
Then I have two issues regarding the Medicare Benefits Scheme. On my analysis, the average person receives around $966 per annum from the Medicare Benefits Scheme in my electorate, compared to the $780 average across Australia, and $446 per annum from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme per person compared to the $332 average per annum across Australia. What reasons can you give for the increased spending in both the MBS and the PBS for people in electorates such as mine? How are measures within this budget going to ensure that we can continue to deliver high rates of bulk billing, benefits from the Medicare Benefits Scheme and benefits from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to people in my electorate, who quite clearly, on the aggregate figures, are relying heavily on these two important government schemes?
Mr Dutton: I seek some clarification on the process here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In previous years, the minister, during consideration in detail, has always made at least some attempt to answer questions at the time they were put. It was only when the minister was not readily able to provide the facts that the question would be taken on notice and detail provided later. My question to you is about how proceedings should be conducted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Grierson ): The minister is able to take the questions and answer them at the end if he or she wishes. The process here is that we have five minutes—
Mr Mitchell: I am seeking clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are doing consideration in detail of the budget. This is the opportunity for the opposition to ask detailed questions about the budget. Are we to understand that the minister is going to listen to this for one hour and then respond at the end of it?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister can do that.
Mr Mitchell: That is just outrageous.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform) (12:22): I am pleased to be able to make some introductory remarks about the spending on mental health and aged care in this budget. This budget continues the very significant investment in these two portfolios initiated, for mental health, in the 2011 budget and, for aged care, through the Living Longer, Living Better reforms in the 2012 budget. I am very pleased to report that the 2013 budget continues the very substantial reform direction for aged care set out in last year's budget—the most substantial reforms to our aged-care sector since the mid-1980s, when the current system was largely constructed by the Hawke government.
It is worthwhile traversing some of the major elements of those reforms—and I confirm again that they are contained in the 2013 budget. The central theme of the aged-care reforms is to expand and reform the delivery of home care. Older Australians, directly and through their organisations, have indicated time and time again that what they want from an aged-care system is support to allow them to remain living independently in their own home for as long as possible—and, if at all possible, for the remainder of their lives. This year's budget continues the direction charted last year to expand home care packages over the next four years by about two-thirds, from 60,000 to about 100,000.
The 2013 budget also confirms the direction of overhauling the current system of delivery of home care packages—the current system of community aged-care packages. Each package will have four levels, allowing people to move more seamlessly through a continuum of care as their care needs progress. For the first time, those home care packages will be consumer directed. All of the home care packages contained in this year's Aged Care Approvals Round, or ACAR, are offered only on a consumer directed care basis and all existing packages in the market will need to be converted to consumer directed care packages by 2015.
Since the last budget, the Aged Care Financing Authority has been busily establishing new guidelines for the charging of accommodation fees in residential care where a resident has the capacity to pay an accommodation charge. The first thing the financing authority did was to develop guidelines for significant refurbishment. These would qualify an accommodation provider for a very substantial increase in their accommodation supplement, from $32 per day to $52 per day, commencing on 1 July next year. Those guidelines were the subject of very close consultation with the residential care sector, and are a substantial addition to the way in which we will be able to see continuing investment in the residential care sector into the future. ACFA, the Aged Care Financing Authority, has also established—and I have published—new guidelines around accommodation charging, provided that the legislation currently before the Senate passes so that the old distinction between high-care charging and low-care charging goes into the dustbin of history.
We also know that the workforce supplement is in the process of finalisation, with guidelines have been out for consultation with the sector. We are currently working through the submissions from the sector about the final shape of those guidelines so that they will be ready to take effect on the 1 July this year. The same process has been followed in relation to dementia supplement to pay providers 10 per cent extra for the provision of care to people with a diagnosis of dementia, whether in home care or in residential care. These guidelines will also be ready for effect on 1 July, as will guidelines in relation to a supplement for veterans experiencing mental health issues. I place on record my thanks to the support given by Minister Snowdon, his office and his department in the development of those guidelines.
I am very pleased that this budget continues the National Perinatal Depression Initiative commenced by this government in 2008: extending the funding to state and territory governments; extending funding through the ATAPS system for counselling for parents, particularly mothers experiencing such depression; and continuing funding to beyondblue for the leadership role that it has taken. It also extends funding with increases of 5.3 per cent to the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program which, people will be aware, is undergoing a substantial review at present. (Time expired)
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:26): I would like to hear from the minister the justification for spending $10 million over the next two years to deliver a national communications campaign to inform Australians about the benefits of Medicare and health related services. Medicare is a long-established scheme and has been running since 1984. There is strong community support for Medicare. There is strong bipartisan support for Medicare. Medicare was greatly expanded during the previous coalition government in the areas of mental health and team care arrangements. I would like to hear the minister's justification—in a budget which is an emergency budget with a massive budget deficit—for funding a national information campaign including information products and a website to provide detailed information to consumers and health professionals about the affordability and accessibility of Medicare, which has been running since 1984.
I also want to ask: what is the rationale behind spending $6½ million over the next four weeks of this campaign, and $3½ million in 2013-14? Firstly, regarding the $6½ million that is meant to be spent between now and 30 June, what sort of advertising all this money be spent on? What will $6½ million get in less than one month? How can the department possibly have $6½ million in advertising drawn up, designed, produced and advertised in the three weeks remaining before 30 June? What information products are being produced using this $10 million, and will they all be distributed by 30 June 2013?
Regarding the $3½ million, which is budgeted to be spent in the 2013-14 financial year, what date is this money due to be spent by? How much of it will be spent by 12 August? How much of it will be spent by 14 September? Is it planned for any of this $3½ million to be spent after 14 September? I would appreciate an answer from the minister.
The consideration in detail is a process we have been going through since 2008. The previous minister did not always come along, but when she did she answered the questions. Actually she sent Mark Butler, and he answered the questions on her behalf. I have not before seen a minister just sit and listen and have no answers on her own budget. So I would appreciate an answer from the minister.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The standing orders specify five-minute contributions. There is nothing in the standing orders that formalises the question-and-answer process. It is not question time.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (12:30): I have proposed to take the questions in groups because otherwise we will run out of time. If I speak for five minutes after everybody asks a question, I will be speaking for half the time here. But I am very happy to answer the questions from the three people who have just spoken.
The first was the shadow minister who asked about the cost of capital in teaching and training in activity based funding. There is not a separate provision made for capital in activity based funding, because it is about activities. There is a provision made for consumables. But we have invested massively in capital for teaching and training. We have a rural clinical training schools set up. We have a fantastic new simulation laboratories that I have visited at Epworth, at UTS in Sydney and at Broken Hill. Right around Australia we have invested massively in simulation facilities for nursing and medical students and allied health professionals to train together because they will work together in the future.
After the cap on GP training places left to us by Tony Abbott, we have increased the number of training places very substantially both for doctors and for nurses. We have seen the results of that in increased employment numbers for doctors and nurses. We have 17,000 extra doctors and 26,000 extra nurses.
Just on the issues that the member for Throsby raised, hospital waiting lists in Throsby are of great concern to the member. It is inexplicable that while Commonwealth funding continues to increase the results are that a number of states are going backwards when it comes to hospital waiting lists. However, it is explicable when you look at state budgets. If you take $3 billion out of the New South Wales health budget, it is no surprise that we end up with these long waiting lists.
The member asked what Medicare Locals do and whether there is any threat to them. Medicare Locals are the organisations that are going to drive better primary health care on the ground, with local decision making, finding the gaps in local services and filling them in. I know you, Member for Throsby, have an excellent relationship with your Medicare Local that is doing this very thing. Unfortunately, the opposition have said in the past that they cannot afford the 3,000 front-line staff that work at Medicare Locals and they are going to get rid of them. So the real threat to Medicare Locals is an Abbott government.
You talk about the health needs in your electorate. Of course with an ageing electorate, as you rightly point out, the health needs are higher. The higher reliance of your constituents on the PBS and the MBS reflects the fact that you have an ageing electorate with people who depend very much on our fine Medicare system and our subsidised medicines for their good health. The Labor government has been both the instigator and the Guardian of these fine systems. You see in our policies expanded and accelerated price disclosure, a very important way of making sure that we continue to be able to list new medicines. $5 billion of new medicines have been listed since 2007. We are able to continue to invest in these terrific newly invented and newly manufactured medicines because we are paying less for older, generic medicines—billions of dollars less over time.
The member for Boothby asked about the Medicare advertising campaign. Yes, Australians love Medicare. They love it. They loved it the first time Labor introduced it. They loved it at the time the Liberal government destroyed it. They loved it when Labor had to reintroduce it.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms PLIBERSEK: What happened to Medibank? You killed it, didn't you? We know that the plans for Medicare now in its new iteration of Medicare Locals are the same. They plan to get rid of $1.2 billion from primary health care by destroying Medicare Locals.
The member for Boothby is right in saying that there is an advertising campaign coming up about the new elements of Medicare—the GP after-hours line, the personally controlled e-health record and Medicare Locals.
I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say he does not know what Medicare Locals do; well, shame on him that he has not been out to meet his Medicare local and see the sorts of services that they are delivering on the ground—finding the gaps in primary health care and filling them at a local level with local decision-making, employing front-line workers and caring for the health of people who live in his electorate. Shame on him for not knowing what his Medicare local does. I have heard the shadow minister make similar remarks. If he does not know by now what Medicare locals do, shame on him as shadow health spokesperson.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:35): Following on from the minister's remarks, I ask the minister: is the decision to consolidate the flexible funding and core funding for Medicare Locals a result of the national evaluation of Medicare Locals being conducted by the Department of Health and Ageing? Last year, on 27 November, in summing up the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, the Minister for Health and Ageing stated:
I am pleased to advise the House that a national evaluation of Medicare Locals, already planned to start early next year …
Can the minister advise where this national evaluation is currently up to? When will this evaluation be completed? When will this evaluation be publicly released? If it has been completed, why has it not been released? What aspects of the Medicare Locals program are being evaluated?
Also, the minister mentioned 3,000 front-line staff working in Medicare Locals. I ask the minister: what does she consider a staff member working on front-line services? How many hours do they have to be working in a clinical area for that to be counted as front-line services?
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (12:36): I am very pleased to be able to make some inquiries this afternoon in relation to the mental health portfolio in particular. I know that there has been tremendous work done by the ministers and their parliamentary secretaries and colleagues in this area, particularly in view of the very significant—in fact record—investment of more than $2.2 billion in mental health by this government.
I have taken particular interest in this portfolio because mental health is raised with me quite regularly in the context of the growing areas of my electorate, particularly those areas in which there is quite a youthful population. Indeed, there have been events held in my area quite recently such as Stride4Life, initiated by students of one of the local schools in my electorate. It is geared up to provide a bit more awareness of youth mental health in particular. A great deal of work has been done throughout the term of this government to focus very much on raising awareness of youth mental health issues and also then responding to those issues and providing appropriate research, funds and support to inquire further into the causes of youth mental health concerns and to provide for the best ways of responding to those concerns.
I note, particularly in my part of the world, headspace. It has been rolled out right around the country, but headspace has certainly been very well received in the south-east of Melbourne. I was very pleased to attend not so long ago, with Minister Butler, the opening of the headspace unit, which will service the needs of greater Dandenong but also provide outreach services to Casey and Cardinia in my electorate. In addition to that, it does very fine work in schools programs, providing schools with appropriate support in incidences of youth mental health concerns at those schools.
I should say, since the Minister for Health and Ageing has been reflecting on Medicare Locals, that the people at the South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local have done an extraordinarily good job of bringing together headspace in the south-east. I have the utmost confidence in them. They do excellent work, both researching the health needs of the community in my part of the world and doing extraordinary work making the correct connections between health services providers, including mental health services providers, throughout the region—that is precisely what they were intended to do, and they are doing it.
In recent weeks, I have also had a chance to visit Mind Australia, which was recently the beneficiary of just over $600,000 from the federal government to provide assistance in the way of mental health respite services and carer support. It is an absolutely marvellous initiative, particularly in our area. I had a good opportunity to speak with them; there is a very enthusiastic group of people on the staff down there. They have recently established the office in Narre Warren, around Fountain Gate. It is precisely an area in which these services are needed. So much of what is being done throughout this portfolio is about reaching out to people who perhaps have not felt the need or the capacity to come forward with either mental health needs, broader health needs or with their families and carers to seek appropriate support. So it is marvellous to see the expansion of so many services and I know there is much more on the agenda in the context of this budget. I will certainly be seeking some particulars about that. For instance I know about arrangements in relation to the expansion of early psychosis centres and additional funding in relation to aspects of mental health research which is contemplated in some of the measures this government has focused on.
The question I would particularly like to ask is about the government's creation of Australia's first national mental health reform package, which sought to address the fact that less than half the number of people affected by poor mental health receive professional help for treatment. Are there initiatives or strategies within the reform package and funded in the budget that address the need to have a wider reach for services and specifically to encourage and facilitate access to these services by groups in our society that have traditionally been hard to reach?
Ms PARKE (Fremantle—Parliamentary Secretary For Homelessness and Social Housing and Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health) (12:44): I am very grateful to the member for La Trobe for her excellent question. She is absolutely right to say that the government is seized by the importance of extending the reach and effectiveness of mental health services, precisely because mental illness affects one in three Australians at some point in their lifetimes. Because it represents the third-largest cause of the disease burden in Australia after cardiovascular disease and cancer, it is the single largest cause of disability and it is the largest risk factor for suicide which, of course, has tragic impact on individuals, families and communities. Yet, less than half of all Australians suffering from a mental illness actually receive any form of treatment. So we know that more needs to be done and we know that a significant part of the challenge lies in creating modes of service that not only increase capacity overall but also better serve and welcome people who have not been able to access or who have not felt comfortable accessing traditional healthcare services.
In addressing the health service gap, the government has invested substantially in the National Mental Health Reform package including in the area of E-mental health. The government's e-mental health strategy released in July last year includes our ongoing support for tele-web measures like Lifeline and Kids Helpline and the government's online mental health portal called mindhealthconnect, as well as our new mental health clinic called MindSpot. While some might believe that e-mental health is necessarily a second-best option to be used when face-to-face services are not available, in fact online support will in many cases be a preferred option for a large number of Australians.
As noted already, one of the biggest problems in the mental health space is the large number of people who never receive any care in relation to their distress or anguish. This is often because of social and/or geographic isolation and the associated stigma that people suffering with mental health conditions often face or fear. Experience has already shown, through fantastic programs funded by the government including ReachOut, and eheadspace and now MindSpot, that many Australians actually welcome the opportunity to access mental health information and support online. Indeed, the delivery of expanded telephone and internet mental healthcare services and the creation of new and innovative forms of care using communication technology, especially with the National Broadband Network, will help us reach some of the groups that presently go unheard and unhelped—mainly young people, men and people living in regional and rural and remote Australia.
Online and telephone services allow people to control their access to health care so that they get care when they need it at no cost, with no need to travel and in a way that affords them greater privacy or anonymity than traditional face-to-face services. Experience has shown that once people have accessed information and support online then they are much more likely to then be willing to access more traditional forms of care. Part of the strength of the government's new online mental health clinic, MindSpot, is that it offers a stepped care approach in which each client is carefully assessed by a clinician to ensure that they receive the right care for their individual needs.
MindSpot has funding of $14.9 million over three years to 2014-15 to deliver free online and telephone cognitive behavioural therapy to an estimated 30,000 people experiencing high-prevalence mild to moderate disorders, including anxiety and depression. Approximately one in five Australians suffer depression or anxiety each year, with only 35 per cent consulting a health professional and less than half receiving evidence based treatment. The MindSpot service is being delivered seven days a week from its headquarters at Macquarie University under the direction of Professor Nick Titov and his 25-strong team of psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health workers. It was my privilege on 3 May this year to formally launch this new and innovative online clinical service, which has been operating since December.
MindSpot is already proving its value as a high-volume, quality service for people suffering from anxiety and depression, with early statistics showing a steady increase in the number of new patients and new assessments per week and a very high level of patient satisfaction. As of the formal launch date, 2,400 people had commenced assessments through MindSpot at an average of 35 per day. Of those who access this service, 42 per cent had never previously discussed their anxiety or depression with a health professional.
The proportional use of the service by people in the various states and territories matches the distribution of the population, which shows that online and telephone services can be headquartered anywhere and still provide effective national coverage. MindSpot is an important and innovative part of the national government's— (Time expired)
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (12:46): My question is to the health minister. Minister, the budget contains a $17 million capital measure for further national medical stockpile. Can the minister confirm this large capital investment is separate to the appropriation of $20.7 million in 2013 for program 14.1? My next question is in relation to hospital cost data. Has hospital cost data been received from all jurisdictions for 2011-12? Has that been processed by the May deadline for the 2014-15 efficient price determination? Thirdly, could the minister please answer these questions in relation to the advertisements that appeared in Victoria on 23 February this year? Who was in the loop in terms of the decision-making process as to the content of those ads? Was the minister's own office, DLOs or other staff members involved in proofing the ads prior to them appearing in the Victorian newspapers? At what cost to the Commonwealth were those ads placed? And were they required to go through a departmental committee or the government's own advertising committee? Could the minister please detail the process in relation to those particular ads? As I said, for the minister's clarification, they appeared in Victorian newspapers on 23 February this year.
Also, I again draw the minister's attention to some of the detail asked by the shadow parliamentary secretary earlier in relation to the detail, and in particular the timing around the advertising in relation to Medicare—in particular, how that money will be spent in the closing weeks of this financial year. I ask about the processes around the expenditure of that money. I understand the minister's explanation as to why she wants to respond to questions en masse; however, we would ask that the minister be sincere in what she is saying. There are many questions that have been asked so far in this process that have deliberately been ignored or have not been noted and certainly have not been responded to adequately. It is unfortunate in terms of the way in which this process is expected to operate.
This process is to hold this bad government to account, to ask questions about a budget of a government that is clearly on its knees. This is a government that has made some terrible decisions in the most recent budget and the minister has been asked appropriate questions and has been shown due respect through the process. For the minister to refuse to answer those questions, as they were put by the shadow parliamentary secretary earlier, or in detail as I have asked now, is unfortunate and shows complete contempt for the process. I understand the minister is under enormous pressure, as all ministers in this government at this point of time obviously find themselves, but the fact remains that this is a process that does need to be shown respect and I ask the minister to address those issues in detail. If further clarification is required I would be happy to provide that. We have given detailed questions to the minister and we ask her to respond accordingly.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (12:50): Minister, I rise to put on the record some of the considerable community appreciation of this federal government's investments, particularly in infrastructure. I am certainly interested in hearing about this issue more broadly but I just want to put on the record in regard to Robertson, on the Central Coast, the reality faced by the community before this Labor government began its vision for fairness and equity for Australian people.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
Ms O'NEILL: The reality, as I understand it, when we came to government—
Mr Dutton: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for McEwen made an offensive remark and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Order! I did not hear the remark, but the member might withdraw it. Did you say the member for McEwen? I did not hear him. The member for McEwen will withdraw.
Mr Mitchell: I withdraw.
Ms O'NEILL: As I understand it when the Labor government came into power with an agenda for equity and fairness, an opportunity to access health—not just in the cities but in the regions—was an imperative. The reality was that, sadly, those who live in regional and rural communities have such limited access to essential public infrastructure to be able to receive cancer treatment. We have data that reveals that the city cousins of our country Aussies are surviving cancer at a much higher rate than those who live in regional and remote communities.
All sorts of excuses can be put to a community with arguments that maybe you can attend treatment away from home. In regard to my local people, we live in a spot between Gosford, Sydney and Newcastle. The argument was continually put that if you could not afford private treatment for radiotherapy there was always the option that you could just get on a train or in a car and go to Newcastle or Sydney. Anybody who has ever lived close and personal in a relationship with somebody who is facing the challenges of cancer treatment would know that you might be able to commence such a journey with great hope and great goodwill and support, but the reality is that as the treatment continues, and as the person becomes sicker and sicker in fighting their disease and managing the challenges of the treatment itself, people simply are unable to continue their treatment. That living reality of millions of Australian families requires a structural response.
In the seat of Robertson, certainly the government has delivered a very powerful response to that community need. I was delighted to be able to open the Central Coast Cancer Centre which received an investment of $29 million from this government and $10 million committed by the state Labor government which, I am pleased to say, was honoured by the incoming Liberal government. In my local community that has transformed the lives of those people who find themselves in a situation where cancer confronts their family.
That cancer centre has been open for about six weeks and already I have spoken to four individuals. One of them—a lovely man who is a teacher with a long-standing commitment to education in our electorate and who is also significantly involved in local surf lifesaving—spoke to me at a sponsor's dinner for the local surf lifesaving group. He told me how surprised he was that, in the few weeks since I had last seen him, his wife had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Now, a piece of infrastructure that he thought was good—something that he had read in the newspaper as a distant government objective—suddenly became extremely significant to his family. With his wife, they are facing a round of radiotherapy treatment to get her well. That deep understanding of investment in infrastructure, in addition to investment in training and a capacity to respond to Australians' needs in regional and rural parts of Australia, is of great interest to me. The reality is that the Central Coast, while it is at my heart, is part of a country in which there are many other centres which need this sort of infrastructure too. I understand there may be as many as 25 cancer centre projects underway and I would be very interested in hearing from the minister about those.
This infrastructure investment in cancer centres, though, is not the only infrastructure investment being undertaken. In addition to providing those services, we need to provide those services in the right place. From my own experience, I have seen the impact of the new Medicare Local facility and organisation at Erina. It is a critical part of enabling our health professionals to work in a preventative capacity. These buildings are signature to what is, in my view, a radical shift in policy—a policy of providing health services designed to wrap around people where they live. In my view, it is the ultimate expression of Labor's view about fairness for all Australians—fairness in health, fairness in education and fairness in the opportunity to access jobs where we live. That is what the NBN will deliver. So I ask the minister to comment on the government's investment in infrastructure and how that contributes to outcomes for individuals and communities right across this country. (Time expired)
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:56): The opposition have already asked a number of questions of the minister. Given the minister is constraining herself to five minute answers, we would simply like answers to the questions we have already asked. There have been detailed questions around the timing of your $10 million communication plan. We would like to hear more on that. We also asked about the national evaluation of the Medicare Locals and about the issue of front-line services—previously the minister has said that 70 per cent of staff in Medicare Locals are providing front-line services; now she says it is all 3,000. The shadow minister had a number of detailed questions as well. We would appreciate answers from the minister.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (12:57): There have been a number of questions about Medicare Locals. First, there was a question about the collapsing of several flexible funds and core funding into one, more flexible, funding pool. We have done this for the very good reason that Medicare Locals are supposed to make local decisions about local priorities and to have the flexibility to meet those demands.
An opposition member: It is not one flexible funding pool. It has all gone into core funding.
Ms PLIBERSEK: It is not all going to core funding. There are a number of flexible funds being combined with core funding. In 2013-14, core funding for the Medicare Local after-hours program, the Rural Primary Health Services program and the preventative health initiative are being consolidated into the primary healthcare initiatives through the Medicare Locals Fund, the flexible fund. What we will see is a total increase across the network in excess of $70 million. The flexible funding means that all Medicare Locals will receive increased funding. The average across Medicare locals will be a 20 per cent increase in funding.
Dr Southcott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker Grierson: the question was about the national evaluation which the minister spoke about in November. The first question was whether the change to funding arrangements was as a result of the national evaluation.
Ms PLIBERSEK: It is not as a result of the national evaluation. The national evaluation is ongoing. If you were to look at the AusTender website, you would see, firstly, that it was advertised and, secondly, that it is ongoing. It is not very complicated. All you need to do is check the AusTender website and you will see that it has been advertised. It is expected to finish early next year. Consultations have already started. As part of those consultations, I expect many people associated with Medicare Locals to welcome the extra funding they are getting—on average, as I said, 20 per cent extra between this year and next. I also expect that they will express a great deal of concern about what the opposition have said on Medicare Locals—that they are just a bunch of bureaucrats—when we know that seven out of 10 of their staff provide frontline services. The member asked: 'What are frontline services?' Doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, Aboriginal health workers, nurses that deal with chronic issues, pain management specialists—right across the board these people are delivering frontline services. The last four-year funding from $1.3 billion to $1.45 billion is at risk when the opposition gets rid of Medicare Locals.
The member for Dickson, shadow minister Dutton, also asked about the national medical stockpile. There is no conspiracy there: we buy medicines with that $17 million. That is why it is called a national medical stockpile. We set aside medicines in the event that there is a catastrophic outbreak of something very nasty and we need to have medicines on hand to make sure that Australians are able to be treated very quickly. We need to stockpile some of those medicines because the unfortunate truth is that when something—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.
Ms PLIBERSEK: You asked what it was for and I am telling you what it is for: it is for replacing medicines in the national medical stockpile. The reason we need to replace those medicines is because, in the event that Australia is faced with an outbreak of disease, it is very likely that Australia will not be the first or the only country facing that same disease. As we have seen with SARS and H1N1, and more recently with H7N9, the issue is that it is not just Australia that needs these medicines quickly. There is competition around the world for medicines that can prevent outbreaks of disease or treat outbreaks of disease. When we enter that international competition at a time when there is demand around the world, the danger is that we will be last on the list. We need to stockpile medicines to make sure we are protected from outbreaks of disease. That $17 million replenishes that.
The member asked about hospital data for 2011-12. I do not know why the member is asking about that in this budget consideration. That is information that is collected by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. They have the information that they need to calculate the efficient price because it is based on 2010-11 data.
I am sure Victorians will be very pleased that you have raised this: Victoria has not submitted data on the most recent quarter of October-December 2012, but this does not affect the calculation of the national efficient price. The Victorian health minister and the Victoria government have been spectacularly bad at providing the data necessary. The reason is that every time they provide data it shows they are going backwards. Their waiting lists are getting longer, their emergency department waiting times are getting longer—every time they provide data it shows that despite massive increases in federal funding on every single measure the health system that the poor Victorian patients are faced with is getting worse. I will let David Davis know that you are very concerned about the fact that he is not providing his data.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:03): I have a question for the minister or the parliamentary secretary as appropriate about organ donation. I feel very strongly about the issue of organ donation; I have been an organ donor, and ticked the box, ever since I got my first licence, like a lot of people. When I became aware of the organ donor register many years ago I registered myself.
I am very encouraged by a recent announcement of a two-year pilot of the live donor scheme beginning on 1 July. We have consistently debated how to increase rates of organ donation, and the need for people to discuss it with their family, but my understanding is that we are still lagging behind where Australia wants to be in this regard. So I was quite encouraged to see this pilot scheme providing a number of things, and this is six weeks paid leave at minimum wage, which I believe has just gone up to $3,733 for employers, who will pass it on to those eligible employees who become live organ donors. It predominately applies, as I understand it, to kidney donations and it can involve partial liver donations.
This is intended to reduce the waiting time for organ transplants. The focus is on kidney disease and I think that is particularly important. A little while ago, I met a young woman named Jess Sparkes, who has had a double lung transplant. She competed in the World Transplant Games. I was very touched by her story, along with that of Mr Michael Colvin, who was featured on the Four Cornersprogram on this subject. I have seen some criticisms already of this pilot program, one of them being questions about whether this is incentivising organ donation, which is of course illegal. I note that Mr Colvin, after years of needing dialysis, came out in support of the scheme and specifically said, 'It's not cash for kidneys; it's for people who have said to their friends and family, "I'd like to help but I can't keep up the mortgage payments."' There would be many personal reasons why people do not want to register to be a donor; it is very personal. But I think governments can play a role in breaking down some of the barriers and one of those includes where there is a financial disincentive or a financial barrier to do so. I can imagine no greater gift than donating an organ to a loved one and making that decision while you are alive. It must be very difficult. Where someone cannot do it for financial reasons, it must cause resentment between people and the potential donor must feel very bad themselves.
I imagine there are a lot of people in our community, including in my community, who would struggle to have enough time to do it—six weeks for recovery from surgery or to go without an income for the period. In regard to this pilot program, I would like to know whether financial concerns were identified as a major barrier to becoming a living donor. Does it apply only to full-time workers? Will it support part-time workers and people who are self-employed? When we are talking about live donors, there must be some benefits that would accrue to those with particular diseases such as kidney disease to receive an organ from a living donor as opposed to a deceased donor. Finally, what are the current rates of live organ donation and are we on target so that we might one day actually have enough organs from deceased donors?
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (13:07): I too saw that Four Corners report on Mark Colvin. I want to praise him for his courage and the many other people who are going through a similar experience. It is a big challenge and I have seen it personally. Twenty years ago, my mother-in-law, Corinne Briese, was the recipient of a liver transplant. The benefit to her and to my family was immense: she saw her grandchildren raised and her great-grandchildren born as a result of organ donation.
I thank the member for Greenway for her question. We have an ongoing commitment of course to sustain continuous improvement in organ and tissue donations. This government have done what no other government has done in the past. Since the establishment of the organ and tissue authority back in January 2009, we have seen some significant increases in donation and transplantation rates. We are continuing to work in this area. It is important to note that in this budget we put aside $2.6 million for a new initiative, the living donor paid leave scheme. I saw the headlines on that Sunday morning: 'Cash for kidney'. It was disingenuous and dishonest to say that. It is not true. We consulted widely with stakeholders in relation to this issue and I have personally spoken to a number of interested parties, particularly on the Sunday when the Minister for Health and I made the announcement. The joy and enthusiasm for this particular initiative cannot be underestimated. Tears were flowing and, in a number of cases, I could hear them yelling for joy at the other end of the phone.
We looked at overseas approaches, as you mentioned. We looked at what they are doing there. The substance of the scheme, which will begin on 1 July, is that it will provide up to six weeks paid leave at the minimum wage, which is currently $622.20 a week. The duration of the initiative is two years and we will undertake an evaluation of that initiative after that time. As you correctly said, member for Greenway, about 99 per cent of the donations in Australia involve the donation of a kidney. This is an incredibly generous and amazing sacrifice that people are prepared to make—to give a partial liver or a kidney. Most people cannot afford six weeks off. They have to pay their mortgage and meet their household expenses, so this has been an obstacle for them. We have provided six weeks pre-surgery evaluation and post-surgery convalescence. As you said, it provides the opportunity for people to take time off work. The scheme is for part-time and full-time workers and self-employed workers, as you mentioned before. The unemployed, of course, can get sickness benefits and other types of benefits.
It is not a matter of providing an incentive for people to do this; it is a matter of recognising the financial barriers that someone may face when they want to give generously to a loved one, a family friend, a spouse or a relative. The government does not believe—and I do not believe this is accepted by the opposition either—that it is appropriate to sell organs to make money. In Australia the waiting time for a kidney transplant from a deceased donor is about three to four years. As of 3 December 2012, 1,080 Australians were officially listed as waiting for a kidney transplant. Living organ donation numbers have steadily decreased, from a high of 356 donors in 2008 to 241 in 2012. The average between 2006 and 2011 was 290 living organ donors each year. We want to arrest that problem.
More than 30,000 Australians have received organ and tissue transplants in Australia since the first kidney transplant was performed in 1965. We have one of the highest success rates for organ transplantation in the world, with survival rates exceeding 90 per cent in the first year. This is a very generous thing for someone to do, but it means that the quality of someone's life and their employment opportunities can be enhanced. The reality is that it saves up to $73,000 a year in terms of dialysis for someone who is still getting that sort of treatment for their kidney disease. This is a great initiative. This is something that we think will arrest the decline. I commend the minister and all the stakeholders who have been pushing this initiative for such a long time.
Dr SOUTHCOTT: I would like to ask a couple of questions again. Firstly, I ask about the ad which appeared in Victorian newspapers on 23 February. We would simply like to know who approved those ads. Was the minister or her staff consulted about the ads? Did the minister or her staff see a proof of the ads before they were placed? Did those ads go through the departmental process or through the government advertising committee? And there is the question which the opposition is now asking for the third time: we would like some more detail about the communications campaign—$10 million over the next two years to fund a national information campaign and information products to inform Australians about the benefits of Medicare. Specifically, we would like to know what information products are being produced using this $10 million. What date is this money due to be spent by?
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (13:14): I would like to take this opportunity to ask some questions of the Minister for Health, especially in relation to current investments in expanding two particular cancer screening programs. The first one is the bowel cancer screening program and the second is the expansion of breast cancer and cervical cancer screening to women in the 70- to 74-year-old group.
The reason I ask this is that you yourself, Deputy Speaker, just a little while ago talked about the challenges faced by people in regional areas in relation to access to treatment but also to screening. In my case, I have an electorate that has a very high level of people linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. We as governments over the years have made commendable efforts to fund cancer awareness and prevention programs, but if language and culture are barriers mitigating against the full appreciation and benefit of those programs then we have a problem.
Recently I was visited by the BreastScreen Victoria people who, coincidentally, have an office right next door to my own in Broadmeadows. They showed me figures that indicated a dramatic drop in the number of women who were availing themselves of mammography in age groups and ethnic backgrounds that I at least was of the impression we had made significant advances in. As a member here, I have spent many years advocating for screening in various breast cancer and bowel cancer programs. As a result of that meeting, next week my office is hosting a morning tea which we have quite aptly described as a mother-daughter awareness morning tea, the reason being that many women in the elder category of 60 and over are not actually having mammograms. On the other side of that, you have women younger than 30 and 40 who are also not having mammograms. They are areas that we have been targeting. It is very important to remind women in those age groups that it is just as important for them to have mammograms. I am having this morning tea next week in the hope of encouraging mother-daughter couples, with the dual purpose of the mother looking out for the welfare of the daughter and the daughter looking out for the welfare of the mother—and this will hopefully spread to nieces and granddaughters. We are doing it in this particular way because one of the problems with women generally, especially those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, is a fear of what the mammogram might reveal and so they avoid having potentially life-saving screenings. I am looking forward to the minister speaking about the government's decision to increase the program for breast cancer screening to women in the 70 to 74 group.
Last year I was also very pleased that the government funded a bowel screening program. I did have the opportunity to ask the minister questions about this last year, but this year I am particularly also pleased that we are increasing the funding to that bowel screening program. As a result of some of the work I did last year on bowel cancer screening my office has had an incredible response from the community. We took the step of translating the material from the bowel cancer screening kit into five different languages. I spoke about regions being a barrier. Languages are also a barrier. On the back of those successful translations into various languages of this very important screening program, I have had an incredible response and support from my electorate. So, Minister, I would like you to, please, reflect on your views, on behalf of the government, on our investments in these cancer prevention, detection and treatment programs and how they are in fact improving the lives of Australians, especially those Australians who have been touched by cancer.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (13:18): I will start with the questions from the member for Boothby. He was asking about the Victorian advertising campaign. That is not actually in this budget, so he will need to find another opportunity to ask about that. The question seems to be: why would you have a Medicare campaign when people know about Medicare? As I said earlier to the member for Boothby, there are a range of new services that are being provided by Medicare that people need to know about. They are excellent new services. The expanded after-hours GP helpline is such a help, particularly to parents in the middle of the night.
Dr Southcott: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. They were two very simple questions, about information products and the date the campaign will finish—that is all we asked.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have made your point of order. I call the minister.
Ms PLIBERSEK: There is a range of information materials. They will tell people that the expanded after hours GP hotline means that, instead of leaving home in the middle of the night with a sick baby, when they are not sure whether it can wait till morning a worried parent can call the GP information hotline. It means that, for a frail older person who finds it hard to get to the doctor and wants a little advice, instead of leaving home in the middle of the night—
Dr Southcott: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order, on relevance. We want some detail about the information products and the date the communication campaign will conclude—very simple questions.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Member for Boothby. I call the minister.
Ms PLIBERSEK: So a frail older person who is sick and worried in the middle of the night and does not really want to go and wait six hours in the emergency department of the local hospital can call the GP helpline. They will know what the number is because they will have that information before them.
The other elements of this campaign will remind people that they can now get a personally controlled e-health record. They can take their health information anywhere with them, from doctor to doctor. If they change doctors, see a specialist or are travelling, they will be able to very easily access the information in their personally controlled e-health record. We already have close to one-quarter of a million people signed up for their personally controlled e-health records, but we know the people who would benefit most are people who see a number of doctors, who travel frequently or who see new doctors all the time, and of course young families with young children. That is why on the weekend we launched the baby BlueBook, the e-health app that connects children's information with their personally controlled e-health record.
The other element is letting people know about Medicare Locals. They are 61 local health organisations designed and launched by Labor across the country to ensure that local decisions about primary health care are made at a community level, gaps are identified at a local level and solutions are found at a local level to fill those gaps.
The member for Calwell asked about cancer care. I pay tribute to her long association with the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in particular. I know she has an interest in cancer issues more generally, but the member for Calwell has been extraordinarily diligent in talking to her community, a very diverse community with a very large range of language groups, about the importance of bowel cancer screening. I am very pleased that we increased funding to the Bowel Cancer Screening Program this year as part of our $226 million cancer package in the budget. We also, of course, increased funding to breast cancer, both screening and care—for screening by expanding the target age range up to 74 years—with extra support for the McGrath Foundation breast care nurses.
In fact, the cancer package altogether has a range of things that I know the member for Calwell will be very interested in, including continuing funding for around 280 critically ill patients to be able to use the bone marrow transplant program in 2013-14 and new chemotherapy drugs. We are listing new drugs all the time—in fact, we have listed 32 new chemotherapy drugs for 15 different cancers since 2007 and we have put $30 million into this budget to make sure that patients continue to have access to those chemotherapy drugs. We are supporting CanTeen, a fantastic organisation that supports young people with cancer. It is hard enough being a teenager, but being a teenager and finding out you have leukaemia or some other type of cancer is extraordinarily difficult. CanTeen does great work and we are very pleased to support it.
I mentioned the McGrath Foundation earlier. Our increased funding will expand the number of funded nurses from 44 to 57. They are the ones that the government funds; obviously, the McGrath Foundation also do a fine job of fundraising themselves to support extra McGrath breast care nurses. We have $18½ million for the Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre's program, including new funding of $5.5 million for the Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre. When I say new I mean first-time funded; the other two centres had initial funding, their funding was coming to an end and we have refunded those two centres and funded an additional centre at the Kinghorn Cancer Centre in Sydney. We are continuing funding at the centre at Epworth Hospital in Melbourne and the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane.
There is also around $6 million—just under; $5.9 million—for improving treatment and outcomes for patients with lung cancer. Lung cancer is a very complex cancer to treat. It has, unfortunately, low survival rates. When measured against other cancers, we have rates that are too high in Australia. There is also $36½ million to continue the excellent work of the Victorian Cytology Service on cervical cancers and the research that goes with that.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:25): I have some questions for the Minister for Indigenous Health. I will be covering renal issues, dental issues and the Mason review, but first of all I want to focus on the budget announcement in particular: the $777 million that has been announced as a three-year commitment by the federal government. Firstly, Minister, breaking down that commitment into the three financial years would be very helpful. Secondly, was there any discussion with state governments on your contribution prior to the budget announcement and, if so, which states and what was the nature of that correspondence? Thirdly, what is the intended contribution by state governments to match your $777 million commitment? Do you have an implementation plan in place? Will it be similar to previous implementation plans, or is it going to diverge somewhat from the previous implementation plan for the NPA?
More specifically then to renal disease and the recent breakdown in negotiations with the Territory government over chronic renal disease funding. Minister, could I ask for your assessment of the state of play as of today? We understand that late last week there was some communication between your office and stakeholders indicating that the remaining $10 million that had been set aside for a post Alan Cass solution to chronic renal disease was in limbo. I appreciate that they have been difficult negotiations, but what exactly has happened to that $10 million? Is it still on the table? And will there be a coordinated and carefully planned announcement? Or are we at risk of seeing this money either dribbled out, as election commitments around Central Australia, or, worse, removed from dental care or from Indigenous health altogether and back to consolidated revenue? I know you would agree that this would be an adverse outcome.
I wanted to ask specifically about the post-CDDS environment. The CDDS was cruelly and viciously cut off in November last year, leaving the sickest adults in particular vulnerable, and many Indigenous Australians have now become utterly reliant on what was not looking after them before—that is, state dental services. That is another debate. But, specifically, Minister, have you made an assessment of the degree of access and availability to dental care for Indigenous Australians in 2013 and since the termination of the CDDS? In particular, have you looked at the states that have the lowest per capita dental investment—those eastern seaboard states in particular—and have you looked specifically at AMSs around the country? And those that do have dental agreements, are they actually, year on year and month on month, still treating as many Indigenous Australians with chronic and complex dental disease as they were this time last year? That would be a fair assessment. Has the number of people receiving treatment fallen away and, if so, do you have a view on that?
I particularly draw your attention to large provincial cities up the eastern seaboard that have large AMSs that provide dental care, but are no longer able to access the CDDS, which effectively cuts out 90 per cent of Australia's 12,000 dentists from being able to provide any service at all to an Indigenous Australian. Can you help me with the commitment of state hospital funding for dental? How will that work in a practical way: if you are an Indigenous Australian presenting to an AMS and you are told that there is no longer a CDDS arrangement, does this entail a trip to the public hospital? Does this entail being put onto a long waiting list—often 2½ years or longer? Is there a process where state public hospitals are now forced to pick through a waiting list trying to identify the Indigenous Australians? And are we reaching a point where vouchers, for instance, are being provided and then these Indigenous Australians have to then travel back to the dental service and have a second go at turning up for treatment?
If vouchers are being provided, just how large are those vouchers—$300 or $3,000? Or do we have this invidious situation where Indigenous Australians have to turn up for a second voucher when the first one runs out? These are very practical issues facing Indigenous families who are hoping for timely dental treatment.
Lastly, I have two small matters. Firstly, there is a service by the name of Murri Medical, which exists in Caboolture. It is my understanding that they are doing very promising work, including doing 68 per cent of all of the Indigenous 715 items for their region. That is quite a considerable achievement for a service that only began a couple of years ago. Minister, have you visited Murri Medical, particularly in Caboolture, and seen their service? If not, have you ever been invited to? You might be able to check your records and see if you have received an invitation to visit Murri Medical that perhaps has not been taken up. Secondly, as the Jenny Mason review tells us, do you finally concede that the rural classification scheme of your government is flawed? (Time expired)
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (13:30): I also wish to ask the Minister for Indigenous Health a question and mine is more general than the one that just preceded. I do think it important that the minister outline to us how the current budget continues to give our government's commitment to closing the gap in life expectancy between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians. I ask this question in a week where yet another wonderful Indigenous leader has been lost to the Aboriginal community and to the people of Australia, far too soon.
I ask it also as the member for Newcastle. I use our Medicare Local statistics, a wonderful baseline document prepared when Medicare Locals were set up. It shows the number of Indigenous people in each electorate and in each Medicare Local area. In my region, the areas of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle have very high Indigenous population proportions. There are 7½ per cent in Lake Macquarie and 6.8 per cent in Newcastle. Interestingly, their estimates show that 60 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders access mainstream health care. In my electorate, the Newcastle and Hunter Medicare Local has been particularly active in informing general practitioners, GPs, how they should be responding and has been assisting them to respond to the needs of Indigenous people in my electorate.
Interestingly, I also come from the perspective of being in the electorate where our local university trains about 75 per cent of all Indigenous GPs. We are absolutely blessed to have Professor Kelvin Kong, the first Indigenous surgeon in Australia and the first Aboriginal Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who specialises in head-and-neck surgery and ear-nose-and-throat surgery, practising once more in his home region. It is a great privilege to have him there.
I have seen that wonderful side of Indigenous success and the commitment by Indigenous people to closing that gap and being involved in delivering those services. As part of the ATSIA committee of this parliament I have also visited many remote communities and listened to remote communities tell of their health needs and the need for their people to have access to services. It is of great distress to see people with systemic disease and systemic problems, but it is wonderful to see Indigenous communities embracing the closing-the-gap initiatives as their own initiatives and their path for the future—for sustaining their future and the future of their people.
In those remote communities it was very heartening to see young Indigenous people say to us, often in their own language: 'We want to be here on the ground. We want to be the medical-service deliverers here.' It is wonderful to see them getting the training opportunities and having those aspirations. I must say that each community also raised with us the problems of alcohol abuse and the controls that have been seen by many Indigenous communities, particularly women, as absolutely vital for sustaining their health and safety.
I would ask the Minister for Indigenous Health to outline those areas of success in closing the gap and the challenges that exist in closing that gap successfully. How is that happening, not just in remote communities but also in urban communities like mine in Newcastle?
I was unable to be there on Friday, when the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing opened our headspace, another service that is widely accessed by young Indigenous people in my electorate. While he was there he also highlighted the youth service in Newcastle, which has been very active in engaging with Indigenous youth and bringing to their attention the availability of services such as the headspace centre in Newcastle, which Minister Butler opened on Friday.
Finally, I ask the Minister for Indigenous Health, to outline, please, how our budget assists the continuation of the Gillard Labor government's commitment to closing the gap in life expectancy.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC) (13:35): I thank both the opposition and the member for Newcastle for the questions. I am aware of the time. I will very quickly give a brief summary of what we are doing and allow Tanya, if you do not mind, to refer to the dental question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms O'Neill ): The Minister for Health.
Mr SNOWDON: She is also Tanya. We have done a great deal, as you rightly pointed out, in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, and we are very proud of what we have done. But, as you also alluded to, there is still a lot more to be done. I think that is a shared view across the parliament.
We have made huge strides over recent years as a result of the commitment of both former health ministers and former prime ministers—Minister Roxon and Minister Plibersek, Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard—to support us in our ambition to close the gap in health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
We have done that in partnership, in part, with Aboriginal community controlled health organisations as well as private sector practitioners and hospital services, but also, at least up until now, in partnership with state and territory governments. Previously, as you would know, through the COAG process there was commitment of $1.6 billion, and $805,000 of that came from the Commonwealth. That money expires at the end of this year. You asked a question about the $777 million over three years. That is an ongoing measure as part of our ongoing commitment. I do not have the annual break-up of that fund for you, but in total it is actually quite a deal more than $777 million, because it is for the three years to June 2016, and when the flow-on from MBS and PBS are taken into account the Commonwealth contribution will be $992 million over three years. That is a significant increase over what we have done previously.
The current NPA is at $201 million a year; the new NPA will be over $330 million a year. That is a dramatic increase in Commonwealth commitment to the NPA process. To date we have only had the Victorian government respond to our invitation to sign the new NPA. We have asked each state and territory government to respond positively. We are in negotiation with all but Western Australia, who have refused to talk to us, effectively saying that they are not prepared to talk about a new NPA around closing the gap. That is a shame, and it will mean that people in Western Australia will have fewer resources than they might otherwise have for the purposes of Aboriginal health in that jurisdiction.
You asked me about renal disease. If you do not mind I will respond to this, because it is a very important question. You asked about the commitment of money. The money is committed. It will not be going back to anywhere. It is there for the next financial year. We are intent on making sure that we expend that money to improve primary health outcomes for people with renal disease.
Unfortunately, we have had no success in working with the Northern Territory government. We offered them the resources to build accommodation for renal patients, which is very much overdue and required, in Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Our requirement from them was the ongoing recurrent funding, which we estimated to be less than half a million dollars a year. We were proposing to spend $13 million. They said, instead, 'We don't want the money.' They have done this, by the way, in a number of other areas, including with the Health and Hospitals Fund for accommodation in Katherine and Gove. Now, of course, they are also trying to garnish or sequester—whatever word you want to use—Health and Hospitals Fund investment of around $18 million into the Royal Darwin Hospital for patient accommodation. They now want to use that as a penal settlement.
Frankly, it is not good enough, and I would say to the opposition: if you are in discussions with the Northern Territory government, you might say to them, 'This is not an appropriate way to behave, and you ought to do yourself and your community a favour and make sure you provide reasonable accommodation for all those patients travelling to Alice Springs, Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Gove who require care, and make sure you do it now, because what we're seeing as a direct result is people dying.' We are committed to assisting and working with the South Australian, Western Australian and Northern Territory governments on this issue of renal care, but it requires cooperation. (Time expired)
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:40): I have a question for the Minister for Health, picking up on the dental question that I asked before. Has the minister looked at the impact of the closure of the CDDS on Indigenous Australians who are presenting to AMSs? The second part is about the Mason review. Does she concede that the ASGC system is flawed? Why was this the only recommendation picked up out of the recommendation review? On the $5.6 billion in the press release that came out post Mason, is that all for regional training or is that your entire health-related training budget, not necessarily related to regional training?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (13:41): I am happy to answer, but I am not sure what time we need to finish here.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms O'Neill ): We will be rising at 1.45.
Ms PLIBERSEK: In relation to dental services, we have put $4.6 billion over two budgets into dental services. The initial $515.3 million included around $345 million for a waiting list blitz. That is already treating patients right around Australia. People who have been on waiting lists for years are now getting their teeth seen because they are able to participate in this waiting list blitz—$345.9 million. It took some time for some of the states and territories to sign up. I was disappointed in how hard it is sometimes to give states money. But they now have all accepted the money and are treating patients, taking them off the waiting lists and getting their waiting lists to such low levels that they are able to recall people for preventive checks as well. The benefit of this approach over the CDDS is that it can treat people that do not have a chronic disease. We know that there are a lot of people who have terrible teeth but did not have a chronic disease and missed out on the CDDS. We also know that the CDDS was a widely rorted scheme. Unfortunately, it was designed so poorly that there is no other way of doing it but to close the scheme down. It was not salvageable.
As to whether Aboriginal medical services are making use of the new scheme, they absolutely should be. They should be in very close contact with their state and territory governments, which are the managers of the public dental systems in each state and territory. Some Aboriginal medical services have dental chairs in the service. They should be talking to their state or territory government about continued funding from this Commonwealth funding boost going straight to those dental chairs in the AMSs. Where the AMS does not have a chair—where it has an arrangement with another dental service—again the existing relationships that those Aboriginal medical services have with their patients should be a very good way to make sure that the people who need good dental care are getting it through this boost to funding.
I also have to mention the $2.7 billion that goes into Grow Up Smiling. I am sure that the member for Bowman, like me, has travelled to a number of Indigenous communities where you see kids with no teeth, or very bad teeth. Right across our community we are seeing rates of dental caries increasing rather than decreasing since the nineties in particular. Some of it is related to diet. Some of it is—
An honourable member: State governments stopping fluoride in the water.
Ms PLIBERSEK: State governments stopping fluoride in water certainly will not help. But those children for the most part were not eligible for Grow Up Smiling because they did not have other ill health effects in their bodies. So for Grow Up Smiling there is $2.7 billion that will make it as easy for 3.4 million children to see a dentist as it is now is to see a doctor. This will mean that they get good oral health today, but that good oral health today lasts them a lifetime. It is pretty hard to have poor teeth as a kid and grow up to have good teeth. It does not happen. So, by investing early in children and making sure that they start life with good oral health, we make sure that they can grow into adults that have good oral health.
The member for Bowman also asked about the Mason review and recommendations that have been taken up. The Mason review has made a number of recommendations, and there are a number that I will consider in greater detail. But there were two that I accepted immediately because all of the information I had from other sources—not just the Mason review—told me that they were sensible recommendations. (Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Sitting suspended fr om 13:45 to 15:48
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Proposed expenditure, $4,202,808,000
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:48): I do have a number of questions that I want to put to the minister in this consideration in detail of the Appropriations Bill with respect to education. In last year's midyear economic and fiscal outlook, MYEFO, indexation of 5.6 per cent was projected for the years 2013-14 to 2015-16. I refer the minister to Budget Paper No. 2 2013-14, page 120, which suggests that the government intends to index school funding at 4.7 per cent from 2014 onwards. The first question is: does the 4.7 per cent growth funding include enrolment growth? Secondly, what is the difference in dollar terms between 5.6 and 4.7 in indexation for each of the years from 2013-14 to 2016-17? I also refer the minister to advice provided by the Department of Finance and Deregulation last week in Senate estimates hearings, which confirmed that the current method of indexation, the AGSRC, goes up and down each year and that the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook indexation of 5.6 per cent was correct at the time of publication.
There is a specific paragraph in Budget Paper No. 2 that suggests:
Under the former approach of growing these allocations in line with the AGSRC, schools funding growth could have fallen below these levels. Had the AGSRC fallen to three per cent per annum (as suggested by current State estimates, on average) then the total additional investment in schools under the National Plan for School Improvement would equate to approximately $16.2 billion over six years.
Firstly, was only one year of state estimates used to project three per cent indexation across six years in making this assumption? Secondly, why wasn't the 10-year rolling average used as per previous budget estimates, given the Department of Finance confirmed that the 10-year rolling average projections contained in MYEFO were correct at the time of publication? Thirdly, was it the department that put in this paragraph in Budget Paper No. 2, page 120, or the minister's office? Did the state estimates used to project AGSRC in the budget include the additional funding your government is asking the states to contribute under the National Plan for School Improvement? If the state estimates did not include the amount of funding the states are being asked to contribute under the National Plan for School Improvement, why not?
In that time I have remaining I will ask a number of other questions. The minister might want to take them on notice and respond, as some ministers do, or he may choose to respond to them today if he can. I refer the minister to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio budget statements on page 50, Special appropriations under the Schools Assistance Act 2008. I also refer him to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio budget statements on page 50, Special appropriations under the Australian Education Act 2013. Firstly, why is there more than $1 billion less forecast in recurrent funding for non-government schools over the forward estimates when comparing the portfolio budget statements of last year to this year? Secondly, will the following targeted programs for non-government schools be discontinued at the end of the year? The Indigenous Supplementary Assistance, Indigenous Funding Guarantee, Country Areas Program, School Languages Program, English as a Second Language, Literacy and Numeracy in Special Learning Needs, and Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs (Students with a Disability). How much are targeted programs worth to the non-government sector each year? With respect to the total funding for non-government schools contained within the forecasts from the portfolio budget statements at page 50, what is: firstly, the value of indexation supplementation for each year across the forward estimates in dollar terms? Secondly, the value of recurrent funding for each year across the forward estimates for Catholic schools, by state and territory? Thirdly, the value of recurrent funding for each year across the forward estimates for independent schools by state and territory?
As I have another minute, I will ask further questions. An opinion editorial by Stephen Anthony of Macroeconomics Pty Limited in the Australian Financial Review of 21 May noted a number of things. I refer the minister to the article and ask the following questions. How much of the $2.8 billion budgeted for the National Plan for School Improvement is unrebadged new money? Is the reward for school improvement programs being rebadged as suggested by Mr Anthony? Which other national partnerships are being redirected into the National Plan for School Improvement? Is it the case that the government is rebadging its own school funding programs? I would like to be able to ask further questions. Unfortunately, because of the lateness of the start of this consideration in detail, I will not be able to do that. I would appreciate it if the minister tried to answer those questions, and I am sure if he can he will. My colleagues, including the member for Farrer, the member for Higgins and others, will take up the baton and ask questions about their portfolios.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (15:53): I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the false claims and other questions put to me by the shadow minister. In relation to the way in which we have committed ourselves to a national plan for school improvement based on indexation that the Commonwealth will apply of 4.7 per cent and seeking to secure three per cent in indexation as a commitment from states, the fact is that the indexation that we are committing for the future and the decisions that we have made are based on current state budget decisions and estimates. They apply the existing method for calculating indexation, and it shows very clearly that over the coming years indexation will fall to around three per cent. This means less money from the Commonwealth for all schools. That is the basic fact here that the shadow minister continues to ignore.
On a range of other questions that the shadow minister has put to me, I am happy to provide some additional detail for his edification. I refer him to my press release, titled Pyne letter fails the fact test. I am sure he had an opportunity to consider that release at the time that it was released, which was late May—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr GARRETT: Yes, you should have a read of it and, on that basis, be well informed about the National Plan for School Improvement. The fact is that the considerable commitment in the budget to education was a continuation of what has been one of the most significant and important reform areas for this Labor government: policy and investment. There is total spending in all three portfolio areas at around $20.7 billion, and an overall spending outlined in the forward estimates for the next four years for schools of some $64 billion, with $25.1 billion for early childhood and $275.9 million for youth. Overall spending for the National Plan for School Improvement is $9.8 billion over six financial years. This is consistent with the Prime Minister's offer to the states for a two-for-one effective investment in our schools, realising some $14.5 billion for Australian schools to see a fairer funding model in place from 2014.
The effect of the coalition's position both on indexation and on school investment broadly would be to see a lessening in school investment over time to the tune of $16.2 billion, taking into account the additional investments that I have identified. That, regrettably, is the situation that the shadow minister finds himself in: no commitment on his side to increase investment in education at all, and us on the other hand with a plan for school improvement which has been budgeted for and for which I am pleased to say legislation is in the House, and those amendments will likewise be in the House.
I refer a little bit further to the questions put to me by the shadow minister. I am not familiar with the article by Mr Anthony that he referred to. What I say is that the investment contained in the budget which we committed ourselves to will secure a funding future for schools right around Australia. Now, all that remains to happen is for state governments—as the New South Wales state government has wisely determined to do—to sign on for the National Plan for School Improvement. I do not think there is any doubt at all that when you look at the range of investments, the quantum of investment that we have made and the significant reforms in education—some of which I will refer to later on if I get the opportunity—we can see that this budget continued that outstanding record of both investment and policy reform.
Finally, to state premiers and state treasurers: our commitment is in our budget. You have that opportunity in the budgets you are bringing down now to make a similar commitment. If you do that you will put in place the necessary resources to secure the needs in education that students across your states face.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (15:58): I am pleased to be able to make a few remarks to and inquiries of the minister this afternoon, particularly in relation to the National Plan for School Improvement and related budget measures. At the beginning of my comments and my questions this afternoon, may I say it is a great pleasure to see opposition members in the chamber. We waited for a considerable period, I recall, in last year's consideration in detail but, alas, failed to see opposition members attend. It is excellent to see them here this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing their questions on this important matter of education and the National Plan for School Improvement. These are matters which I know will be to be considerable benefit of schools in my electorate. Needless to say, that is not on my say-so: it is on the say-so of the schools themselves.
I have had the opportunity to visit so very many of my schools during the last three years, across La Trobe and across all sectors, and in recent months I have had cause to hear from those schools—indeed, as recently as last week in this place, when principals of schools within my electorate and right across the region came to the parliament and heard from the education minister and the shadow minister about what essentially is being offered in relation to school education in the context of the current budget and the forthcoming election. I heard from local schools in my area that they saw there was a great deal of benefit to be derived by them and their respective schools from the proposals put forward by us in the National Plan for School Improvement. So I certainly commend the minister for his mammoth endeavours in this regard over quite a long period of time, building on the review which we commissioned and building on the very significant investments which have been to the benefit of all schools around the country. That is as a result of the determination of this government, from day one of its term, to improve the lot of schoolchildren across all sectors and, accordingly, lift educational standards in the long term and improve the education and employment prospects of students.
I will refer to a few of the schools in my electorate that have been the beneficiaries of programs such as the national partnership on literacy and numeracy. I can advise members that St Michael's School in Berwick, Boronia Heights College in Boronia, Emerald Secondary College in Emerald, Kambrya College in Berwick, Upwey South Primary School and Belgrave Heights Christian School have all been beneficiaries under the national plan for literacy and numeracy. Schools like Kambrya College have made it very clear to me that they benefited greatly, and their students benefited greatly, and they were incredibly grateful for the Commonwealth investment there.
Regrettably, so many of these things the Commonwealth commits to and make significant strides in are vetoed by state governments. It has been true of the Baillieu government and it is true now of the Napthine government. It is the same old story. We put in significant amounts of funding and resources, we do the detailed work and then state governments scrap or cut things like the EMA in Victoria, the School Start Bonus, VET and VCAL funding, and funding for TAFE colleges—all things that are to the very great detriment of schools and to the very great detriment of students and their career paths in education.
I was out at another school in my electorate not terribly long ago, Selby Primary School. It has an excellent principal who has relatively recently joined the school and he is doing extraordinary things. I would be confident that he and his school community would make brilliant use of the additional resources that would flow from the National Plan for School Improvement. It disturbs me greatly that there has been such resistance from the Victorian government to even the prospect of engaging on the National Plan for School Improvement, and I dearly wish that they would follow the lead of some of their colleagues a little bit further north—in New South Wales—in having an open mind about this.
With that in mind, Minister Garrett, I would specifically like to ask you as someone who has been engaged in very detailed negotiations around the country on these issues what you would expect to happen to Victorian schools, such as those in my electorate, if the Napthine government continued to resist the National Plan for School Improvement?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (16:03): I thank the member for La Trobe for her question and I do acknowledge her considerable and strong representation of the schools in her electorate, both government and non-government. I have appreciated the opportunity to visit the member's electorate on a number of occasions and see first-hand the kind of support that schools in her electorate have already received as a consequence of this Labor government's investment in La Trobe schools. I can see the Hillcrest Equine Trade Training Centre and the significant funding of $1.5 million received to enable those trade-training facilities to be delivered. I can see significant investment in schools in the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program at schools like St Joseph's College, Gembrook Primary School, St Francis Xavier College, Hillcrest Christian College, Nossal High School and many, many others.
I can see the benefits of the investment in empowering local schools in national partnerships that have resulted in students in the schools in the members' electorates having by far a greater opportunity than they would have had previously for good, assisted, focused and targeted learning and support in the school setting.
It is important, when we consider the budget in detail, to reflect on the fact that the total spending in our areas of the budget is around $14.4 billion for schools, $6 billion for early childhood education and care and $200 million for youths. Let us just compare them with the last Howard budget, for a second or two. Even in schools, nearly twice as much investment has been delivered by this government over periods of the budget. We had $14.4 billion in schools compared with around $8½ billion in the last Howard government budget, with the commitment to a national plan for school improvement and delivery of additional resources to students in schools around Australia, with the opportunity for improved learning outcomes as a result.
The member asked me what the impact and effect would be of the Victorian government not choosing to support and join with us in a national plan for school improvement. The answer to that question is very straight forward. Under the current—broken—funding model, over the next six years Victorian schools will lose a total of around $3 billion from government schools and around $1.2 billion from non-government schools. These are not trifling sums. This is an extraordinary denigration of duty, of care, on the part of the Victorian Minister for Education and the Premier if they do not take this opportunity for additional investment. Failing to do that will see schools worse off. That is an average of around $1.7 million per school and around $3,700 per student in the non-government sector, and nearly $2 million per school and around $5,500 per student in the government sector. That includes the electorate of the member for La Trobe.
It is really time for Premier Napthine to determine that he will act in the interests of students in Victoria and Victorian schools and eschew some of the politics we have seen over the last couple of weeks. Let us look at what Premier O'Farrell did in New South Wales. It is a coalition state, with a Liberal Premier and a National party education minister. They had every opportunity to consider the interests of students in their schools, to deliver an additional investment of some $5 billion. And they took it—as did the ACT, which did not necessarily get similarly large amounts coming through its school system but nevertheless recognised the merits not only of additional investment but also of a nation plan for school improvement.
It goes without saying that teachers aids, homework classes, literacy coaches, specialised teachers to help with the curriculum and additional investment in software programs to assist teachers working with kids who have a disability—the range of supports that can be provided with an investment are considerable, including in the member's electorate, and the Victorian Premier should join.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (16:08 I welcome the opportunity to address some questions to the minister for early childhood, who has just been on his feet. These questions specifically concern the $300 million commitment to additional wages for those working in the childcare sector, the Early Years Quality Fund and the associated pay unit within the Fair Work Commission.
I appreciate that the minister and his department are not responsible for the information that is on the Big Steps website; nevertheless, given the amount of innuendo, rumour and misinformation that is circulating amongst a sector that contains very vulnerable workers, I would like the minister to take this opportunity to respond to some of the statements and information that is provided by the Big Steps campaign, which was initiated by the union United Voice.
In particular, I would like the minister to comment on answer b of question 4 of the frequently asked questions on the Big Steps website. It mentions that, in order for a centre to receive funding, it may show that in the membership of its workforce there are members of United Voice, and that is 'because United Voice is an organisation that has campaigned for and supported the national quality framework'. While we know that United Voice has campaigned for and supported wages and a deal that has been done with the Prime Minister, would the minister agree that United Voice is actually responsible for the national quality framework?
Minister, that is really a side issue. The question I ask on that answer is whether membership of United Voice is a requirement for a centre to receive payments under the Early Years Quality Fund, given that anecdotally I have received many reports of unions entering into workplaces, childcare centres and long-day care centres, and insisting to the educators on the floor (1) that they have a meeting and (2) that 60 per cent of them join the union in order for that centre to be eligible for increased funding. I would like the minister to take this opportunity to completely answer: is that or is that not the case?
The other aspect that I would like the minister to address—and it is closely related—is that the Big Steps website and the union United Voice have put out and widely circulated a table of wage increases that will relate to all those who would be successful in receiving funding. Is the minister able to tell us whether that wages schedule is in fact correct? I will just pick one example—it is the one that is most often used—which is that the first increment of a certificate III would receive $3 an hour. Is that what the wage increase would be if a centre were successful?
The third area that I would like to minister to address—again closely related—is the proportion of the workforce that will receive the increased pay. We appreciate that the bill is before the House and has been referred to House and Senate committees. The Big Steps website says that 40 per cent of the workforce will receive this funding and that if you are an educator you therefore have a 40 per cent chance of being able to receive this funding. Does the minister agree with the 40 per cent figure? Other estimates are much lower. I would like to know what proportion of the workforce the minister believes may be eligible for this funding.
So, Minister, if I can just briefly sum up before we hear an answer, those things are, working backwards: what proportion of the workforce do you believe would be able to receive the funding? To what degree does membership of the union United Voice in that workplace influence the ability of those workers to receive the funding? Is the pay schedule that is being widely circulated correct? I probably have enough in that for you to give us a detailed response, thank you.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (16:13): I thank the member for Farrer for her question. One of the things that I think have been most notable in the development of better provision of education and care for young Australians before they enter school has been the absence of strong support from those opposite for the reforms that we have had underway and the investment that we have made. I really think it boggles the mind that the member is standing up and quoting a website to me and talking about anecdotal information that she has received, when I look at the budget and see the most significant ongoing continuing investment in the early childhood and care. I will come to some of those questions in a second, but let us be really clear about it: we have invested record amounts in early childhood care and education, and the government, those that work with the government and members in this Federation Chamber are extremely proud of that significant and ongoing commitment.
Let us look at it. It is about $25.1 billion over the next four years. This makes a direct impact on the lives of families and children. Yes, there is $22.1 billion in direct childcare assistance to parents and that is more than triple the investment. I am very pleased to have my colleague Minister Ellis here with me in the Federation Chamber. I am sure she will be more than willing to take additional questions on this. So there will be $655 million over the next 18 months in the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education and $300 million, which went to the source of the member's question, to deliver a pay rise to early childhood workers through the Early Years Quality Fund. Before I address those issues, I want to put to the member for Farrer, given the seat she represents, that the earlier response I gave to the shadow minister on the importance of the National Plan for School Improvement is particularly apposite for her, given the fact that she has students and schools in regional—
Ms Ley: Deputy Speaker, we are halfway through the answer. This has nothing to do with the Gonski reforms in New South Wales.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Grierson ): Are you making a point of order?
Ms Ley: On a point of order, can the minister please come back to the three areas of my question?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is your time, too, member for Farrer.
Mr GARRETT: I think I have given myself sufficient time to deal with the shadow minister's questions and I make the point that, if she is concerned about the delivery of education in regional Australia, she will support the National Plan for School Improvement. Certainly we think the establishment of the Early Years Quality Fund goes some way towards dealing with some of the challenges facing those who work in the early childhood care and education sector and we certainly do, as you know, expect the Early Years Quality Fund advisory board to take up its responsibilities as identified as this initiative is developed in time. I am happy to answer a couple of those questions on behalf of the government and to make the point that eligibility criteria and assessment criteria will in fact be considered by the advisory board, and that is as it should be. It should not be any other way.
When you refer to the wages schedule, that is yet to be approved but certainly the government has announced that certificate III will get the $3 up. Again, the member asked me a question about the proportion covered. That will depend on the size of the service, the number of educators and the hours worked. But here is a bigger question which ought to be addressed as I respond: will the coalition ever commit itself to continuing the support for early childhood care and education and the national quality framework which has been the hallmark of the most substantial reforms and delivery in early childhood care and education we have seen in this parliament. That is the question you have to answer here. You have shown no commitment whatsoever to these reforms. We hear nothing from you about the sort of commitment you are likely to make but rather a little bit of petty politics around the side, while the substantial important reforms are delivered quite often in partnership with the states which you and your political partners are a part of. We will continue that commitment over time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister. I say to members that questioners so far have all been heard in silence. It would be appropriate that the minister is also heard in silence.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (16:18): School councils, business managers, principals and parents in my electorate of Higgins are very concerned about the lack of information and detail regarding the government's proposed new funding model and indexation arrangements for state, Catholic and independent schools. They are right to be concerned because the government sat on the Gonski recommendations for more than 18 months. It has, since then, been conducting discussions in secret and we are now less than six months before a new calendar year. Schools do not have any certainty regarding their funding arrangements and cannot plan for the future with the absence of knowledge of what it is they can deliver for their students.
I would like to draw the minister's attention to some of the information available on the public record regarding a number of schools in my electorate. I have done my own analysis of exactly what it is that will be the impact to them as a result of the government's proposed funding and indexation arrangements.
I have looked at the school type, the SES, the population of the school, the fee income total, the fee income per student, the SRS percentage, the Gonski expected minimum fee total, the Gonski expected minimum fee per student. And then I have calculated the fee difference and the percentage increase that will apply to these schools. I would like to go through each one in turn and get the minister's response.
The Holy Eucharist School in my electorate—I have calculated based on that information provided—will have a free differential of $2,843. Just to stand still, it will need to increase parents' fees by 232 per cent; the differential in fees for Our Lady of Lourdes School is $3,282, and the increase in fees for parents is 263 per cent; St Anthony's School, $2,333, an increase to parents of 148 per cent; at St Cecilias School in Glen Iris, parents are going to be hit with an extra $4038 per student, an increase of 257 per cent; St Joseph's Primary School in Malvern, $3064, an increase of 159 per cent; St Mary's School, $3,096 per student, an increase of 151 per cent; St Michael's School, $2,709, an increase of 179 per cent; St Roch's School, $3,436, an increase of 184 per cent. These are just some of the schools in my electorate. I am also particularly concerned about a number of other schools in my electorate as well. I would be very keen for the minister to respond to those figures.
I would also like the minister to respond to the transition to the new funding model. I refer the minister to advice provided during Senate estimates hearings for the Department of Finance and Deregulation last week. It was suggested that the total amount of funding provided across the forward estimates for the National Plan for School Improvement is $2.98 billion comprising of $2.1 billion in redirections, which leaves $880 million in additional funding set aside across the forward estimates for the National Plan for School Improvement.
Previous statements by the Prime Minister suggested that additional funding of $9.8 billion is required to transition all schools to the new funding model over a six-year period. The Prime Minister also suggested that the Gonski model will be transitioned in over six years. I understand the previous modelling of the transition to the full Gonski has been predicated on a straight-line transition over six years. The department of finance did not dispute the assumption that the government's estimates are predicated on a straight-line transition over six years.
My questions are: what transition arrangements are assumed in the budget for the National Plan for School Improvement? What impact will this have on the overall numbers? Will other states and territories be permitted to negotiate different transition paths? If a straight-line transition is assumed in the budget to introduce the new funding model over six years then is it not the case that the budget should have provided for 3.5 years of funding of the $9.8 billion given the model commences in 2014? Does the minister agree that a straight-line transition will translate in monetary terms to some $5.7 billion in additional funding out of $9.8 billion across the forward estimates assuming no growth for enrolment or indexation? Does the minister agree that $880 million over the forward estimates represents only about nine per cent of the total expenditure of the $9.8 billion that had been suggested by the Prime Minister as needed to transition to the new school funding model? Finally, can you provide exact details of the transition funding for each financial year across the forward estimates by state? (Time expired)
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (16:23): I expected a little better from the member for Higgins.
An honourable member: I didn't.
Mr GARRETT: Maybe others did not but I did. I expected the member for Higgins given that she had paid such close attention to the timing of the release of the Gonski recommendations would consequently have been aware of the fact that since that period of time, including through the ministerial council, which ministers Dixon and Hall participate in, we have continued to work closely with government and non-government school authorities as we start to finalise the shape, the content and the reform delivery of a National Plan for School Improvement.
This is actually a really big piece of important work done on a scale that we have not seen in the nation before. Coming in here and playing a bit of student politics around figures that have been released by somebody else at some other time and that do not reflect either what is in the budget or what the government's commitment is just does not cut the mustard. You stand judged in this place by the claims and assertions you make, because they do go on to the Hansard. If you want to run a line in here that all those schools that you have mentioned are going to find themselves in the same place as you are alleging, then broadcast it far and wide, member for Higgins, and then bear the consequences of one of two things happening. Firstly, Mr Abbott might persuade the Premier of Victoria that he will not and should not sign on to a National Plan for School Improvement, which includes additional investment over time, and as a consequence you will see less money going to every school around Victoria. Alternatively, he might persuade him to sign on to a National Plan for School Improvement, which this budget contains a commitment for over time.
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
Mr GARRETT: Whilst the member interjects, those are the facts of the situation. You will have an opportunity to reflect more closely on this legislation, including the amendments, which we will be discussing in the House. You will have an opportunity to consider it in the light of the New South Wales government's commitment to this National Plan for School Improvement. Why does the member think that the Premier of New South Wales, a Liberal premier, and the national education minister would sign on to a plan for school improvement if it was going to mean that his schools would get less money? This is a totally false allegation and a ridiculous one to boot. The fact is that in 2014 schools will receive at least their 2013 funding levels plus three per cent indexation—an increase in real terms. Many schools will receive extra investment from the new Schooling Resource Standard, which will increase every year from 2014. Those commitments have been absolutely clear, and that is what will happen if Premier Napthine decides to act in the interests of Victorian students.
The member should be very aware of the consequences for a Liberal government in Victoria not accepting the offer that is on the table from the Commonwealth for a National Plan for School Improvement. Around $1.9 million per school and $5,500 per student in the government sector and an average of $1.7 million per school and $3,700 per student in the non-government sector would be lost. That is the issue here, and there could not be a clearer contrast. Running around with a bunch of figures that you have got from somewhere—wherever that may be—without referring to the specific appropriation in the budget amounts to a little bit of game playing that does not get us very far in here. Remember that extra money in the member's electorate alone, or any school, will pay for literacy and numeracy coaches across six year, five class sets of iPads, run a middle-year focus group for three years to improve literacy and numeracy, a highly-accomplished curriculum and learning teacher over three years to support the rollout of the national curriculum, which the opposition leader said today was his great priority. Memo to the opposition: we have been doing education and supporting education ever since we came into government. We will not stand in here and have a bunch of fractious and fictional allegations thrown at us when we are delivering these reforms, which are in the interests of all schools and all students, including in Victoria.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:28): My parliamentary colleagues are well aware of my passion for education. In and ever since my maiden speech I have restated the fact that my life is testimony to the truth that education is the great transformer. It has given me choice, opportunity, the chance to pursue dreams and options that I did not dare to dream about. Through education I escaped the cycle of disadvantage and there are millions more like me who have been empowered through education. That is why I believe that world-class, quality schools are vitally important to the future of our country—crucially important. Listening to those opposite, I reflected on my own experience of being educated in the public school system in Victoria when we had back-to-back Liberal governments. I will paint a picture of what it looked like being educated in the public system in Victoria in the seventies and eighties. I remember my days at Donvale High School, where we had to spend a lot of our time in winter ducking buckets that were in the corridors because the roofs were leaking. I remember the facilities we had literally falling down around our ears. I remember the fact that when we had our assemblies we had to sit outside, in great contrast to what I see when I go out to schools now. I also reflect back on the lack of investment that was made in my primary school, Springview Primary School, in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Again, there were little things: we had to sit outside on the asphalt for a school assembly, and compare them now to what I see when I go to assemblies on a weekly basis at the schools in my electorate. They have these beautiful multipurpose facilities. They have libraries: we had a classroom that was a library in the seventies and eighties, but these have purpose-built libraries as a result of the investment and the confidence that Labor has had in educating and in getting our students up to world-class quality.
I am proud that this budget delivered real, long-term investment in schools because our schools just are not performing as they should. One in 12 Australians is not meeting the minimum standards in reading, writing and maths, while students from less-well-off backgrounds, like me, can be up to three years behind their classmates. Our results in international tests have gone backwards, and other countries are racing ahead of us. I was absolutely delighted that last Thursday the ACT government signed up to the National Plan for School Improvement. I know that this will transform the lives of so many young men and women in my electorate of Canberra.
Under the agreement between the ACT and the federal governments the total public investment in ACT schools will be around $5 billion in the six years over 2014-19. That is around $190 million extra over this period. The agreement also includes commitments from both the Commonwealth and ACT governments to maintain and grow our existing school funding over the next years. It also includes an agreement between the two governments for $26 million to establish a centre for quality teaching and learning at the University of Canberra. The centre will deliver professional skills and applied, practice-led research to support the introduction of the National Plan for School Improvement reforms. Prior to entering parliament I tutored in PR at the University of Canberra, and I know that the UC already produces fine graduates in all areas, including teaching. This centre will ensure that the teachers in Canberra and the region have access to the best possible training and development opportunities, and will make Canberra the region's leader in education.
The National Plan for School Improvement will make Australia a top-five country in maths, reading and science, and top five in equity and quality by 2025. I strongly believe that investing in education is the best thing we can do for the future of the country, and I am particularly proud of the government for introducing these bold, nationbuilding reforms.
However, I am also concerned about the future of these reforms given that the coalition has made no commitment to see them through if elected in September. The coalition has already promised pain and suffering for Canberra with its promise to slash up to 20,000 Public Service jobs, and I worry that it will bring more pain and suffering to Canberra's schools. Could the minister please explain what, if the coalition is elected in September, will happen to the agreement between the ACT and Commonwealth governments on the long-term education commitments in this budget, and to the schoolchildren in my electorate of Canberra?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (16:33): I think the member for Canberra for her question—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The minister has not had anything to say, so there is no point of order.
Mr Tudge: It is a point of order in relation to the question. The question was asked about coalition policy when the minister is the minister of the government's policy. If the question were asked of the government's policy that would be in order, but how could a question about the coalition's policy be in order?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. The member for Aston makes a point of order. I call the minister, but he must be relevant to his portfolio.
Mr GARRETT: I can assure you I will be relevant to the portfolio. I thank the member very much for that question. I know she has a very strong commitment to education and she was extremely supportive when the ACT government agreed with the Commonwealth for a new needs-based funding model to be delivered to students here in the ACT. Her question to me was what would the implications be, given the budgetary commitment that we have made, if there were to be a continuation of the current broken funding model under a coalition government? The answer is that, over the next six years, the ACT would lose a total of around $40 million for government schools and $60 million for non-government schools. That is $100 million that you would not see going to educate students in the ACT. And I congratulate the school systems, plural, in the ACT, government and non-government. It is a high-performing territory. There is no question that principals and teachers here are doing a great job, but they need that support.
So those would be the consequences if we were not able to secure the agreement of other states or if the coalition wanted to tear up this agreement between Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, for the ACT, and the Prime Minister. That shows in absolutely stark contrast the difference between this government and what is on offer over on the other side.
I should also take this opportunity, knowing that the member for Canberra has a great interest in this, to identify some of the support for the implementation of the National Plan for School Improvement that was contained in the budget. Of course, there is the support for the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority—$19.2 million for further resources for the implementation of the national curriculum, because that is an important part of the National Plan for School Improvement. For the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, there is $14.3 million for more resources for teachers and principals. There is $7½ million over three years for Education Services Australia to deliver resources for teachers in relation to phase 3 of the curriculum, which is absolutely critical and crucial. There are additional investments as well, such as the National Partnership on Youth Attainment and Transitions. Importantly—and I can see Minister Macklin is here—there is the Indigenous education targeted assistance program, the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education and support for young Australians, particularly through the Youth Connections program. All of these things are a wrap; they are a wrap not only around the investment quantum itself and the commitment but also around what young people need and are entitled to to learn to the best of their ability wherever they are living, whether they are here in the ACT or further afield.
That is what lies in this budget. That is the commitment that this government has always had to making sure that all Australians get the best possible education and that no child is left behind. It is on those principles that this budget is grounded, and that is the commitment we have—to deliver a national plan for school improvement which will continue through the life of this parliament.
So I thank the member for Canberra very much for her question. As I said, I was very pleased to see that historic agreement between the ACT government and the Commonwealth to provide additional resources in her electorate and in the member for Fraser's electorate which I know will contribute greatly to the wellbeing and education prospects of young Canberrans.
Debate adjourned.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Proposed expenditure, $2,389,033,000
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (16:38): I am pleased to be joined today by my ministerial colleagues the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, and the Minister for Community Services and Minister for the Status of Women. We did have some parliamentary secretaries with us but they seem to have stepped out for a moment. I say that just so members opposite know that we have people with the varying portfolio responsibilities here today.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (16:39): I appreciate the minister's attendance. It is an unusual occurrence in my experience of this debate. Yesterday the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation went AWOL during the portfolio debate, so it is great to have three ministers at the table. Thank you very much for indulging this chamber. It is a great honour for us to have such esteemed company this afternoon—and, obviously, you will be able to answer questions too, Minister, because you know the answers.
If you would not mind, Minister, I will start with a pet topic of mine and also of the member for Higgins, who is at the table, which is the use of Australian taxpayers' money to advertise a payment which will be received come what may by people in the electorate. In this instance I refer in particular to the advertising for and around the so-called schoolkids bonus, which of course my constituents are fully aware and I know constituents across the country are fully aware we intend to abolish because it is paid for out of mining tax revenue which does not exist. It is paid for out of a revenue stream which was expected to be there: $4 billion in this financial year. They collected some five per cent of expected revenue, but magically they expect in the coming years to jump back up to that elusive target of $12 billion, I think it was, over the forward estimates. As my friend Senator Mathias Cormann has highlighted so effectively and efficiently in the Senate, that is just a pipedream, a tax which increases our sovereign risk but does not actually achieve the revenue targets, but the government has still spent the money.
In that sense, I ask the minister a series of questions in relation to the schoolkids bonus. I refer in particular to answer No. 1 provided to a question on notice from the supplementary estimates in February regarding research conducted in relation to the schoolkids bonus by Taylor Nelson Sofres Australia. Can you table this research in this chamber for us to consider? What was the scope of the research? Can you table the brief that was given to TNS by the department?
In an answer provided to a further question on notice, No. 2, the department stated that the findings of the research showed that people were confused about the assistance available to families and wanted clear information. How have these findings influenced the communication strategy of the department—I do not want to use the old term 'moving forward'—going forward? Have any communication initiatives besides the schoolkids kits—they were the kits that were sent to all our offices, and we appreciate those, Minister; I think we got a letter to ask for a kit, from memory—been instituted as a result of the findings of the research? If not, why not? How many of the kits in total have been distributed to date?
I note that $3.5 million has been allocated in the 2013-14 budget to continue the schoolkids bonus communications campaign, in your PBS at page 48. Can you provide a breakdown of how these funds will be expended? Have the advertisements that are to be funded by this expenditure already been produced? If so, are they the same advertisements that have been running since 2012, or will there be a new campaign? If there is a new campaign, why were the old advertisements not deemed to be sufficient to continue to be used? What are the implications in terms of costs for drafting a new series of advertisements, as opposed to continuing the existing campaign?
Given that the schoolkids bonus has been in place for more than 12 months and has extensively been advertised, what is the need to continue to advertise the payment to this extent? Surely those receiving the payment are now well and truly informed of what it is for. Minister, this is the use of Australian taxpayers' money to advertise something that people will get in any event. I would be interested in your answers.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (16:43): I first of all remind the member for Mayo that today is the consideration in detail of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 for the budget in 2013-14, and the measures that he is referring to were funded in last year's budget. So, if he would like—
Mr Briggs: They continue.
Ms MACKLIN: Yes, but they are not funded as part of this appropriation bill. So, if the member would like—
Mr Briggs interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): No, the member for Mayo will listen in silence. The minister was kind enough for all that time to listen in silence to your questions.
Ms MACKLIN: Thank you. Anyway, if the member would like to give me all those questions, we will have a look at them, but I will just correct a couple of other matters that he raised. He asserted that the schoolkids bonus was paid for by the mining tax. If I can also correct the member for Mayo: that is false, and he should know by now that that is false.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Ms MACKLIN: It is false and the member for Mayo should know that it is false. One thing that is not false about what the member for Mayo said is that if the Liberals are successful at the next election then they will take this money off families, even though it is not funded from the mining tax, so his whole rationale has no basis in fact whatsoever. What that will mean for families is that they will lose, over the school life of their children, $15,000. That means $15,000 will come out of the pockets of families, because of decisions made by this Leader of the Opposition. The member for Mayo should get out there and tell every single family member in his electorate currently receiving the Schoolkids Bonus that that is exactly what he intends to do. He intends to take $15,000 out of their pockets, money that they use. This is money that those families use to pay for school shoes, to pay for school books, to pay for school uniforms, to pay for excursions—all the things that children need.
The member for Mayo also talked about the families kits. He asked a whole range of questions, and I will have a look at those later. I would like to inform the member for Mayo that kits have been ordered by the member for Hughes, the member for McMillan, the member for Leichhardt and the member for Calare. Plainly all of those members have found the families kits very, very useful, and they will be handing them out to their constituents. I hope when the member for Hughes, the member for McMillan, the member for Leichhardt and the member for Calare are handing out their Schoolkids Bonus, they put in an extra note from the Leader of the Opposition which tells the truth about the Schoolkids Bonus. This note should tell the truth that the Leader of the Opposition is going to take all of this money straight off families. That is exactly what he intends to do. When you are distributing your families kits and telling people what they are going to lose, make sure you do not miss that one.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (16:46): I would like to hear more from the minister in relation to the Closing the Gap targets. I acknowledge that the government has done a lot in this area. I am particularly interested in measures included in this budget which will help us close the gap, particularly in the area of health but also in related areas. Will the minister update the House in respect of the Closing the Gap payments, and whether there are any risks associated and alternative policies in this area.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (16:47): I thank the member for Throsby for his ongoing interest in Indigenous affairs. Today, the Minister for Early Childhood and Youth and I announced that there would be a new Closing the Gap target that we want to see met. This target is to make sure that all Indigenous four-year-olds right across Australia not only have a preschool place to go to but are attending regularly. We will negotiate that with the states and territories. I am very pleased to inform the member for Throsby that that was announced just today. There is money behind this initiative that the minister for early childhood is responsible for.
Specifically in the area of the health that the member for Throsby asked about, there are two areas. In particular this year's budget includes a $777 million ongoing commitment to Indigenous health. This is to make sure that the commitments we made a few years ago continue. We know that we have a lot of work still to do to make sure that we close an unacceptable gap in life expectancy. The problems in this area go to terrible chronic illness experienced by many, many Indigenous people. Smoking rates are too high. We want to make sure that Indigenous babies are born healthy. We want to make sure that pregnant mums are getting the advice they need about how to look after themselves and their babies when their babies come along. There is a very substantial commitment to Indigenous health.
We had a number of other important announcements in this year's budget. The minister for school education has a very substantial commitment as part of the school-improvement program for additional, specific funding to make sure that Indigenous children at school get the targeted support they need with literacy and numeracy, and with their other education. We have targets for literacy and numeracy. We also have targets for year 12 completion. We want to see those met, and the only way they will be met is by making sure that our Indigenous children get the very best education, both at primary and secondary school levels.
There were some other very important initiatives in this year's budget. One area that is very significant is the ongoing funding commitment to the Cape York welfare reforms. These have been shown, as a result of a recent evaluation that was published, to have been very successful at making sure that we see improved social norms in the Cape York welfare areas of Coen, Mossman Gorge, Aurukun and Hopevale and the money that this government is allocating in this year's budget will make sure that those Cape York welfare reforms can continue.
I have been very concerned, to make sure that we get an ongoing commitment from the Queensland government as well. We do have some additional funding coming from Queensland but we certainly do not have what has traditionally been provided by the Queensland government. This government is pressing Queensland to make sure that they meet the same level of commitment that they have met in the past. I would say to those opposite how important it is, in this area of Indigenous affairs. This government has been prepared to make 10-year commitments in Indigenous affairs, whether it be remote Indigenous housing that has been a 10-year commitment or the commitment we made in the Northern Territory to Stronger Futures, which was the major focus earlier. Each of these are long-term commitments, because we know that meeting our Closing-the-Gap targets will require that level of determined investment. I do hope that we will see that agreed to by those opposite.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (16:52): Regarding one issue from before that the minister made a comment on, as I read the budget papers, there is $3½ million in the communication space in relation to the schoolkids bonus. The line item was relevant; in any event, Minister, you said you would take the questions on notice.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: That is generous of you; thank you. Back onto the schoolkids bonus, and I am sorry to continue to focus on this borrowed money, as the minister confirmed, which has been handed out. We are very happy to tell our constituents that we do not think pushing intergenerational debt onto their children is a good idea. We do not support borrowing money to hand out for free when you do not have the money in the first place. We are very happy to tell that story—between now and the election.
Minister, I refer to page 48 of the 2013-14 Budget Related Paper No. 1.7: Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio, specifically the line item for the schoolkids bonus. You will see that the amount allocated for the schoolkids bonus in 2012-13 is $1,407,431. In last year's budget paper, the amount allocated for 2012-13 was $1,254,478. That is a $153 million increase, in reality, between last year's budget paper and this year's. Why was there a $153 million increase in the expenditure on the schoolkids bonus program in 2012-13 compared with the 2012-13 estimate in last year's budget? Is this a structural increase? Why is there no commensurate adjustment increase in the 2013-14 estimate and in the forward estimates, assuming that the criteria for the eligibility of the schoolkids bonus remains a constant?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (16:54): I will get some advice from the department.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (16:54): I am very pleased this afternoon to be able to put some questions to the ministers in relation to the very important portfolio areas that they represent. I certainly know that many members of my electorate have been and are ongoing beneficiaries of your respective portfolios. I would like to reflect on those benefits they have received and also inquire about the initiatives this government has pursued in advancing the cause of the economic and social participation of women. Needless to say, that objective is pursued right across government. I particularly seek to ask FaHCSIA.
Constituents in my electorate have been the beneficiary of the Paid Parental Leave scheme in no uncertain terms. A good section of my electorate is made up of very young families and people who are planning to have families in the near future. To date, I understand there are around 2,150 recipients and claimants of paid parental leave. Paid parental leave is a really transformative initiative that this government has driven. It stands in quite stark contrast to the grab-bag of whatever it is that is being presented by those opposite in paid parental leave. We are providing women with some certainty.
I note, for the benefit of the member for Mayo, there are around 1,400 paid parental leave recipients or claimants who are likely to be beneficiaries of our scheme in his part of the world. It is marvellous to know that he is here this afternoon and has the opportunity to hear about the benefits of paid parental leave and about women's economic and social participation in the FaHCSIA portfolio.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Ms SMYTH: It is good to see the member for Mayo interjecting on such an important topic as workforce participation by women, which is obviously what our paid parental leave scheme is all about.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Ms SMYTH: But I do not know what yours is these days, member for Mayo. It changes by the moment.
In addition to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, I know that ministers have done great work together with a number of their other ministerial colleagues in increasing the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent and lifting the cap on the total amount of childcare that parents can claim. So these are two incredibly practical measures for women seeking to return to the workforce and women temporarily departing the workforce to have families.
In addition to that we have introduced significant measures such as raising the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000, which clearly impacts the circumstances of women who are in part-time and casual work. In fact, 70 per cent of those in part-time and casual work are women so this stands to be a very considerable benefit.
There are also a number of other initiatives that the government and its ministers have embarked on including the Workplace Gender Equality Act, where employers of 100 or more employees must report on pay equity and flexible work arrangements. Obviously a great deal of work has been done in advancing the cause of pay equity.
I was recently able to go and visit a number of families in my electorate who have been the beneficiaries of our very considerable investment in social housing towards the northern end of my electorate. I can think particularly of one woman who had split up from her partner. She is a nurse. She has a number of children and she is involved in a range of volunteer activities in charity work. Social housing has turned her life and her circumstances around. It has given her some economic and social certainty and security, and it has given her family an extraordinary boost.
With all of that in mind, I ask the minister this afternoon why have women's economic and social participation been so important in the context of this budget right across the term? What measures in particular have been advanced to enable women to have greater economic and social participation?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Status of Women and Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development) (16:59): I thank the member for La Trobe for her very important question. Improving women's economic participation is very important for the Australian economy. Indeed, if we close the gap between women and men's workforce participation in Australia, we could grow the economy by almost $13 billion. So it is very significant indeed.
This year's budget does have some very significant measures in it which will benefit women's economic participation, particularly the two headline items of the budget, which are disability care and the National Plan for School Improvement. What we know about disability is that it affects everybody. The impact on carers and the community are very significant. Two out of three carers of people with disability are women. So women will benefit from this disability care policy that the minister beside me, the Minister for Disability Reform, Minister Macklin, has been championing. Women with disability are less likely to be in paid work than other women or than the general population. They are also less likely to be in work than men with disability.
We know that the caring also impacts not only on workforce participation but on social and health outcomes for women. Female carers of people with disability have, for instance, significantly poorer mental health than male carers and women in the general population. Disability care will be very significant in turning some of this around for men and women in our community, but particularly for those women who are carers.
I turn now to the National Plan for School Improvement. Women's earnings, post school education and workforce participation are critically dependent on their early schooling. We know that women earn less, that the gender pay gap in Australia is still around 17 per cent. Historically, over the last 20 years, it has been between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. So we do have a lot of work to do when it comes to closing that gender pay gap. But this government has done a lot of work.
The member for La Trobe referred to some of our pay equity measures. In last year's budget we had a measure to support the equal remuneration decision for social and community services workers. There is ongoing money every year out of a special account to support that decision. Around $3 billion has been committed by the federal government to pay our fair share of that very important decision to ensure that women—and men—in the social and community services are actually receiving those pay increases, which were awarded from 1 December last year. Of the community service workers affected by this decision, 120,000 of the 150,000 are women. That is very significant.
This budget also has the Early Years Quality Fund, which will provide $300 million over two years to support wage increases for workers in early childhood education and care. We know that women make up 95 per cent of the early childhood education sector. So, again, this is really important for closing that pay gap between men and women in Australia.
There are also a lot of new measures in the budget to support women's economic participation. To establish BoardLinks, $4.3 million is being provided. BoardLinks is about achieving our target of 40 per cent women, 40 per cent men and 20 per cent either gender on government boards. We have made improvements in that area. Last year it was 38.4 per cent. So we are slowly making our way. The target is to get there by 2015. We certainly hope we do.
There was also money in the budget for the personal safety of women—improving women's health and safety in Australia. In particular, $44 million was allocated to a number of initiatives to keep women across the country safer. Some $5.2 million over five years was budgeted to establish a national foundation to prevent violence against women and their children. This foundation will do really important community work, working with the government, the non-government sector, business and the community to raise awareness of the issues and to look at what will work in preventing violence against women and their children. We want to change social behaviour with this foundation and to change community attitudes. So it is a very significant initiative.
We have also invested $28.5 million in 1800 RESPECT, our national professional counselling hotline. Anybody in Australia can ring that hotline if they have been affected, or if one of their family members has been affected, by sexual violence. They can get professional counselling support. That funding has been extended until 2017. Again, that is very significant.
As you can tell, the budget this year does contain a lot of measures to support women and women's economic participation, but also, importantly, their social participation—things like disability care and the personal safety initiatives aimed at ensuring that all women in Australia can be safer into the future.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (17:04): An issue the opposition has been concerned with for some time has been the chaos and dysfunction at the heart of executive government in Australia. We have seen increasingly—and we have seen it again today with the member for Werriwa out there saying at a doorstop just—
Ms Macklin: On a point of order: this is consideration in detail about the appropriation bills. There are three ministers and one parliamentary secretary here. The opposition cannot even rustle up anybody serious, let alone a question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BRIGGS: While the questions are not so serious, I wish the minister would just answer them. The member for Werriwa is out there saying, 'We are dead.' No wonder she is raising points of order. I raise a matter which I raised yesterday in a similar consideration in detail stage with the Minister for Human Services, and I ask the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: in March this year—and I congratulate her on her promotion. She was promoted on the mass resignation day in March when there was a leadership challenge.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: You were promoted before that, were you? I apologise, Minister. You have been in that position for a bit longer. In any event, yesterday we—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: No, I was not. I was congratulating you on your promotion, Minister. There was no rudeness intended. The rudeness is in the chaos and dysfunction which your cabinet is overseeing. Yesterday we established in this committee and in estimates that the Minister for Human Services has not received a charter letter from the Prime Minister, which is a very usual practice in our system of government. When there was an adult government in charge, when the government was the Howard government, the normal practice was that ministers would always receive a charter letter outlining exactly their responsibilities. In any normal workplace an employee would receive a job description. It is, in effect, the job description from the Prime Minister to the minister—the operating instructions for that ministry. I ask the minister for community services: has she received her charter letter from the Prime Minister?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (17:06): As the minister responsible, I will take that question on behalf of all of my colleagues. One thing I can guarantee the member for Mayo is each and every one of the members of the executive knows exactly what their responsibilities are, unlike those opposite, who cannot even be bothered to turn up to ask questions about a very significant part of this year's budget, which has at its heart the creation of DisabilityCare. Each and every one of us understands what our responsibilities are.
Mr Briggs: On a point of order as to relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker: I asked the minister for community services a very direct question. It is very easy for her to answer the question. Yes or no, has she received her charter letter? It is an important issue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (17:07): I sometimes wonder, when I hear the sorts of questions we have just heard, which is almost a repeat of what I heard here yesterday afternoon at a similar time, about the game playing that seems to be at the forefront of much of what those opposite seem intent on doing in this place. My question goes to a matter of substance. Sadly, under the leadership of the current Leader of the Opposition there has been a dismantling of hope in this country and a dismantling of a sense of the capacity for the elected officials of this country to transform and improve the lives of those who come after us. My question is seeking to put on the record the fact that DisabilityCare, which is significantly funded in this appropriation, will have a very powerful impact right around the country.
I want to refer to two things that relate to my own electorate. Firstly, the minister was scheduled to visit my electorate to attend a disability forum. We had to graciously accept her inability on that day because she had very important business in Queensland which was to sign up the Queensland government to DisabilityCare. I look forward to her imminent return to my community. I was very happy at that forum in regard to DisabilityCare that we were able to share as a community some of the very real challenges that are presenting for people who need this appropriation to be passed by this place and who need this change of policy and the funding attached to it to make it a live and real thing in our community. I also want to refer briefly to a salutary story. I was speaking to some constituents—Year 6 students from Terrigal Primary School, from Our Lady Star of the Sea primary school, from Holy Cross primary school and from St Patrick's primary school. I had four of my local schools visit in the week that disability care legislation was going through. I was able to make clear to them in a way that was not veiled in the negativity of the media the power of this place and the hope that lives in this place to transform the lives of ordinary Australians.
At that disability meeting, a mother stood up and explained what the capping of funds and the current structure really mean. There was not a soul in that place that day who could walk away without remembering this story. This mum has a son who has a life-shortening disability. For the last two years, despite multiple requests, she has been unable to get him a wheelchair so that he can move around in the community. There have been promises that it will arrive, but the promises are held out in the future. The fear now is that the special equipment that he needed will now no longer be suitable for him to use because he has grown. They are looking down the barrel of another two years of possible redress if the current system were maintained.
It is critical that we make this sort of change that the government is proposing. It is critical that this bill goes through, because these are not abstract dollars, abstracts ideas or abstract people. These are real Australians, real children, real families who need these very real dollars that we are prepared to invest in a better future for Australians. I am particularly interested in hearing from the minister about the redress to that situation. The fully-funded rollout of Disability Care Australia that was announced in this budget has given heart and hope to the people of my community. It is an authentic piece of work that will transform local lives. I would really like the minister to provide some more detailed information about the funding for the full rollout of disability care across the country, but, as a New South Welshwoman, I am particularly interested in your perspective on how it will transform the lives of people in New South Wales. In addition to changing the reality I have just described, this funding will improve the lives of people, families and carers who have had to manage disability over a long time—through very dark times in our country.
After I had described the situation to those local school students, I asked them whether that was a picture of a fair Australia. With one voice, those 12 year olds were able to say: 'No, that is not fair. It was not fair. What is this government going to do to make that fairness part of Australian culture?'
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (17:13): I do thank the member for Robertson very much for that heartfelt question and once again I apologise to her and to her constituents for not being able to come to her electorate on that day. As she correctly says, the Prime Minister and I were with the Premier of Queensland. It was a very significant day for the state of Queensland as it signed on to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Disability Care Australia. The member for Robertson and I are making sure that we can get together next week in her electorate to talk with her constituents about this most significant reform. As some have described it, it is the reform of a generation. I think the reason it is described in that way is that there are so many people around the country who are living their lives in the way that the member for Robertson has just described. People do have to wait and wait and wait for a wheelchair and, when it comes—if it is for a child—it no longer fits. Then they have to wait again. The system is broken; the system is under-funded; and that is why this government has decided to change it. For the first time ever, in this budget it is fully funded.
In last year's budget, of course, we had the first $1 billion to make sure that we could start DisabilityCare Australia, and I will talk in a minute about how it is going to start. I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers has joined us. But can I say just how significant it is to have $14.3 billion allocated and committed in this year's budget, which will give to the family that you describe the sort of security that they have never, ever had before. I am sure that you could describe other supports that this family has been waiting for and has not been able to get.
One of the biggest areas of concern from families, of course, is the lack of access to respite and the lack of security about where their adult sons or daughters will live once mum and dad pass on. This is a huge worry for so many ageing parents who want to know that there will be supported accommodation when they are no longer there to care for their son or daughter who has a disability.
We are, as the member for Robertson said, very, very pleased that we have an agreement in New South Wales for the full rollout of DisabilityCare Australia, and I pay credit to the Premier of New South Wales for stepping up and agreeing in the way that he did. He really came to the table with the attitude that, for around 150,000 people with disability—and of course that does not include their family members or the carers, who will also benefit—we are about to change their lives. Most significantly in New South Wales, where the largest launch site is going to be, it is all going to start in just a few weeks time, on 1 July, in the Hunter region. It is completely funded both in last year's budget and now right out into the future, so the people of New South Wales can be secure.
In the electorate of the member for Robertson, we estimate that there are around 2½ thousand people with significant and permanent disabilities who will be covered by DisabilityCare. But not only are you going to be saying to the people with disability that they can now know that they will get the care and support they need into the future; you can also be sure to say to the carers and to their family members, 'Your life will be able to change as a result of this major reform that is the centrepiece of this year's budget.' I thank the member for Robertson very, very much for her question.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (17:18): On indulgence, I offer my congratulations to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for pursuing this issue. It is an issue which has been pursued with the agreement and the cooperation of the relevant shadow minister on our side of the political divide, Senator Mitch Fifield, who has been pursuing this on our behalf and in a bipartisan fashion. We are with the government every step of the way in the implementation of this scheme, and we agree with the minister that it is long overdue. I am glad to see that today there was the agreement to establish the bipartisan committee to take this, post this parliament, into future parliaments, and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers, who is at the table, for doing that in the chamber today.
Minister, can I turn your attention to the income management trial sites, please. It is obviously an issue that the government has put some time and a fair portion of expenditure into in the last short time. In fairness, I will add that members of the Labor Party in government have pursued this issue. The member for Wakefield has made this point. He has areas in South Australia which have some long-term and difficult issues in relation to unemployment and generational unemployment. The member for Wakefield—I think it was two budgets ago—made some public comments in relation to the trialling of income management. I think the government has taken up some of his suggestions, and I am sure the minister will correct me if I am wrong there. Minister, how many people are being income managed at present in the respective trial sites? How many of these persons were placed on income management voluntarily, and how many were referred to you by Centrelink or state child protection authorities?
This is a slightly different strand of questioning: is the minister or the department aware of situations where the CPSU has been instructing Centrelink workers not to refer Centrelink customers; is the department or the minister aware that child protection workers represented by the PSA in New South Wales have placed an official ban on the implementation of income management; is the minister or the department aware that these workers have placed a ban on the implementation of income management in the relevant trial sites; has the minister or the minister's office, or the department, met with any members of the PSA in New South Wales to discuss their ban and if not why not; what action or response has the department undertaken in relation to those PSA workers who are refusing to enforce income management; and what action or response has the minister or her office, or the department—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: The minister had a go at me for not asking questions, and so I am asking some questions. Maybe I am not seeing her enough to ask questions—I apologise. What action or response has the minister or the office, or the department, undertaken in relation to the PSA workers who are refusing to enforce income management? Finally, is it fair to say that this ban by the PSA would go some way to explaining why there have been so few people placed on income management in these trial sites?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (17:21): I thank the member for Mayo for his questions. As I am sure he is aware, I am a supporter of income management and I have to say I have pursued it with some policy vigour in many parts of Australia. The area that is relevant to this year's budget is the continuation and expansion of income management in Western Australia, where we have had income management in place for some time—in fact, since 2008.
We have had an independent evaluation of income management in Western Australia, which I assume the member for Mayo has seen. It certainly showed that the majority of people who participated in income management, either compulsorily or voluntarily, thought that income management made their children's lives better. I can inform the member that there are currently around 1,600 people participating in income management in Western Australia—1,100 of those are on voluntary income management—and there is money in this year's budget to continue that work in Western Australia for another year. I do thank the Western Australian government and the relevant ministers for their cooperation. We have recently expanded income management to the Ngaanyatjarra Lands in Laverton, and that is funded from money in this year's budget. We do understand that there are many people in that area who have been calling us to expand the program in this way.
The member for Mayo is right to say that, in his home state, the member for Wakefield has been very supportive of these initiatives. He and I have worked together on these matters in Adelaide, in Playford, and of course we have also put income management in place in Bankstown in New South Wales, Logan and Rockhampton in Queensland and Shepparton in Victoria. Those initiatives were in the budget two years ago. In this year's budget the initiative relates to Western Australia, and I have given the member the relevant figures.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Finance and Deregulation portfolio, $847,302,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (17:25): I want to begin this contribution by asking some questions of the Assistant Treasurer with respect to finance. It goes to the heart of the government's transparency or lack thereof in the presentation of the budget.
I would like to draw the Assistant Treasurer's attention to the persistence in the budget of the Treasurer himself and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in defining savings not only as expenditure reductions, which everyone out in the Australian community understands, but also tax rises. This is something that has not been commented on a lot.
I draw the Assistant Treasurer's attention to not just the budget papers but the press release issued in his name on budget night that talks about new savings a number of times on tax issues. The point is quite obvious. This is a deliberate deception conceived by this government. In fact, it is not something it has slipped in to; it was conceived in the very first budget in 2008 where this new definition was adopted for the first time.
As you would appreciate, Deputy Speaker Symon, in everyday households if they are planning their family budgets and they want to save some money, they have to spend less on something they are spending on. They have to spend less, they have to reduce spending or they have to eliminate something entirely. No household, no small business, no business counts an increase in revenue as a saving. But that is exactly what this government does and it does it deliberately because it wants to try and con the public into thinking that it has made greater expenditure reductions than it has and it wants to try and conceal its tax increases.
I have referred to the Assistant Treasurer's press release. I have referred to the fact that this is a practice that was invented by this government.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 17:29 to 17:42
Mr TONY SMITH: I continue my comments on the government's deception in its budget papers in defining savings as both expenditure reductions and tax increases. Yesterday, in this very committee, the Assistant Treasurer repeated this deception. He said that there were a little over $40 billion of budget savings over the next four years. I make the point that, of that more than $40 billion—it is about $42 billion on the government's dishonest figures—60 per cent of these deemed savings are new or increased taxes, $25 billion in the next four years.
I ask the Assistant Treasurer why he persists with this practice, why the government deliberately set out in 2008 to try to deceive the Australian public and why he is comfortable repeating these falsehoods, as he did yesterday here in this chamber. As I pointed out in my earlier contribution before the division, it is something that a few in the media have picked up on; it is not just the opposition. In fact, towards the end of last year, in The Weekend Australian, Peter van Onselen made the point:
Finally, a few uncomfortable facts that puncture Labor's artificial narrative of economic success.
"Savings", as Labor MPs keep referring to them, include tax increases, not just spending cuts. Average voters would consider such rhetoric tricky.
I ask the Assistant Treasurer to respond.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:44): I thank the member for Casey for his contribution. This government has been very much focused on delivering responsible savings not just throughout this budget but also through previous budgets. I think it would be fair to say that so responsible were these savings that they have been, it would appear, accepted and adopted holus bolus by the opposition. That, I think, is a significant point to make. The member for Casey has not reflected upon the fact that his leader has indicated that so good a budget was this that they will be adopting those savings measures in full. The member for Casey referred to the press release, and I encourage him to table that press release because it is a fine document that sets out some of the significant reforms that our government is undertaking in relation to taxation—in particular, to corporation taxation.
I know that the member for Casey has had the unfortunate task of having to come into the House on various occasions and defend the very poor record of the opposition when it comes to supporting our government's efforts to crack down on corporate tax erosion and corporate tax loopholes. In fact, over the short period that I have been the Assistant Treasurer we have introduced measures that have collectively protected the revenue base to the order of $10 billion or greater. Each of these measures has met with the opposition of the opposition. I know they are called the opposition, but that does not mandate that on every occasion they should say no to sensible policy that is in the national interest.
I note that the member opposite seeks to quibble with the figures that we have asserted in terms of the responsible savings that we have put in place. He is also suggesting that there is somehow some duplicity in the approach that the government is adopting. What I think is worth acknowledging is that in his budget-in-reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition spoke of what he says is a budget emergency. I think we all understand that when the Australian economy is held up side by side with every other advanced economy in the world, we can stand tall.
We can stand tall because, since the global financial crisis, our economy has grown 13 per cent. That is without peer in the advanced world. We have created, in the time we have been in office, almost one million jobs. Those opposite seek to dismiss this as something that is not a great achievement, something that just happened—the economy is on autopilot, jobs are created and growth occurs. They should have a look at what is happening all around the world. The performance of any given economy in a global context is relative, and we continue to grow at a pace that outstrips just about every other advanced economy. We continue to generate jobs. We continue to maintain inflation at contained levels.
Interest rates that are presently at very low levels. Those opposite, when in government, made a virtue of low interest rates; they said it was the symbol of good economic management. In fact, they even fraudulently won an election—in 2004, it was—on the basis that they would keep interest rates at record lows. And then we had increase after increase after increase. In fact, I think there were 10 consecutive increases after they had made the commitment that they would keep interest rates at record lows.
Now that interest rates are at low levels they assert that this is no longer, in their new paradigm, a measure of the success of an economy; it is a sign of economic weakness. Well, they should go and have a look at their so-called 'real plan' that suggests that you would keep interest rates lower than the government. What does that say about the sort of economic emergency that you would have thrust upon the Australian people? Frankly, the economy has been resilient and this budget not only recognises that but makes long-term investments in the future.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (17:49): Just very briefly, I would like to take up the Assistant Treasurer's offer to table the press release in his name and the name of the Treasurer from budget night that shows the duplicity of the government and that has been kindly annotated, by my adviser, where the government has been dishonest. They label protecting the corporate tax base as a saving when, in fact, it is a revenue measure. They do the same thing on a more responsive tax system but they slip up on taxation of trust, where they call this a net gain to revenue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted to table the document?
Mr Bradbury: Not to the extent that this document has been annotated.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:49): I want to talk about ways in which we are improving the delivery of government through the use of web based initiatives. I direct this to the Assistant Treasurer. The work that has been done in measuring the impact of greater usage within the broader economy and, in particular, Deloitte Access Economics last year pointed out that the contribution of the internet to the economy predicted to balloon seven per cent over the next five years, increasing from $50 billion now to $70 billion and, as more homes get connected tho this, will increase the value of economic growth in Australia. In particular, what they point out is the ability to track down information is more efficient with spending, amounts to a saving of about $500 per person or $7 billion nationally, and the productivity impact in workplaces in 2011 calculated that business in government would generate $27 billion in value through the productivity benefit. The reason I go to that is, in particular—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: I would not expect you to understand anything about technology, member for Mackellar. If I could take you to page 290—
Ms O'Dwyer: That was rude!
Mr HUSIC: You are asking me not to be rude! I have heard everything now from the member for Higgins. If I could take you to page 290 of budget paper 2, it talks about spending of just a shade over $9 million over four years, to implement a web based whole-of-government electronic grants advertising application reporting system. There a number of organisations in my electorate that from time to time would benefit from being able to access funding to do a variety of things in our area. You often are just reliant on seeing ads in the newspaper and then it is pure chance as to whether or not you will pick that up and whether or not there would be another way in which to ensure casting the net wide enough for organisations to be able to submit for grants and then being able to—particularly in our areas—have those community groups access that funding deployed on the ground and see change happen in our neighbourhood.
I was interested in seeing in that section how the system would work. I would be keen to find out from you how you see that system work. How will it compare to the current situation for grant administration, especially when you contrast the way in which organisations get access to understand whether or not a round is open and how they can then bid and walk their way through the application process, and why is necessary? Also, on the issue of the web based element, can you let us know how that is going to operate and does it mean that everyone will be able to see what grants are available and what grants have been awarded? I would like to gain more information on that initiative.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:53): I thank the member for Chifley. That is the second very insightful question he has asked me today.
Ms O'Dwyer: You wrote it!
Mr BRADBURY: I did not write the question for the member for Chifley. The member for Chifley is one of the most tech-savvy members of this place. I would not seek to put words into his mouth—or his iPad—because he is
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: Thank you very much for that insight. I want to acknowledge the member for Chifley as having been a leader in this place when it comes to the embrace of technology, not just in the way a member of parliament can interact with its constituents, and he has a great presence on social media. He has also been a great advocate on the rights of consumers in relation to practices that some of the tech companies have been employing. I want to acknowledge that because he comes to this particular topic with a great deal of credibility—he is not entering the debate at the eleventh hour. I thank him very much for drawing my attention to various provisions that are made at page 290 of budget paper No. 2. The very insightful question does require a comprehensive response. If you will bear with me, Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to go through this in some detail.
The member for Chifley may be aware that in 2008 the Department of Finance and Deregulation conducted a strategic review of Australian government grant programs, which was a significant thing to occur at that time. The review made a total of 26 recommendations to improve efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and transparency in the administration of grant programs across the Commonwealth. That may not sound like a massive development but in the context of the shambolic system that had been in operation prior to that review, these were significant recommendations that were going to advance, in a very comprehensive way, the way in which we open up the processes of government. We all remember regional rorts and grant programs of that sort which were in place under the previous government, where decisions were being taken without a lot of comprehensive consideration, without proper departmental advice, with ministers signing off applications in their own electorates immediately before the government entered caretaker mode—an absolute litany of transgressions. But they were all permitted, subject to the condemnation of the Auditor-General. The member for Mackellar has no doubt read many of the Auditor-General reports which were scathing of the operations of discretionary grants programs under the previous government.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The formation of AusGrants, which is what the member alluded to, implements recommendation 12 of the strategic review. Grant programs vary widely in their form, in their scale and in the degree of complexity involved. Members will be interested to note that over 49,000 individual discretionary grants were approved in 2007, not all of them were under the regional awards program, but I am sure a substantial number of them were. That is a large number of discretionary grants. That was under about 250 separate funding programs. Think about it: 49,250 separate funding programs involving a total expenditure of around $4.5 billion. So a substantial amount of money is being expended here and it is only fair and reasonable that that be undertaken in an open and transparent way. On the whole, Commonwealth expenditure on all forms of conditional grants is likely to be between $40 billion and $50 billion annually.
The GrantsLINK system, administered by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, was intended to be a one-stop-shop for community access to information on government grants. However, the system is voluntary and, therefore, does not provide comprehensive information on government grants. That is why we are determined to implement the AusGrant system, which will address a number of these issues by establishing a web based IT system. It will advertise, lodge and report all Australian government grants. It will provide a single point of reference on grants for government agencies and grant applications. The system will leverage off the experience of development and implementation of AusTender. I see that I am running off time. I seek to take further opportunity to answer the member's question— (Time expired)
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP ( Mackellar ) ( 17:58 ): The shadow Treasurer was mentioning rorts. I think he was concerned about a sum of $4.5 million.
Mr Bradbury: On a point of order: he was doing no such thing. The member referred to the shadow Treasurer.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Pardon my slip of the tongue. The Assistant Treasurer was complaining about rorts and $4.5 million. I would like to ask him about what is a potential rort of $10 billion of taxpayers' money—that is, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I trust that the Assistant Treasurer will be across all the fine detail of this corporation.
I will ask him a series of questions. First, can you tell us what benchmark return the government is requiring the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to adopt? Second, I note from estimates that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will mete out to what are defined by government as 'commercial investments' the sum of $10 billion. I ask the Assistant Treasurer for his definition of 'commercial investment'. Third, because of the inherent risk arising out of the nature of these loans—by its very definition and the way it was established, it is a risky business—one would normally require a return of around 10 per cent. Does the minister consider that to be a reasonable return?
As we are running out of time, I am putting these questions in sequential order and I will recap them for the benefit of the minister. But I would like precise answers to these specific questions. My next question is: is it true that any returns, if any, made by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation are, in fact, not to be returned to taxpayers but simply reinvested in the entity itself? Further, given that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, under its investment mandate, has the scope to make both concessional loans and guarantees—highly unusual if not, dare I say, irregular—is that not a level of risk that taxpayers should not typically be made to carry?
I will recap those so that, with ease, you can answer them individually. What is the benchmark return the government has required the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to adopt? Secondly, what is your definition of a commercial investment? Thirdly, where it is a risky business, which this clearly is, would a return of 10 per cent or more not be a reasonable expectation? Is it a fact that no returns achieved will go back to the taxpayers, instead being returned to the entity? Do you or do you not agree that the investment mandate—being able to make concessional loans and guarantees—means that the taxpayer is carrying a level of risk which is unreasonable? May I please have specific answers to those very specific questions?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:03): I thank the member for Mackellar for her contribution and note that these issues have been widely canvassed in the course of Senate estimates. But, to the extent that she asked me to comment on these things further, I am be happy to do so.
It is worth reflecting upon the fact that the budget impact of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was covered in MYEFO 2011-12, which was published back on 29 November 2011. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate Direction 2013 was subsequently given by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation on 16 April 2013. In accordance with its investment mandate, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation must apply commercial rigour in assessing all investments. The CEFC must also limit the amount of concessionality it provides in any one financial year to $300 million.
The original budget estimates for the CEFC contained a provision for an up-front write-down of 15 per cent of all new investments under the renewable energy stream. Such investments have the economic substance of grants. Given the commercial expectations now set out in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate, this assumption has been removed from the 2013-14 budget estimates and reflected in the Treasury 2013-14 portfolio budget statement. Given the Clean Energy Finance Corporation measure had been published previously at MYEFO in 2011-12, the impact of the investment mandate is an estimates variation to an already published measure. Further details can be obtained from looking directly at the budget paper.
It is worth noting that these projects that will be funded will very much contribute to this government's commitment to driving investment in renewable clean energy. This has been at the heart of the government's efforts to help us transition from our very considerable dependence upon fossil fuels as a means of generating energy throughout our economy and disconnecting our economic growth path from the previous dependency that we have had on fossil fuels. Certainly the carbon price mechanism has been an important means through which we have been able to deliver that, and I know that significant reductions in overall emissions being generated by energy production have already been yielded in the short time that the carbon price mechanism has been in place.
But we also take the view that it is relevant for targeted investments, obviously, awarded on a basis—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could not have been more specific in the questions I asked. They were very specific. I asked: what is the benchmark, what is the definition of commercial investment—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Hall ): The member for Mackellar will please resume her seat.
Mr BRADBURY: It is a matter of public record that the member for Mackellar does not believe that climate change is real, and I note that she does not deny that suggestion. She is one of those members opposite who denies the existence of climate change and man's contribution to it, so it does not surprise me that she would not see the importance of this set of measures.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I asked very specific questions and I want very specific answers. If the minister is unable to answer—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the point of order is on relevance, the minister will answer the questions.
Mr BRADBURY: I must say I am disappointed that the member for Mackellar has sought to absorb so much of my time with her interjections—it has made it very difficult to address the questions she has raised. This government believes in tackling climate change head-on. That is why we have introduced the carbon pricing mechanism and that is why we see appropriately targeted finance as being an important way of addressing this matter. (Time expired)
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (18:08): I have a question for the Assistant Treasurer that is in five parts but in one area. The Minister for Finance and the Deregulation put out a release at budget time this year about more funding for the Women on Boards initiative. Can the Assistant Treasurer take me through some of those developments that have occurred in the BoardLinks program over the last few months, and have there been any further appointments of BoardLinks candidates to government boards? Can he tell me a little about the champions that have been put in place to advocate for the network, and what are the next steps with that?
I am continually surprised—I should not be, having been in public life and even in private enterprise for a long time—by the low number of women who end up on boards. When I see all the talented women in the community, I do not understand why they are not on those boards. Why don't they put them on? There is always this debate, and there is a perennial debate about whether or not we have targets. My view is that, if we do not support it through public policy and public mechanisms, it will be another thousand years before women have some sort of equity on boards. It is one of those things that make me continually surprised but not shocked. It would be pleasing to see. It is also one of those things where, unless there is absolute vigilance about it, the numbers may go up but then they can slip back so easily. It is not just a numbers game. It is about equity, it is about talent, it is about inclusion and it is about our society being reflected in our business community. It could even be a reflection of this place, although there is certainly not an equitable distribution of gender here.
Ms O'Dwyer: Although the minister is outnumbered here.
Ms SAFFIN: Well, there are four of us here! Good point, Member for Higgins. So it is a bit of a different place. But I would like to know, firstly, Assistant Treasurer, just what information you have to hand about the Women on Boards initiative and where it is at. Also, what are the next steps? Because we have champions, we have mechanisms in place and there is some funding in place, but how do we actually—and I am not saying government is responsible—encourage that in the community? Through the relationships that we have with the community at large and particularly with boards and some of the big corporates, we should make sure that we encourage that equity at every level. As people say, you have to get your own house in order first, and it is important that we all do that and take every step that we possibly can, including choosing female candidates for preselection. I will finish on that point, Minister—on a high note!
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:12): I am certainly not getting into that one! I do want to acknowledge that I am outnumbered at the moment in the chamber, but this is not something unusual for me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Hall ): We accept your acknowledgement, Minister!
Mr BRADBURY: I grew up with three sisters and I have three daughters at home, so I am well and truly accustomed to being in that situation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is how it is meant to be!
Mr BRADBURY: I thank the member for Page for her question. She is one of the outstanding representatives of this parliament, someone who very actively and effectively represents her local community, and I know that issues such as these are of great significance and great interest to her. Again, I thank her for her question.
The 2013-14 budget continues the Gillard government's commitment to supporting more Australian women into leadership positions, with additional funding of $4.3 million for BoardLinks, which will be over five years from 2011-12. The government established BoardLinks to improve the participation of women on boards because we recognise that improving leadership opportunities for women is fundamental to gender equality, and I can speak from experience in saying that. It is a very ambitious aspiration that we have as a government to deliver on that 40 per cent figure by 2015. It is something that I have always found to be quite challenging in the areas of portfolio responsibility that I have, because in the accounting and tax professions, quite often, we end up with a big list of men's names. That is not to say that there are not a huge number of very effective women out there that could contribute in the form of public service by serving on the various boards and in the positions that we need to fill.
I had the pleasure of appointing Teresa Dyson as the new Chair of the Board of Taxation. Teresa is someone who has impeccable credentials and ticks all of the boxes in terms of the person you would like to put in a position like that. Just to underline how important this position is: our current Commissioner of Taxation was the former Chair of the Board of Taxation—Chris Jordan. We have appointed him—another very good appointment made on merit. But the significance here is that Teresa was a very active, effective contributor on the Board of Taxation. The opportunity to promote her to that position will give her the opportunity to demonstrate the very obvious leadership capabilities that she has.
One of the challenges we have is ascertaining who the potential female candidates are. That is where BoardLinks has been a very effective tool. It is an effective tool which gives us the opportunity to bring together the various resumes and CVs of talented women who would be the sort of potential candidates we might be looking to embrace. That is a very helpful and useful thing—because, while people may not understand this to be the case, there are plenty of occasions where ministers and, through the cabinet process, the government will be looking to appoint individuals to positions and where the government begins with no particular view about who should fill those positions. We want a merit based approach. But, if the only applicants who end up on the briefing which comes up to the minister happen to be males, that is going to reduce the likelihood of having greater female representation. I think this initiative, BoardLinks, really does ensure that women with those capabilities and capacities we will be looking to call upon—to draft for the purposes of public service on the various board we are looking to appoint—are considered.
The member for Mackellar made a comment earlier about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. That has a board. I did not even have to remind the member for Mackellar. She is very much aware of the commitment this government has made to ensuring that capable, effective women, with all of the talents that their male counterparts have, are given those opportunities to serve in senior positions on government boards. I think it is a great initiative. I thank the member for Page for her ongoing interest in these matters. We look forward to even more appointments of talented and effective women to government boards in the future.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (18:17): I was so thrilled to hear that the Assistant Treasurer is such a strong supporter of female talent and women. I look forward to his contribution in the upcoming ALP preselection in the seat of Batman. I am sure he will have many comments to make about that.
But I digress. I will come back to the specific question I want answered. It relates to the debt ceiling. I refer to table 2 on page 9.7 of Budget Paper No. 1. Under 'Liabilities' it is estimated that government securities—government bonds and gross debt—will hit $321.1 billion in 2013-14 and will reach $370.3 billion in 2016-17. Given the government has a current debt ceiling of $300 billion—and clearly you expect to breach this limit—why was it that the minister and the government did not seek to increase the debt ceiling in this budget, as has been done previously. One can only speculate that it is perhaps to avoid a public debate about the issue and is perhaps a somewhat cynical strategy to leave the government's debt mess to others to clean up.
I also refer the Assistant Treasurer to the government's claims that the budget will return to surplus in 2015-16 and 2016-17. If this is the case, can the minister explain why the government's gross debt is expected to continue rising over this period? On bond issuance and gross debt, we all acknowledge the need to maintain a healthy government bond market. Given that the government initially set the gross debt ceiling at $75 billion, does the minister think, all things being equal, that that is around the ideal level of bond issuance?
Finally, on net debt, which is detailed on page 10.9 of Budget Paper No. 1, I note that in 2014-15 net debt is estimated at $191.5 billion. The following year, 2015-16, it marginally reduces to $191.1 billion. Despite this reduction, the annual interest repayments are increasing by $1.3 billion to $9.1 billion. Can you explain this dramatic increase? Does this not mean that you are expecting interest rates to rise notably over this period?
Turning to table 2 on page 75 of Budget Paper No. 2, in 2013 there is an item $463.9 million for expenditure, decisions taken but not yet announced. At what level are these decisions taken? What is the criteria for them? How is it going to be categorised? Or is it possible that the money is put aside to support decisions that have not yet been taken? The Secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, Mr David Tune, said in Senate estimates last week he expects announcements with regard to these funds to be made before the end of the financial year. Can the minister confirm if that is right?
Finally, is it reasonable to assume these will be announcements made in an election campaign context? For example, is it possible that these funds are tagged grants or even modest infrastructure projects put forward by Labor members?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:21): I thank the member for her questions. I think the second one was on behalf of the member for Mackellar. I thank her as well for her contribution.
I welcome the opportunity to talk about debt, not because I think that it is in any way a problem that we face but, if you look right across the advanced economies, our net debt levels are amongst the lowest. It is a point of comparison that is very rarely made by those opposite. Indeed, it is a worthy point of comparison because it makes the point that there is always context. The context here is that we have been through a Global Financial Crisis, a global recession and we are very proud of the fact that here in Australia we avoided sinking into the depths of recession that so many countries ended up encountering.
I know that people often look at what we as participants in the political debate have to say. They will sometimes be cynical—as the member for Higgins is so cynical with so many of her statements. We are combatants in the political debate. Have a look at what some outsiders have had to say about questions of debt. I always think the best place to start is with what the ratings agencies happen to say. The rating agencies have given this government a very big tick, a very big stamp of approval. We have a AAA credit rating with all three major credit ratings agencies across the globe. That is a point that is of some significance. The member for Higgins, I acknowledge, was a contributor on the staff of the former Treasurer and I know he would like to assert he was the world's greatest Treasurer ever—even though he never received that award. One reason why he did not receive the award notwithstanding the valiant efforts of his staff to make him a better contributor was because he never ever achieved the AAA credit rating with all three global ratings agencies.
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: He failed to do it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Higgins.
Mr Lyons interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bass.
Mr BRADBURY: I could understand the member for Higgins' disappointment and that of her former employer. At least now he gets the opportunity to write in News Limited papers and to contribute to the public debate with all of the benefit of hindsight.
I do make the additional point: do not just listen to the ratings agencies. Those opposite talk very much about the mantle of economic responsibility that has been handed down to them from the former Prime Minister John Howard. Indeed I think the current Leader of the Opposition once described himself as the love child of the member for Mackellar and the former Prime Minister John Howard.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: I promise you it was an immaculate conception.
Ms O'Dwyer: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. We have strayed very far from the topic under discussion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Hall ): Is your point relevance?
Ms O'Dwyer: It is relevance.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, Minister, if you could answer the questions.
Mr BRADBURY: My head is still spinning from the suggestion by the member for Mackellar that it was an immaculate conception. I think it is regrettable that that is now recorded on the Hansard. Be that as it may, the former member for Bennelong and the former Prime Minister John Howard may not have issued a press release—and I can understand why he would not want to issue a press release that would effectively contradict everything that his colleagues have been saying in this parliament for the last few years—but, in a speech that he gave to what he probably thought was a private audience though someone happened to record the speech, he said that our debt levels are at very low levels. He spoke the truth. Whilst John Howard is prepared to speak the truth, those opposite are prepared to wade and wallow around in mistruths and misinformation and attempts to muddy the very strong economic reputation of this government—a triple A credit rating from all three major ratings agencies, strong growth that is 13 per cent larger than the GFC and almost a million jobs created under our watch. That is our record and we are proud of it.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (18:26): I stand today to ask the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation a few points about the budget that relate to his portfolio, noting in particular some of the efficiencies savings announced in the recent budget. In the 2013-14 budget, the Gillard government has made $43 billion of responsible and targeted savings over the forward estimates that improve the budget bottom line. These savings improve the sustainability of Australia's public finances and ensure we can make smart investments for the future. They allow us to put in place the nation-building reforms that set Australia up for future success and provide sustainable funding for the National Plan for School Improvement and disability care. These reforms are very important to Australia's future. We are a government that is forward thinking in its policies in the Labor tradition. Labor is the party of Medicare and the PBS and prides itself of its record of delivering policies that help Australians when they need it most, regardless of their income or their postcode. These savings the government has outlined contribute to returning the budget to surplus over the forward estimates and deliver a sensible pace of fiscal consolidation. I note that this has been achieved despite revenue write downs of around $60 billion over four years since the 2012-13 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook.
I thank the minister for recently visiting my electorate of Bass, where he met with local businesses in northern Tasmania. It is evident that the Assistant Treasurer understands the needs of the business community, and I know that the people in my electorate who spoke with Minister Bradbury during his visit appreciated hearing his thoughts on the 2013-14 budget.
It is my understanding that improving the efficiency of the Australian public service will deliver around $600 million in savings over the next four years. And, for the second year in a row, the budget shows a small decrease in the number of core public servants, not including military reservists and ASIO. Since December 2007, the Labor government has achieved over $14 billion in public sector efficiencies and better government practices. I understand that we have driven efficiency reforms across government, including in travel, advertising, property management and IT. So, to start with, Assistant Treasurer, can you take me through the details of the cross-portfolio savings in the public service efficiencies measure? Can you also take me through some of the changes that were made in last year's MYEFO? Have you seen a reduction in some areas, like travel, as a result of these changes? What new measures have been included in this year's budget that will help contribute towards these targeted savings? I also understand the government has also released a document outlining all the efficiencies found in the public service to date—$13 billion at July last year.
Has there been an increase in the efficiencies found? If so, can you give me the new quantum of savings found? I know the Gillard government greatly values the work of the Public Service. As a Labor government, we know the decisions that could result in staff reductions are decisions that should not be made lightly. A Liberal government cannot make the same promise. Unlike the Liberals, we believe a strong Public Service is essential to support the community and to deliver critical government programs and schemes. I would appreciate your thoughts on efficiencies in the Public Service and on other points I have raised briefly this evening.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:30): I thank the member for Bass for his questions. I acknowledge that it was a pleasure to visit his electorate recently and to talk to some local businesses about the importance of this budget and what it is delivering for people in northern Tasmania. The member asked me questions in relation to various government efficiencies. I appreciate that we are running out of time for this session, so I will begin by talking about one area that is of great interest to the member for Bass and to many members on this side—that is, government advertising, where we have been reining in some of the excesses that existed under the previous government. I know the member for Mackellar has been intimately involved in a number of these matters through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I suspect, like many other members opposite, she is probably a bit of a Joe Cocker fan, back from the old days when they were 'unchaining our heart', when they were trying to lumber small businesses with the great regulatory burden of the GST chain, but the amount of money they were wasting on government advertising back in those times really was obscene.
By way of comparison, if you have a look in 2007 you see that $254 million worth of taxpayers' dollars were expended on government advertising. This is post Joe Cocker. I would be suggesting that the then government were having a Joe Cocker—$254 million! By way of comparison, in calendar year 2012, for example, $111.9 million was spent. There are areas where it is of vital importance that various legitimate forms of advertising occur, such as informing the public about their rights, entitlements and obligations; census campaigns; Defence Force recruiting; health campaigns; obesity and illicit drugs; digital switchover campaigns; areas where it is fundamentally important that we make sure the community are aware of their rights and obligations and also of the opportunities to take advantage of some of these initiatives. This is just one area. In many areas we have been trimming and pruning government expenditure: telepresence activity, reducing air travel costs and a range of things to ensure that we are extracting as much efficiency as possible from government and its operations because we know that every extra dollar we save in that regard is an extra dollar we can spend on the important investments this government is determined to make, investments in this budget which involve putting in place for the future a national disability insurance scheme, DisabilityCare, and the reforms that will build an economic platform by extending educational opportunity to all Australians, by having a decent education system which gives kids from all sorts of backgrounds and all parts of this country the opportunity to realise their potential and to make the sort of contribution to the community which they are capable of.
In relation to other areas of important savings, better management of Commonwealth ICT has saved more than $2 billion—an important area of savings. More effective management of Commonwealth property has saved $1.2 billion. I have referred of course to the dramatic reduction in advertising expenditure, which is so important. There have also been savings in air travel, a reduction in printing and publication costs and efficiencies in relation to consultancies and contractors.
The whole of Australian government air travel arrangements for 2012-13 half-year results, which were released in April—they alone show that, compared with the same period last year, the amount spent by government agencies on travel has decreased by $54 million. That is a 22 per cent reduction, down to $193 million. The volume of air travel has also decreased by 17 per cent—significant reductions, significant savings, liberating more funds for vital investments. (Time expired)
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (18:35): I ask that the questions I asked at the beginning of this session, which the minister failed to answer, be taken on notice and the answers provided to me.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (18:35): I thank the member for her questions. I have nothing to add to the earlier answers I provided.
Proposed expenditures agreed to.
Attorney-General's
Proposed expenditure, $3,861,134,000
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (18:36): This budget creates a fairer, smarter nation. Within the Attorney-General's portfolio, I am making sure that our expenditure gives all Australians a fair go under the law. From the royal commission to legal aid, community legal centres, new judges for the Federal Court through to national security, Labor is building a fairer, smarter and safer country.
We have established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We are supporting victims with legal assistance and counselling. In total, this is a $434.1 million investment in justice for our community. We will invest an additional $42 million from 2013-14 to 2014-15 in legal aid and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal assistance. For legal aid, there is a more than seven per cent increase per year. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal assistance, this is an 8.75 per cent increase per year.
We will invest an additional $10.3 million over four years in community legal centres. This is an eight per cent increase in funding per year. This will give more families a fair go under the law. The contribution of Australia's community legal centres to creating a fairer society should not be underestimated. For many people in need, literally walking in off the street, they are the first point of contact. The deeply committed staff and lawyers, who are among our best legal brains, are an asset to our justice system. We are proud to support them. I query whether a Liberal government would support legal assistance in the same way. The Howard government savagely cut the sector and Liberal state governments are busy cutting funding and putting gag orders on community legal centres. I fear we will see the same behaviour from the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Brandis should they ever get the chance.
We will provide $10.8 million for three additional judges in the Federal Court of Australia. We are going to invest $3.8 million over four years for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to conduct a fair and independent merits review of the national disability insurance scheme. In addition, Labor will exempt independent children's lawyers from certain court fees.
One of the Gillard government's key priorities is the protection of the safety and security of our citizens and our national interests. That is why this budget includes $562.1 million for key measures relating to border control, national security and international aid and peacekeeping priorities. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation will receive an increase of $32.3 million from 1 July—a 10 per cent rise in funding. Since coming to government, we have increased funding for ASIO from $291 million in 2007-08 to $369 million in 2013-14. That represents a 27 per cent funding increase since 2007-08. Over the same period the average staffing level for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has increased from 1,349 to 1,778—a 32 per cent increase.
We are investing in our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Overall, the government has invested around $18 billion from 2008-09 to 2013-14 on national security measures within my portfolio. Last week we saw the Liberals use national security as a political plaything. They would cut $70 billion from the budget, but they have not said where these savings will come from. Australians want to know whether these cuts will jeopardise their national security, and this is a very serious matter given that various of those on the opposition front bench have said they would cut Public Service jobs—sometimes it is 14,000 Public Service jobs, sometimes it is 12,000 Public Service jobs, and sometimes it is the whole of the alleged increase of 20,000 jobs in the public sector. When you look at where those jobs have increased—because that is the way in which it is sometimes put by the opposition—the approximately 20,000 jobs that have increased right across the public sector are not Australian Public Service jobs; they are Defence and security jobs. I take that threat to cut jobs to be a threat to cut from the security area.
Only Labor can deliver a budget which makes Australia stronger, fairer and safer.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (18:41): I address my questions to the Minister for Home Affairs. I am sure this was designed by the parliament to be an accountability exercise, but it strikes me as being a bit of a farce at the moment.
Mr Dreyfus: That is because of you.
Mr KEENAN: That is a very interesting interjection from the Attorney-General, but I suspect it has been made this way by a government that does not seem to appreciate scrutiny. My questions are for the Minister for Home Affairs. I ask about the evidence that the Australian Federal Police provided to estimates last week, particularly in light of the fact that Fairfax papers are running a story today that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship refuted what the AFP said to estimates.
What the AFP said to estimates was quite definitive in relation to the Egyptian terrorist who had been held in Inverbrackie and their inquiries in relation to him. I am sure the minister will be aware that ASIO confirmed that they had informed the department of Immigration that they had positively identified him on 30 August. It appears that the Australian Federal Police were doing a parallel investigation. It strikes me as slightly strange that ASIO and the AFP would not have liaised about this matter, but there does not seem to be any evidence that either agency was aware that the other was conducting an inquiry. The AFP gave evidence to estimates which said that they notified DIAC of exactly the same information that they had positively identified this individual on 14 November.
Fairfax News ran a report today to say that DIAC rejected that. DIAC said that they were not notified by the police, as stated in estimates, until February. In fairness, the AFP evidence is on the record in estimates and the counterpoint to that is through the media, so I am asking the minister if he would not mind providing some illumination into that particular issue. When did the AFP notify DIAC? Was it on 14 November as they suggested?
I also ask the minister to answer the question about when he was notified by the Australian Federal Police about the presence of a dangerous terrorist within Inverbrackie, and whether he made any recommendations as to how this individual should be dealt with, particularly how we should fulfil our international obligations in relation to the Interpol Red Notice that had been issued about this individual, and whether there is anything further he might care to add about what is a significant national security issue.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (18:44): I thank the shadow minister for his question. National security is the top priority of any national government. So it should be, and so it is. Our law enforcement agencies, be they the Australian Federal Police, Customs and Border Protection, ASIS, ASIO or the work that DIAC do, are very important, and they do a very good job. I have been briefed by the Australian Federal Police on this matter. I was first briefed on this matter in May of this year. In answer to your second question, that is when I was provided with that information. Your first question asked when did the Australian Federal Police provide that information to DIAC and that information was provided by the Australian Federal Police in answer to a question in estimates last week. They indicated at that time that it was 14 November and I believe that information to be correct.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (18:45): I am very pleased this evening to be able to put some questions to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Emergency Management and later, if time allows, to the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice. Turning to the Attorney-General's portfolio, I know that there are a number of legal services that currently assist residents in and around La Trobe. They are the Eastern Community Legal Service, the Peninsula Community Legal Service and the Casey-Cardinia Community Legal Service. Each of those services does absolutely marvellous work in and around the La Trobe electorate. The assistance those services provide goes to access to justice for a whole range of people who typically are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. Like so many in this place, I have worked as a volunteer solicitor for two community legal services and I know that they do extraordinary work. They make all of their resources go that extra mile and they are not averse to trying to bring in expertise from a range of areas. They are very nimble and do their very best to assist a host of different people—the elderly, children who are at risk, those with limited English skills, people of low socio-economic backgrounds, Indigenous people, people facing mental illness, people facing disability. They really do extraordinary work. Before getting to the questions, I want to put on record my admiration for those three services that assist in my region and surrounding electorates.
There are a few questions I would like to ask this evening in relation to Community Legal Centres, but also in the same vein of access to justice—and I know that the Attorney-General, like his predecessors in this government, has focused very much on putting practical measures into place to ensure better access to justice for so many vulnerable people in our society. This follows on in the tradition of the Whitlam government, and successive Labor governments, of making a huge endeavour to initiate legal aid for people in need of assistance in 1973. Some decades on, it falls to another Labor government to sustain a system which was, as we all know very well on this side of the House, gravely undermined during the Howard government's term of office. Indeed, it was in 1997 that the savage cuts to legal aid were embarked upon by the Howard government and, while that seems like a long time ago, those savage cuts sustained incredible damage to the legal aid system in Australia and it has been left to subsequent Labor governments to restore the funding progressively to legal aid to ensure that people are provided with the legal aid and access to the justice safety net that we as Labor people support in the context of so many social reforms.
I note in the Attorney-General's introductory remarks that a good deal has been done even in the context of this budget of tight financial circumstances to focus once again financial measures which assist in providing access to justice. I know that this builds on the work that was done in 2010 by former Attorney-General Robert McClelland in terms of providing additional funds in that area. So I would ask the Attorney-General, firstly in relation to community legal centres, how broadly they will benefit from this year's budget and why he feels that this is particularly important to our local communities, as I do. In addition, I know that the Attorney has spoken about increases to funding for legal aid through this year's budget. I wonder if he could remark on the impacts that he expects that will have in terms of families and individuals, such as those in my electorate who need access to justice and getting a fair go.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (18:50): I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. I know of her very longstanding interest in the legal assistance sector through her own work as a lawyer. Access to justice for every single Australian is for Labor a non-negotiable feature of our democracy. Only with decent legal assistance can we ensure that there is access which is truly available to everyone in this country. Without it our legal system cannot look after those who often need the most help: the sick, the elderly, our Indigenous communities, families and children in crisis.
Deep and savage cuts by the Howard government cut legal aid to its bare bones. That government then chronically underfunded the system, while demand for legal services grew. It created long-lasting damage to the whole of the sector. Liberal state governments in more recent times have made the situation worse, with 1950s law and order regimes where resources are devoted to rounding up the accused but those resources are not allowed to extend to funding their day in court.
In this year's budget, as the member for La Trobe rightly mentioned in her question, Labor is continuing the long haul of repairing and rebuilding legal assistance across our country with an extra $52.3 million for legal aid, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. Specifically, over the next two years, legal aid commissions will receive an additional $30 million. That is on top of the $420 million already allocated, and it is a 7.15 per cent increase over the two years. Over the next two years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services will receive a $12 million boost. That is in addition to the $137 million under current funding agreements. Community legal centres will be boosted by $10.3 million over four years. This is in addition to the $32 million in recurrent funding they have received this financial year and $162 million since Labor came to office.
The contribution of the 138 community legal centres funded by the Commonwealth government to creating a fairer society over the last 40 years since they were created under a Labor government, by the great Labor Attorney-General Lionel Murphy, cannot be underestimated. For many people in need, literally coming in off the street, community legal centres are the first point of contact. As I indicated in my introductory remarks, but it bears repeating, the deeply committed staff lawyers and volunteers who work as volunteer lawyers—as well as the volunteer non-lawyers, but I speak of these lawyers in particular—are among the best legal brains in the business. They are an asset to our justice system, and we are very proud to support them.
With the additional funding in this budget, the Commonwealth government's total contribution to the four legal assistance services over the four years, 2013-14 to 2016-17, will be $1.413 billion and our commitment to repairing and rebuilding access to justice will continue. The government is certainly going to continue to receive and consider requests for funding to legal aid and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services following the review of the national partnership agreement which is currently underway, because Labor is about improving access to justice, to improving equity, to giving a fair go to all Australians. These are the hallmarks of a decent society.
To go back again to what the Howard government did, there was a savage cut to legal aid in the 1997 budget. It cut the Commonwealth's contribution to legal aid in half. There is little doubt that a Liberal Party would, again, go back to those cutting practices. We can see that from what the conservative state governments in Queensland and New South Wales have done since they have come to office in terms of their treatment of community legal centres—services such as Redfern Legal Centre, starved of funding, no longer able to provide the vital frontline services that it has been providing in the past, and funding denied to legal services by both the Queensland and New South Wales governments because they have had the temerity to engage these conservative governments in policy debate about law reform issues and, apparently, that is off-limits for legal services. Not under our government, Deputy Speaker.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (18:55): Again, my questions are directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. I want to talk about the Customs budget and, in particular, the effect of the cuts on the Customs budget both in funding and personnel and what services will be reduced by the agency in relation to these cuts.
The minister has previously confirmed at a press conference our figures that the Customs service has been cut by 750 officers since the Labor Party came to office in 2007. I believe that figure to be about 850 in relation to this year's budget. I wonder whether he would care to confirm that figure. That is, if you take the final year of the Howard government, the staffing of Customs and what the staffing in Customs is currently, the loss of officers would be about 850. I think the minister would agree that that is a very significant manpower from an agency that now only has 5,000 officers. Well over 15 per cent of the personnel within that agency has been cut. I would ask the minister to confirm that in his comments.
Secondly, the latest budget figures have revealed an overall reduction in funding for Customs by $61.4 million. Where is this money coming from? There is also a $14 million reduction in funding for the Border Protection and Enforcement program. What aspect of this program has this been taken from?
As I said, there has been a further reduction of 120 staff in this budget. Could the minister illuminate the House on, firstly, where personnel cuts have been taken from in relation to all of the Labor budgets handed down since they came to office and, in particular, the 120 staff members from this budget?
The budget also shows that aerial surveillance has been reduced by a further 11 million square nautical miles each financial year, from 2014-15. Given that we have had an enormous increase in the volume of illegal boat arrivals, particularly in the last two months, does the minister feel that it is sensible to reduce aerial surveillance in the out years? Or is it the fact that within his portfolio areas that they are taking a lead in the same way as Immigration—that is, that they are budgeting within their figures for the forward estimates for a dramatic reduction in illegal boat arrivals? If that is the case, then could the minister highlight to the House the policy prescription that he believes will allow that to happen?
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (18:58): There is a lot there, so I will take it step by step. First, it is a little bit rich of the opposition to ask and criticise the government about savings or about cuts when they have to make $70 billion worth of cuts and when they have said themselves that they would reduce the Public Service by 12,000. When they have made the direct criticism of the government, that there has been an increase in the Public Service of 20,000 and when the Leader of the Opposition has said that there are 20,000 people who are not necessary and when those 20,000 people—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr CLARE: They include federal police officers and they include people in the previous agencies that I administered, members of the Australian Defence Force. So by saying that those 20,000 public servants are not necessary, the opposition is indirectly saying: 'We don't need those federal police officers and we don't need those members of the Australian Defence Force.' Over and above that we know that, when the Howard government came to office, they sacked 30,000 public servants. So the prospect of public servants being sacked could be bigger than 12,000, could be bigger than 20,000—and it could be as many as 30,000. The shadow minister himself has refused to rule out cuts to Customs and Border Protection. He was quizzed about this at the doors last year. He was asked the question four times and he ducked and weaved four times but, eventually, when pressed into a corner, said, 'It's impossible for me to give that guarantee.'
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr CLARE: You did say that at the time. The shadow minister said, 'It is impossible for me to give that guarantee.' The opposition have refused to rule out cuts to Customs. Criticism is made here that the government has reduced staff yet the opposition have refused to rule out about making the same savings themselves.
The budget for Customs and Border Protection is bigger now than it was under the Howard government. The departmental appropriations for Customs in this budget are an additional $12 million. Total net resourcing, as was explained in estimates, is down because Customs is no longer required to pay refunds to cigarette importers for the non-plain packaged tobacco products destroyed as a result of the introduction of tobacco plain packaging policy. Forecasts for these types of refunds are included in Customs total net resourcing.
The budget for passenger facilitation is up, the budget for trade facilitation is up and the budget for civil maritime surveillance and response is also up. All of these areas of the Customs budget are up. And the agency is more successful.
I released the illicit drug data report two weeks ago, which outlines the success of Customs as well the Federal Police have had in seizing more drugs than ever before, specifically in the area of air cargo. It is worth making this point because the shadow minister has been very critical of the work Customs does in the scanning and seizure of illicit goods from air cargo.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CLARE: These are the statistics: in 2007 when the member for Stirling was a member of the Howard government using untargeted mass screening, Customs detected 870 parcels containing drugs and other prohibited items in the air cargo system. Last financial year, using criminal intelligence and targeting, Customs detected 2,100. So the criticism that is being made by the shadow minister that changes to screening have led to more drugs and more weapons coming into the country are laid clearly here to be false claims by the opposition by the simple fact that the amount of drugs and other contraband being seized by Customs has now more than doubled in air cargo because of the changes we have made and because of the focus on using intelligence.
Mr Keenan interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Stirling has asked his question.
Mr CLARE: The statistics speak for themselves. If you ask any law enforcement officer what is the key to seizing things at the border or seizing them on the street, they will tell you it is criminal intelligence, invest in criminal intelligence. That is why in addition to the other measures in the budget we are funding a $30-million national intelligence targeting centre that has been suggested by Customs and Border Protection and other agencies to fuse together all of the intelligence necessary to make sure that we identify and seize illicit goods attempted to be imported into the country.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (19:03): I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question about a budget item that, quite frankly, a lot of us wish we did not have to have, which is the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse establishment. We know that this royal commission was established at the beginning of this year to inquire into institutional responses to allegations and incidences of child sexual abuse in a variety of institutions. It is unfortunately a very long list of types of institutions that the commissioner said they would be investigating including residential care facilities such as orphanages, all religious organisations and their various entities, even a child care centre, state government child protection agencies, detention centres, Defence Forces, juvenile justice centres. It is a very broad remit.
I think it is doubtful that anyone in the parliament, most unfortunately, is going to end up being in a geographic area that is immune from where some of these incidences have happened. I have turned on the news and had reports of people from institutions in my local area—including ones that I frequent now and did as a child—where people who are in positions of trust and authority have been detained and possibly charged with the most heinous crimes imaginable.
It is quite clear that we do not know how long this inquiry will need to go for, and Justice McClellan has said that there will be about 5,000 people appearing before the commission. I think it is important to reflect on the fact that one of things that people do need is for their story to be told and for them to be heard. That is one of the clear things that have come out of the inquiry announcement so far. Whilst the initial report is due mid next year and the final report by the end of 2015, given there is such a large number of people and such a wide ambit of inquiry, I know that questions have been raised about whether it is possible to meet that. We as the government and, I am sure, all members of this place want to do everything possible to ensure people's voices are heard.
I also happened to have a look at the royal commission website. They have taken and listened to a lot of feedback on their website, and in response I saw that they were trying to improve access for people through a new website. As the website itself says:
Importantly, our new website will have better provisions for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people, people with disabilities and people from Non-English speaking backgrounds.
They expect their website to be ready by mid-July this year. So they are even looking at very practical things, like updating their website to maximise accessibility, which is an issue in itself.
I also note that it is quite apparent, given the number of people expected to come forward—and these are conservative estimates—that we do not how long the commission will actually go for. I can understand how that poses its own challenges in terms of funding, but this process has been established and it needs to be properly resourced so that the terms of reference of the inquiry are not compromised.
My question to the Attorney-General is: could you please update us on funding for the royal commission, including the total funding, and how this is going to help victims get a fair go and fair hearing. Importantly, can you please provide the chamber with information on what additional funding has been provided for counselling and community based services as part of this process.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (19:07): I thank the member for Greenway for her question. I know of her longstanding interest in this area. The member for Greenway is quite right that no geographic area is immune—anywhere in Australia.
I wish we could say that that was the case—that we will meet that deadline—but this has been described as likely to be one of the longest and certainly largest royal commissions or inquiries ever conducted in Australia. But that is because the problem is on such a scale that, as the member for Greenway has rightly said, it has left no part of Australia untouched. Our government is going to do everything that it can to make sure that what has happened to children in the past is never allowed to happen again. That is why the Prime Minister announced late last year this Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. As a government we are committed to making sure that this royal commission has the resources to do its job properly.
The member for Greenway alluded in her question to the fact that we have asked the royal commission to produce its interim report by 30 June next year and to produce its final report, if it can, by the end of 2015. We have invited the royal commission to indicate in that interim report not only any recommendations that it feels able to make on an interim basis but also whether the three years that have been allowed for this inquiry are in fact going to be enough. We asked for an interim report because our view is that the Australian people are entitled to get a progress report, as it were, on the activities of this royal commission.
We already know the scale of it. Again, the member for Greenway mentioned something that the chief royal commissioner has indicated publicly—that some 5,000 preliminary inquiries have been received from people who have indicated that they wish to give evidence before the royal commission or to participate in its processes in some other way.
I can assure colleagues that there is funding in this budget for the operation of the royal commission, in the amount of $434.1 million. That will both fund the royal commission itself and support the survivors of sexual abuse. It is the case also that the Department of Families, Housing, Committee Services and Indigenous Affairs received funding of $37.9 million for the years 2013-14 to 2015-16, in addition to the $7 million appropriated in 2012-13 additional estimates for community-based support services. The total component of that department's royal commission funding is $45 million.
The government has already provided additional support for specialist providers of support services for victims of child abuse following the announcement of the commission. I can indicate that some half a million dollars has been provided to Bravehearts, to Care Leavers Australia Network and to Adults Surviving Child Abuse—all existing organisations—to assist them to meet the increased demand of their services following the announcement of the royal commission. On 13 April an open competitive grants process was announced to ensure survivors and their families who are engaging with the royal commission have access to appropriate community-based support services. Organisations will be funded to deliver specialist services such as counselling, support and case management to individuals and affected family members before, during and after their engagement with the royal commission. That grants process is expected to be completed within weeks.
Funding is based on assumptions that may change during the course of this royal commission, or be refined once the commission commences its full formal hearings. The commission held an initial directions hearing to announce some of its processes back on 3 April, but the full hearings are yet to commence. The work of this commission is clearly a very significant undertaking and its potential workload and required operational funding will be more readily assessed over time. Because those funding requirements may change over the life of the royal commission, since its very inception we have made clear to the royal commission and we make it clear to the Australian community that this government is determined to ensure that the royal commission is adequately resourced.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (19:12): My question to the Attorney-General is a very straightforward one, and I ask that he answer it in a straightforward way. I refer the Attorney-General to the statement made by ASIO Director-General David Irvine in estimates when he stated in relation to security checks on asylum seekers that the process is a very, very light touch. Can the Attorney-General outline what the process is and why the Director-General of ASIO would describe it in such a way?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (19:13): I am very happy to provide a direct answer, as always, to the question of the member for Stirling. To put the question in some context, it is important to note that all irregular maritime arrivals being considered for release into the community, either on a bridging visa or into community detention, are subject to ASIO security checks. These checks are undertaken to identify the visa applicants or visa holders whose entry into or continued stay in Australia may present a risk to national security, and ASIO provides advice to DIAC in respect of security as defined in the ASIO Act. Threats to security can include politically motivated violence, espionage, foreign interference and threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity. ASIO does not provide security advice in respect of criminal matters.
Prior to being placed in community detention or being released into the community on a bridging visa, irregular maritime arrivals undergo a security check against intelligence holdings. Those intelligence holdings would include DIAC and ASIO information on persons of possible national security and criminal interest, Interpol red notices, other identities of interest, and fraudulent and stolen travel documents. Positive matches from the checking process are assessed by DIAC in consultation with other stakeholders to determine if the person's application, entry or ability to remain in Australia should be refused. I mention that just to show the interaction between the security checking done by ASIO and the processes undertaken by DIAC.
Irregular maritime arrivals who are assessed as being owed protection and who are applying for permanent visas are referred to ASIO for a security assessment based on multiple sources of information, including—but not limited to—client entry interviews and protection applications. That assessment can be quite comprehensive and lengthy, depending on the circumstances of the client. It is of course the case—and this is provided for in the ASIO Act—that individuals who are assessed to be a direct or indirect risk to national security are issued with an adverse security assessment.
I know that the opposition are very keen on the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I thought it might be worth reminding members of the comments made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its report tabled on 27 May. They had occasion, in their report, to look specifically at the process being followed by ASIO in relation to assessments. First of all, they set out what they had said in their 2012 report. In that report, the parliamentary joint committee said:
The Committee takes very seriously the concerns put before it by various refugee and asylum seeker advocacy groups but it also recognises that the job ASIO has is a very difficult one. Therefore, the Committee welcomes the efforts, introduced by ASIO on 1 March 2011, to streamline the process of security assessments in an attempt to clear the backlog and to process future assessments in less time—
and this is the significant part—
The Committee is satisfied that the current regime for visa security assessments is the correct one.
That formed part of a report tabled by the joint committee—a bipartisan report, I might add—on 18 June 2012.
In the report they have just tabled, they repeated that comment from 2012. Then, at paragraph 2.64 of this year's report, tabled on 27 May, they said:
The Committee—
and again I repeat that it is a bipartisan committee—
has received no evidence to cause it to adjust this assessment of the current regime for visa security assessments.
To remind everyone, this is a committee which includes a former Liberal Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, and the present spokesman on legal matters, Senator Brandis.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (19:18): My question is to the Attorney-General. Before I go to the question, I will make reference to two things. First, I acknowledge the great work of the former Attorney-General in instigating the royal commission, now carried on very capably and ably by you, Attorney-General. I particularly wanted to mention the work of one of the commissioners, Bob Atkinson from Queensland, whom I know very well from his former work as a police commissioner.
Second, the member for La Trobe raised an issue about community legal centres. I know that when you, Attorney-General, came with me to the Queensland Women's Legal Service centre in Annerley on a recent visit, we heard time and time again from them about the number of people who were being turned away every night. This is a service which only deals with women and only deals with family law and domestic violence issues. So it is a concern to hear about people turning up at night—some nights up to 10 people—being turned away after making the journey there. That is not to mention those people throughout Queensland—because they do service all of Queensland via some specialised phone hook-ups—who are not able to get through. I know you heard that case, but it was quite distressing. Since they mainly have pro bono lawyers lined up to do their work, and although I recognise the great investment you have made in community legal centres, there are some great opportunities that should be looked at. My question is focused on a broader topic, not just on the people turned away from that women's legal service but more generally.
Not far from here we have a copy of the Magna Carta, which is kept in Parliament House. It is a sign of those great institutions that this parliament and this country have inherited. There are lots of arguments in history about what the Magna Carta represents. Some people say it was the collective speaking of a group of disgruntled barons who were speaking up against King John, like a trade union collective. From there have flowed all these great English institutions, and it officially refers to justice in great detail. We hear time and time again from people coming to our electorate offices of justice being delayed—and we know justice delayed is justice denied—and about justice being unpaid. This is also fast becoming justice denied, because of costs associated with running a case, with getting family law support, even with administrative matters which interfere in so many people's lives. I saw this particularly back in 2011 when I had over 5,100 properties in my electorate with water over their floorboards. I was on a committee with your colleague the member for Blair. Time and time again people said that if they had had support from a legal service—and it did not have to be extensive support, but just good support—they would have had a better chance of getting justice and their case sorted out.
I am sure from your former career you would agree that proper legal representation is an essential part of the adversarial system. We have heard recently of cases being thrown out because of the defendant's inability to have a fair trial because they were representing themselves and were unable to get legal assistance. With this in mind, can you explain how this budget will deliver a fairer go for Australians, especially with the focus of your answer on poorer Australians? How will this budget build a smarter, fairer and safer nation when it comes to justice, as suggested on budget night?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (19:22): I thank the member for Morton for his question because, like the member for La Trobe and the member for Greenway, the member for Morton has a past in the legal profession as well as in the teaching profession. I know of his current closeness to a number of community legal centres that serve the people of his electorate. He understands, as does the government, the important role played by community legal centres. That is why government funds 138 community legal centres across the country. That is why in this budget you will see an increase for community legal centres across the country and why in the review of the national partnership that is now taking place close attention is going to be made to the outcomes of that review with a view to continuing the very effective funding that goes to community legal centres to enable them to provide the services they provide to people across Australia.
I say 'effective funding' because what you see at community legal centres is a similar model employed in every single one of them. This model is a core group of paid staff with some paid solicitors and some paid support staff, administrative or financial staff. They are surrounded by volunteers in their legions who come in to assist at those community legal centres. They can be both lawyers and non-lawyers. In addition, there are often links to major firms that provide, as part of the pro bono contribution that they make to the community, the time of their solicitors, who will go and work for some part of each week as part of that firm's pro bono contribution, which is only to be encouraged; it is a growing contribution. So, when I say that it is effective funding, the Commonwealth's dollars here in fact enable the provision of much more extensive and valuable services provided by volunteers and by solicitors from firms large and small.
I have seen this. I have made it my task since I was appointed Attorney-General on 4 February to visit as many community legal centres as I can. I have visited the Gosnells Community Legal Centre in Perth, the Sussex Street Community Legal Service at East Victoria Park in Perth, the Townsville Community Legal Service, the Redfern community legal service, the Fitzroy Legal Service and the Women's Legal Service, which I visited with the member for Moreton in Brisbane. I am going to stop listing, because I have visited others, but those are the ones that spring immediately to mind. In all of those community legal services, what you see is that model of volunteer solicitors working with paid solicitors and paid administrative staff, as well as volunteer administrators and tremendous input from established firms who have understood that, far from community legal services competing with them or taking work away from those established firms, they work together. It is a very fine use of pro bono services for them to send their solicitors down to assist.
It is a real concern to our government that that approach of funding to community legal services—providing as they do services to the underprivileged and people in need right across our communities and right across Australia—is not one which is being taken by conservative state governments. It is with great regret that I have to inform the parliament that, for example, the two Environment Defenders Offices in Queensland have had their state government funding withdrawn, and that the Redfern Legal Centre has advised me that, since the change of government in New South Wales, it has been unsuccessful in a range of tenders for work that it has been doing for several years, including a $175,000 grant that it had been receiving from the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading for financial counselling and credit and debt services. Sadly, it is the case that the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services will cease to provide funding to the Redfern Legal Centre and the New South Wales Welfare Rights Centre after 30 June. It is a precursor to what we could expect from a Liberal government. If there is to be a Liberal government in our country, it will certainly start to do what it did before, which is to cut funding to community legal centres.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (19:28): Mercifully, this is my last question in this process, I believe.
Mr Dreyfus: You said it!
Mr KEENAN: Well, the Attorney-General has hardly been scintillating in his five-minute answers. I am not sure who he thinks is actually listening to him.
An honourable member: Generally speaking, the people of Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Excuse me. The member for Stirling will proceed with his question.
Mr KEENAN: Thank you—with your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker! My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs, and it relates to his answer earlier on to the first question that I asked him. I would just like to clarify what he told the House—if he would not mind just nodding to see whether this is the case. Then I can go on to a further series of questions. But I just want to clarify that he was talking about May 2013 when he talked about when he had been briefed about the Egyptian terrorist—
Mr Clare: I don't think my response goes in the Hansard here, because Hansard does not recognise noddings. I was indeed making it clear that it was May 2013.
Mr KEENAN: I thank the minister for that. I find that very surprising considering that this was made public in the media in the middle of April this year—I think on 16 April this year. Does he believe that it is acceptable to have been briefed at such a late stage by the Australian Federal Police on such a significant national security issue, considering that clearly the agency had very grave concerns about this individual—otherwise they would not have been pursuing his identity as they have apparently done prior to formally identifying him through their own processes in the middle of November—particularly at a stage when the domestic security agency has also apparently been running a very similar process?
Given the information that he has given the House, I would be interested to know whether he thinks that is acceptable and whether he would normally expect to have been briefed on such a matter well prior to that.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (19:33): I thank the shadow minister for his question, and it is a fair question. What the shadow minister should appreciate, and I think he does, is that there is a separation between operational matters and policy matters. On taking this responsibility as Minister for Home Affairs one of the first things I did was seek advice from the police commissioner about what it was appropriate to be briefed on, and the commissioner made it very clear to me that he did not think it was appropriate to be briefing me as minister on the regular operations of the Australian Federal Police. This is indeed an operational matter between two agencies. The shadows minister's colleague, who is sitting next to him, would be able to attest to this, that on 16 April we were somewhere between Wau and Salamoa trekking the Black Cap Track, and on my return to Australia I sought a briefing on this matter. I have identified for the shadow minister that I received that briefing. That briefing provided me with the information which the Australian Federal Police have subsequently advised the House on in the forms of estimates last week.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (19:31): I will be very brief. I do not need a response from the Attorney-General, I just need his ear. We were talking about community legal services and I think that he would realise that his learned colleague Mr Andrew Giles, who I am sure will have a great interest in Scullin after the next election, would ask that I raise the plight of the Whittlesea Community Legal Service, which is run by Whittlesea Community Connection. I would hope that the Attorney-General is able to keep in mind in his future planning of our community legal services the Whittlesea Community Legal Service.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Does the Attorney-General wish to respond?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (19:31): I am happy to say to the member foe Scullin that the Whittlesea Community Legal Service, as with all community legal services throughout the country, has the attention of the Commonwealth government whether or not it is presently a community legal service that is funded by the Commonwealth government, and there are committee legal services that are not funded at all. It is a sector and we understand that there are many different organisations that make it up, and when we are making decisions about the sector we take into account all of its participants.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General's portfolio be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Immigration and Citizenship
Proposed expenditure, $4,623,769,000.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (19:33): On matters of national security which the minister will be familiar with, I will deal with those first and then we can move on to some of the other matters in relation to the portfolio and the expenditure under the appropriation. When was the department first advised that an individual, an IMA, was being held at the Inverbrackie facility who had an Interpol red notice and was a convicted terrorist from Egypt? When was this minister first advised that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie centre? Thirdly, when was the previous minister advised by this minister's department that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie facility? Can the minister advise whether he had advised the Prime Minister at any time during this period of a convicted terrorist being held at the Inverbrackie detention facility? So I am seeking a response in relation to the chronology of those, and particularly on the first in terms of when the department was advised by the AFP and by ASIO.
The minister may well be familiar with the evidence provided by both ASIO and the AFP, confirmed by ministers prior to him in the earlier session, relating to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs. They state that the department was advised of this on 30 August by ASIO and in mid November by the AFP.
More broadly in relation to this issue—and I will try and deal with these in one and then we can move onto the other matters—on the processing of the claim of this individual, the letter that the minister sent to the acting shadow minister for immigration stated that the assessment of the protection claim for these individuals, including the one I referred to, are being progressed by the department. Yet, today, the minister said that he had received advice that their assessment had not proceeded. So, I am just looking for an update as to what is the status of those two issues. Then, more broadly, what is the nature of that assessment?
The minister has been advised by ASIO and the AFP that there is an individual who presents a national security threat. Is the assessment that the department is going through an assessment of the asylum claim, which would be unnecessary in the event that a national security threat is present? Is the minister looking at whether there is a national security threat in relation to this individual? If that is the case, I would assume that no further action would be required on the asylum claim, because the minister would be well aware that the convention provides no obligation on Australia to afford people protection in those circumstances. I would be interested to know what assessment process has been conducted. Is it on the national security issue or is it on the asylum claim issue?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (19:36): I thank the honourable member for his questions, and important questions they are too. Can I go to the question that was asked in relation to a letter written to me as Acting Minister for Immigration and Citizenship by the member for Stirling insofar as issues that go to the assessment or otherwise of three individuals. In relation to this particular matter, the letter to the member for Stirling indicated that progress by the department is being made in accordance with 'the particular circumstances of the three individuals'.
The matter raised in parliament today referred to a particular individual, who is one of the three, who has not yet lodged a valid application for protection and therefore, as I said in the parliament today, has not been assessed. He has not been assessed and there has not been a valid application. To that extent, of course, it is still possible for an individual to make such an application. On the wider question of security, the first thing I note, as I have said before, is that the person in question has been in detention. I was not here for the responses by the Attorney-General or by the Minister for Home Affairs on questions asked of them in relation to this, but there has been, of course, engagement by my department with the Australian Federal Police and with ASIO on this matter for some considerable time.
What I want to do, and I am happy to do so here by way of response to the letter that was written to me sometime this afternoon, is make clear to the honourable member that I am more than willing for the department to brief the honourable member on these matters in relation to the individual in question. They are sensitive issues. The briefing, I think, should be afforded to the shadow minister, the member for Cook, and indeed to the member for Stirling, if that is required. I am advised that the shadow Attorney-General has been briefed twice by ASIO in respect of this matter, but the agencies, that is the department and the Australian Federal Police, have not, until today, been formally requested to brief the opposition. I think it is entirely proper that that occur and I am happy to put that in train in response to the request.
Some questions raised by the member for the Cook should not be answered in full detail. It is for that reason that the shadow Attorney-General asked for a briefing and received two briefings on the matter. I think, for that reason, consistent with the opposition's approach to this matter conducted by the shadow Attorney-General, it would be wise for the honourable member to have a briefing and then, if there are further questions he would ask of me or of agencies, we would certainly assist.
The only caveat I put on any briefing, of course, is that the convention applies that the opposition not disclose sensitive matters. But I do believe that it is entirely proper that the opposition and, indeed, the honourable member who has asked these questions, be afforded the opportunity for such a briefing.
We take national security very seriously. This is an important matter, and it should be dealt with appropriately. I want to assist the opposition. I know—I am sure—that it is the case that the honourable member has a high regard for these agencies, and is not seeking to reflect on them. I would be very happy for him, as I said, to have that briefing to as quickly as practicable in order for him to be across all of these matters.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (19:40): Minister, there are many areas of your portfolio responsibility where there is a yawning gap between the facts and the fears. I would like to spend some time drilling down to some of the facts, particularly in relation to the 457 class of visa.
I know this has been the subject of quite some debate within the community, within the mass media and, indeed, within the parliament over recent months. I am aware that recently the Migration Council of Australia has done some survey work in this area of employers who have had access to the 457 class of visa scheme. I am also aware, and have made myself familiar with, some of the material that has been reported as a result of that survey and other investigations.
I take the view that the vast majority of employers who are accessing the scheme are not rorting it, that they are using it for legitimate labour market shortages—particularly in relation to skill shortages. But I have looked at some of the areas that have been included in the report, particularly the growth in the use of 457 visas in the retail industry and in the hotel industry. Coming from an electorate such as mine, where there is above average unemployment—over seven per cent and higher in some suburbs, and even higher again when it comes to youth unemployment—I find it very difficult to believe that there are not people, particularly young people, who are ready, willing and able to perform some of the jobs that have applied for access to 457-visa workers.
I would be interested in hearing your response to that issue. I know that you have been working on a proposed raft of reforms to the 457-visa category. I would be interested to know whether in putting together those reforms that you have appraised yourself of similar schemes that are operating in other jurisdictions and in other countries, and the nature of those schemes—any reforms that may have been introduced in other countries—and whether we are likely to see similar sorts of reforms introduced as a result of any package of reforms that you might introduce into this parliament?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (19:43): I thank the honourable member for his important question in relation to the temporary skilled stream, the 457 scheme. It is an important scheme.
As the government made clear when we foreshadowed reforms—indeed, when I foreshadowed reforms on 23 February this year—we made clear that this was, to a large extent, a culmination of work that had been undertaken by the department to identify deficiencies in the scheme and to identify abuses that occurred. Most of those cases were not necessarily unlawful or illegal abuses, they were more abuse of the intent of the scheme. By that I mean, of course, that there had not been any demonstrable way to establish whether there were shortages or not before some employers sought labour from overseas without looking within their own communities.
I do not think was really the genesis of the scheme when it was created. I think it was always intended that the scheme would be one to respond to legitimate skill shortages in sectors and regions where they existed. But over time I think there had been a lack of compliance, and for that reason my predecessor, the member for McMahon, received information from the department insofar as options available for reform. With that brief, as an incoming minister, I realised it was important to act on those reforms because I thought it really critical that we get the integrity of this scheme right.
We have a situation where immigration is absolutely vital and critical to this nation's economic, social and cultural success. Immigration has helped build this country. As a migrant, I feel I have been privileged by coming here as a young child with parents who came here to work and to find a place where their children could have opportunities. That is this place. Australia is probably the best example of migration being a success by the diversity and richness of our society, which has been continually enhanced by immigration and that is why to a large extent we have a bipartisan position on immigration levels.
We have a non-discriminatory immigration intake. We also generally have a bipartisan position on the proportion of those permanent migrants who come to reunite families and also the two-thirds that come here via the permanent skill stream. That is important. So too are the other mechanisms we use to provide labour to sectors of our economy whether it is the holiday-maker visa, whether it is the student visa or indeed whether it is the 457 scheme, which is absolutely important. But to maintain confidence in such a scheme, it is absolutely vital that there are sufficient oversights and sufficient things in place to prevent contraventions of the scheme. This is a very important area. What we do not want to see are any improper practices in areas of immigration or in employment law. What we do not want to see is a lack of confidence by the public in such a scheme.
These reforms as advised by the department were very important. The honourable member raises a really important question about what does it mean for prospective employees—that is, young kids who would get jobs in his jobs? What options do workers who may be currently unemployed have available to them?
How do we ensure that we provide the labour that our employees need without intentionally or unintentionally displacing those opportunities? The way we do that is to ensure that the 457 scheme is used when there are genuine shortages. There has been sufficient evidence to suggest that is not the case. As I referred to already, the Migration Council of Australia has indicated that 15 per cent of employers who responded in a survey said they have no problems finding local employees but they do not avail themselves of that opportunity and they go directly to overseas opportunities. We saw also seven per cent of applicants' employment conditions being cut. (Time expired)
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (19:48): I had hoped to move to other matters but, given the minister's previous response, I will have to return to this matter of the convicted terrorist. I accept the minister's invitation issued in the House yesterday to have a briefing. I have written to the minister with my colleagues, the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for Customs and Border Protection, requesting a joint briefing from ASIO, the AFP and DIAC in the one room, at the one time so that the current testimony that is out there can be reconciled amongst these three agencies to what actually went on. I accept from the minister that there will be some aspects of that discussion that obviously should be held in privacy. That is why I recommended to the minister that he conduct an independent inquiry into this on his own terms and that it report to him and the Attorney-General.
Given the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs earlier, who was quite happy to tell this parliament when he was advised of these matters—he gave specific dates about that and the process by which he did that—I do not accept the minister's suggestion that we cannot answer the following questions and somehow these are a breach of national security.
When was the department advised by ASIO and the AFP that there was a convicted terrorist being held at the Inverbrackie facility?
When was this minister advised that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie facility? And when was the previous minister advised by the department that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie facility? Did this minister advise the Prime Minister after he became aware that a convicted terrorist was being held at the Inverbrackie detention facility?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (19:50): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I say, I am very happy that the honourable member will take up a briefing on some of those issues. The first time I was briefed on this matter was on 17 April 2013. Also, I am advised that my predecessor, the then minister of immigration, was not briefed on this matter. So the first time the government was advised by the department was on 17 April. In response to the question asked by the honourable member, I make it very clear that we took this briefing very seriously. There is nothing more important than national security for any federal government. As a result of that, immediately after receiving the brief, I had conversations with the department, some of which were very sensitive. That is why I have afforded the opportunity for the honourable member, and indeed his colleagues, to be briefed by my department. I know the letter went to other agencies—I understand that. I do not think there will be any issue about the government providing briefings from all three agencies, although the Australian Federal Police are under the remit and portfolio of the Minister for Home Affairs and ASIO is within the realm of the portfolio of the Attorney-General. We are very happy to do that.
I made the point that ASIO have already briefed the shadow Attorney-General. That is not to say that there cannot be further briefings, with only one condition—the one I have already outlined. I can assure the honourable member that I take this matter most seriously. For that reason, we wanted to make sure that the department were doing everything they possibly could. The secretary to the department had made clear that assessments would be made in relation to the protocols among agencies—something I called for. The secretary to the department was already dealing with that when I responded to the brief and made it clear, in making assessments about the protocols, that you can always continue to improve arrangements among agencies.
I know matters have been raised about the nature of the detention of this person. Indeed, there has been monitoring and surveillance of this person, the details of which I cannot and will not disclose—the member would understand that. All things will be done to ensure the protection of our citizens. That is why I have great confidence that all agencies will do the right thing and will do a professional job in relation to this matter. The secretary to the department will provide me with his assessment once he engages with those agencies, to ensure that everything is being done and will continue to be done in relation to the arrangements for people in detention, ensuring that any risks are mitigated and that any concerns people might have can be allayed.
As I said, I am very happy to arrange the briefing as soon as practicable, ensuring that we get the appropriate officers from all three agencies to brief the opposition when we can.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (19:55): Minister, in an earlier question I asked you about the 457 class of visa, and you may have been cut short in answering that question due to debate time limits. I want to return to that issue and put a question squarely to you: if Australia were to introduce legislation that imposed a requirement on employers who were seeking access to 457 visas to test the local labour market and, if there were local workers who were ready, willing and able to perform those jobs, to offer those jobs to them first. If Australia were to introduce laws such as that, would Australia be the only country around the world, of all those with a similar visa system in operation, which had those sorts of requirements?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (19:56): I thank the member for Throsby for raising the question again. I did digress somewhat, earlier. He raises a very important point, and that is that Australia is not alone in being concerned about temporary worker schemes. Indeed, I can confirm to the honourable member that Canada has quite a similar experience to Australia: very rapid growth in their temporary foreign worker visa scheme and widespread concern that the scheme was being misused to the detriment of Canadians. I am advised that the Canadian response has been to require what is called a 'labour market opinion' before a visa can be issued. Work permits are issued on the basis of that labour market opinion or a confirmation obtained from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which is a government agency. Once the labour market opinion is approved, the applicant must apply for a work permit—and I can go to the things that are considered. It is considered whether:
the job offer is genuine
the wages and working conditions are comparable to those offered to Canadians working in the occupation
employers conducted reasonable efforts to hire or train Canadians for the job
the foreign worker is filling a labour shortage—
so there has to be a genuine shortage—
the employment of the foreign worker will directly create new job opportunities or help retain jobs for Canadians
the foreign worker will transfer new skills and knowledge to Canadians; and
the hiring of the foreign worker will not affect a labour dispute or the employment of any Canadian worker involved in such a dispute
You can imagine that last one refers specifically to where an employer seeks to bring in a person from overseas while industrial action is taking place, which is prohibited. I quote the Prime Minister of Canada during question time on 7 May this year—that is how recent it is:
Not only has the government indicated for some time that it would be reforming the temporary foreign workers program, but in the budget last year specifically we brought in measures to better match job vacancies with people who are seeking work or in the employment insurance system—
as we know it, unemployment benefits—
We have been very clear. We need to do a better job of matching the demand for EI and the demand for temporary foreign workers. That is precisely what the government has been doing for a year and a half …
He went on to say:
… the minister brought in changes last year to make sure people who are on EI, employment insurance, get first crack at jobs rather than temporary foreign workers.
That is the Prime Minister of Canada, a conservative prime minister, but one with a high regard for protecting Canadian workers such that he will not allow an important scheme, temporary foreign workers, to displace those Canadian workers. I would also like to quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is currently the Governor-elect of the Bank of England, a very eminent economist and obviously someone who knows something about the Canadian economy. He said:
One doesn't want an overreliance on temporary foreign workers for lower-skilled jobs. Relying too much on temporary employees from abroad distorts wage adjustments that lead to Canadians getting better pay and delays changes that make companies more efficient … The challenge of a skills shortage is not unique to Canada but the solution is training, not bringing in temporary foreign workers.
That was the Governor of the Bank of Canada referring to how a scheme misused or overused will deny opportunities for young people who need training and need to fill those positions and will distort wages—and not in the right way. It will prevent Canadians getting higher wages and also prevent, as he put it, the economy innovating because they will just find the easy option of finding skilled labour off-the-shelf, if you like, leading to other problems. The minister for immigration in Canada has said that there are concerns about examples of the program not being used as intended, and he went on:
… Canadians must always have first crack at jobs in our economy … The temporary foreign worker program was intended to fill acute Labor shortages on a temporary basis only, not to displace Canadian workers.
Hear, hear! I think the Conservative Party in Canada absolutely gets it.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (20:01): In relation to the minister's previous answer, I asked whether he could confirm the evidence given by ASIO and the AFP about the dates the department was provided advice. I note that he has chosen not to confirm those, so I refer to the public evidence that was provided by ASIO that they advised DIAC on 30 August that this individual was a convicted terrorist and on 14 November the AFP advised DIAC that they had a convicted terrorist at the Inverbrackie facility. I note also that the minister said it was on 17 April that he became aware of and was briefed on this matter. I also note that it was on 17 April that the individual was transferred to high security in Villawood.
In that context I would like to know from the minister whether he is satisfied that months and months passed, under him and the previous minister as well, without their being advised that such a significant character, a convicted terrorist, was being held in this low-security facility in Inverbrackie. Neither minister had been advised by the department of his presence in that place. Does the minister think that is satisfactory? I ask that question with this background: the minister would be aware that if there is a critical incident in an immigration detention centre anywhere in the country, his officers advise. It happens as part of the normal process. That is the evidence provided by former secretary Metcalfe to the detention inquiry. It is a normal process for this minister to be advised of critical incidents that take place in a detention centre, but when you have a convicted terrorist staying in a low-security facility he is not told and his predecessor was not told.
One of the very few occasions I had some sympathy for the minister's predecessor was the day he sat before Ray Hadley in a Sydney studio and had to learn that there was an improvised explosive device in a detention centre. That was brought to his attention on air, and he had not been advised by the department. I would have to wonder whether there was a very light touch applied by the department in terms of the disciplinary action that followed that event. What concerns me, on the minister's behalf, is that there seemed to be a tendency to keep this government in the dark on things of that nature. I ask him whether he is satisfied with that.
The budget assumes 13,200 arrivals in 2013-14. We are expecting around 25,000 this year, and I do not think the minister would dispute those figures on the current rate of arrivals. Over the forward estimates the government has projected a decline in arrivals to around 2,400 per annum in 2015-16 and 2016-17 based on the 10-year average figure. I am interested to know whether the minister can state here that he remains confident about those forecasts and that the budget as currently presented is a reliable statement of the expected expenditure given that arrivals are now occurring at a rate of over 3,000 per month and this budget is based on arrivals of 1,100 per month next year.
I also note the evidence given in Senate estimates by the secretary of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tune, who, when asked about the government's budget forecast on stopping the boats, he said: ''If it's necessary to adjust, we will.'
I ask the minister: is he confident that, when it comes to the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the figures that he, along with the Treasurer, has put in this budget in terms of the likely expenditure for next year and out over the forward estimates will survive that scrutiny through the PEFO process? And does he stand by the fact that he still thinks that we will have an average rate of arrivals next year of 1,100 people per month, based on his policies?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (20:05): Of course, I rely upon agencies, finance agencies and security agencies, as do all governments, to make assessments. What we have made clear is that, if you look at the outer years of the forward estimates, you will see that they are usually considered using a longer period of time of averaging. It is really important to note that, notwithstanding how challenging this area of public policy is, the reason why we have to be guarded and mindful of assuming inclinations—that is, an incline for example in irregular maritime arrivals—is that, between 2010 and 2011, the number of boats actually halved.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 20:06 to 20:39
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Immigration and Citizenship portfolio be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Proposed expenditure, 1,678,643,000
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (20:40): I would like to take the minister to program 3.1 in the portfolio budgets, which relates to Antarctica, science, policy and presence. In particular, I want to deal with the life span for the Aurora Australis. I would like to know: for what period of time is it now expected that the Aurora Australis, or the Antarctic icebreaker, will be capable of performing its duties? Is there a risk that it will no longer be able to do that within the time needed to build a new icebreaker? In particular, why hasn't there been any funding allocated for the construction of a replacement of the Aurora Australis? If the icebreaker is at risk of not being ready in the out-years of the budget, why has there been no money allocated for flights to Antarctica?
Mr ZAPPIA: My question to the minister relates to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Earlier this year the parliament adopted the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I acknowledge the work and the leadership shown by the minister in getting that historic reform through the parliament and in particular getting the plan itself through the parliament as he did. Much of the credit for that goes to the minister, because I know how hard he worked with respect to pulling all the parties together. My question relates to the plan. I ask the minister whether, as result of the plan having been adopted by the parliament, can he update the House as to how the plan is being implemented by each of the parties to the agreement? Have there been any additional measures that have been put in place as a result of the plan?
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (20:42): I ask the minister a question in relation to the Antarctic base, which exists in Kingston in Tasmania, and also the stores near the waterfront, which have great significance economically to Tasmania. There is a great amount of science done in Tasmania, around the University of Tasmania and in the Southern Ocean. I ask the minister if he could give us an outline of the pluses in the budget for the Antarctic Division and also ask about the benefits that will flow to Tasmania from that.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (20:43): I will go through the different issues in turn. First of all, the member for Flinders, the shadow minister, asked some questions concerning the Aurora Australis. The Aurora Australis has been successfully supporting our Antarctic program for more than 23 years. The request for proposal process for a new icebreaker is part of our commitment. Obviously, we will get to the point where the Aurora Australis will eventually be retired from service. The request for proposal was released on AusTender. In line with our government procurement guidelines, it was open to any interested party. The Australian industry has every opportunity to be involved in the process.
The request for proposal is non-binding, but it will inform the next stage of the government's consideration of a new ship. Now that that proposal is closed, consideration is being given to industry's proposals, and the government will consider next steps following advice from an expert evaluation panel. We are not going to compromise our commercial contract negotiations by announcing exactly how much money we are willing to spend during those negotiations, which I think goes partly to the forward estimates question that was asked by the member for Flinders. I would not want to be in a situation where we have effectively flagged what our going rate is in the middle of a tender process which is as significant as the acquisition of this particular vessel.
Some work has had to be done to make sure that the icebreaker is able to be in good order while we go through this process. That work is being carried out, and I have received no advice that gives me any doubt as to the seaworthiness or the capacity of the vessel to properly perform its functions in the wake of that additional work being done. You do not need to know how long the vessel is; I can skip all of that.
The current contract with P&O Maritime Services can be extended through to the end of the 2016-17 summer operating season. Around this time would appear to be appropriate for introducing a new ship, but this will depend on decisions that are yet to be made. A $7.9 million life extension and refurbishment program, announced in the 2013-14 Commonwealth budget, will be undertaken between now and 2015 to ensure that the Aurora Australis continues to meet all of Australia's requirements for an icebreaker. If I can—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
Mr BURKE: I beg your pardon?
Mr Hunt: Flights.
Mr BURKE: Can I come back to the issue of flights later in the discussion. I will get some further information on flights, and I will have a note to be able to give you some more detail on that.
On the issues of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which have been asked about, I thank the member for those. He had a passionate interest long before he entered the federal parliament that he then continued to pursue in his time as a federal member in making sure that there is a sustainable future for the Murray-Darling Basin and, in particular, a sustainable future for the South Australian end of the Murray-Darling Basin.
I am asked to provide an update on implementation. The final form of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which I am pleased to say received the bipartisan support of the House, is one where we went down what is organisationally a more difficult path. Administratively, it is much simpler if you simply go down a water-purchasing path. Deciding to go down an infrastructure path means that there is a lot more work in program design and making sure that we still deliver and go through the due diligence to ensure that we deliver the actual environmental outcomes and that we do not end up with a situation where infrastructure works are carried out in the name of environmental outcomes and the money goes through but the environmental outcome is not itself delivered. That means that my department has been involved in extensive due diligence conversations and work for a number of projects from the different states. Those projects, I should stress, need to come together, and the states have the perfect incentive to make sure—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The minister's time has expired, but the minister may wish to seek the call again. Minister.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (20:48): The states have an incentive to be able to provide good infrastructure projects because the alternative, if they do not, is buyback. That actually builds into the entire process what we would want for implementation.
I believe it will not be long before we are in a position where we have an intergovernmental agreement. I know there has been some criticism from Senator Birmingham about the fact that an intergovernmental agreement is not yet signed, but that is on the basis that somehow the plan hinges on it. It does not. The intergovernmental agreement is a simply the way in which the states carve out the different amounts of money that we have on the table for them and how that is going to be spent. The plan itself has been locked in at law from the moment the disallowance motion was defeated in the parliament—as I say, on bipartisan lines.
As no-one is handing me anything, I will sit down and let the next questions come, but please do not think I have let go the earlier questions that have been asked.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (20:49): I want to return to the issue of the Aurora Australis, the Antarctic icebreaker. Has any money been allocated anywhere in the budget, either within the portfolio statement or in the contingency reserve, to meet the need for a replacement vessel? One will be required, no matter what the price. The reason I ask this is that usual budgetary practice is that if, for reasons of commercial sensitivity, an item is excluded from the portfolio statement during a tender process, provision is made within the contingency reserve. Is it likely, and is it the minister's understanding, that the full amount necessary to replace the Aurora Australis has been budgeted for—at least within the contingency reserve?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (20:50): I have no reason to believe that has not occurred. But those are things which should be covered in the discussion of the finance portfolio's appropriations.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (20:51): Those are matters the minister of the day ought to know about.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (20:51): No, right at the moment we are at that portion of the agenda where we are dealing with the budget papers for this portfolio. I am not going to start answering questions about budget papers for other portfolios.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (20:51): I will ask the minister again: to the best of his knowledge, given that he has just declared he has no knowledge of the contingency reserve, has money been allocated for a replacement—in any form or anywhere—for the Aurora Australis? In addition, I want to refer to Caring for our Country. Budget Paper No. 2, on page 256, indicates that the Caring for our Country program has lost $141.5 million over five years. What sections of the program will bear that loss? What regions will bear that loss? Are there any plans to re-fund the SeaNet program, which by general acclamation has been extremely successful but which is due to run out of funding and which has no sight of further funding as of 30 June?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (20:52): I have been dared again to answer questions which are not on the agenda for this part of the proceedings. I said previously that I am not going to do that and the answer is still that I am not going to do that. Similarly, if I am asked fascinating questions about the health portfolio, I am not going to answer them. I am not going to answer questions about the finance portfolio. But there is an opportunity to ask questions about what is within the budget papers of the environment portfolio. To make sure that we have a straight, factual to-and-fro going, I am, in some cases, delaying some of the answers to make sure that I can provide the highest level of precision possible on the questions that are asked.
On the issue of Caring for our Country, large amounts of Caring for our Country are unallocated in advance. It has been designed as a very high-level program which allows a high level of discretion to the minister of the day to determine how to allocate between different priorities. That means that, when money for different purposes comes out of Caring for our Country, the simple question, 'What are you cutting as a result of doing that?' cannot be simply answered. That is not how the program is run. It is not how it has ever run. That was basically true as well of its precursor, the Natural Heritage Trust. The minister of the day sets a number of priorities—some of them set jointly with the agriculture minister and some of them set personally. The program design allows that opportunity. If it were designed otherwise, it would be the case that, if you take something from here, you have automatically taken it from elsewhere. But that is simply not the way Caring for our Country works.
There was a question from the member for Lyons about our commitment to Antarctica. The additional funding in the budget which has already been referred to in the question from the member for Flinders about the Aurora Australis is extraordinarily important. Planes can get the people in and out, but it is your vessel which gets your supplies in and out and gets your materials in and out. One thing which surprised me a lot when I became the first of our environment ministers to make it out to Casey Station was that most of the people working there are not scientists. Most people working there are working on logistics—and the logistics of just keeping the operation going are extraordinary. Effectively, if you do not have both an air capacity and a sea capacity, you do not have an Antarctic operation.
Additional to that, there was a joint announcement which was made by myself and Craig Emerson, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, regarding the continuation of the Cooperative Research Centre. While their work is housed within the education portfolio, there is a very strong interaction with the work that the scientists, who are employed by my department, do within the Australian Antarctic Division. There had been a great deal of doubt for a long time as to whether that would be able to continue, but it does.
The budget also provides $9.5 million to ensure Australia's continued contribution to broad research and Antarctic operations staged from Tasmania, including the running of four fully operational Antarctic and sub-Antarctic stations. Up until this term there has, on many occasions over previous decades, been a view within the government of Australia from each side of politics that we had a number of gateways to the Antarctic, and Fremantle was often referred to as an alternative to Tasmania. My view, very strongly, and I followed this through as minister, is that for Australia Tasmania is the gateway to the Antarctic. Tasmania has the highest concentration of scientists that Australia has anywhere, right there in Hobart. The work, combined with the marine division of my department being based there, means there is a scientific overlap in Hobart and the suburbs surrounding it which is second to none. It ensures that a whole lot of the analysis and experimentation is able to continue on what has been retrieved, monitored and learnt from the work in the field in the Antarctic itself.
In addition to that, a $7.9 million allocation in the budget means we can start to explore options which I have referred to before for the Aurora Australis as it remains available over the next few years. Finally, the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook had previously allocated $1.7 million for the development of a detailed business case for new Antarctic shipping capability, including essential associated infrastructure and support.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (20:57): Recently, there have been reports of the Queensland government allowing cattle to graze in conservation areas. I well recall the case in Victoria some two or three years ago where a similar episode was being suggested for the alpine areas of Victoria. At the time, I know that the minister took a very personal and strong interest in the matter. Can the minister provide me with an update as to what is happening in Queensland and whether there are any powers he has that might be able to influence the outcome with respect to the allowing those cattle into those conservation areas?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (20:57): I thank the member for Makin for the question. The issue of degradation of national parks is something for which I hold a passionate personal view. Many national parks when they are first proclaimed will have levels of multiple use. It is not uncommon for stock and even for some logging to be going on in national parks at the time that they are first proclaimed. The rule—which until recently has been observed by both sides of politics—has always been that there would not be backward steps in national parks: that is, grazing once removed would not be restored; logging once concluded would not be resumed. What we have seen from a number of state governments in the last couple of years in particular is a willingness to change that and to view backward environmental steps within national parks to be something that they are willing to countenance.
Most Australians expect that the term 'national parks' is a hint to national involvement. By law, at the moment, it is not. With the Victorian situation my power to intervene was not because it was a national park but because it was heritage listed. The grazing affected the heritage values and that provided the opportunity for me to have the legal power to follow through on what was a view that I also held deeply personally.
The situation in Queensland is not a mirror of that. A number of the national parks have been proclaimed only quite recently. Some of the areas which have been contracted as national reserves systems have not been proclaimed in formal ways at all. But because they are formal grazing properties—and there is nothing wrong with a national park being a formal grazing property; there has been a history of cattle in places like Kakadu that are now viewed as some of our most magnificent parts of Australia—it has meant that the biodiversity values which otherwise might give me specific legal powers are in many ways not currently present in a number of those sites.
The department is still looking through it. There are some places where endangered species are present, and the Queensland government in the first instance had not provided a detailed plan as to exact timing, place, stock levels, so we did not have that sort of information. As far as I know there is more sharing of that information going on now. If it is the case that federal approval is required then I will make those decisions according to the legal powers that I have.
I have a strong level of sympathy for the graziers and pastoralists of Queensland who have reduced their stocking rates, who have prepared for difficult times and who have taken an economic hit as such when they say, 'How come my neighbour gets free adjustment on public land?' It would be very urban view for people to think that there is only one view among cattle owners in Queensland on this issue.
As I say, regardless of personal views on national parks, you have to exercise your powers according to law and according to the legal powers that you have. What we have in Queensland is not a mirror for the powers that existed in Victoria with the alpine grazing issue.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (21:01): I have two questions. The first relates to the issue of the emergency measures in Queensland raised by the member for Makin with regard to the salvation of cattle that would otherwise perish, either through the terrible process of starvation or through a direct shot from a farmer acting humanely. I have met with those farmers in this building, Minister. I have also spoken with the Queensland Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing. I would respectfully put that the view is quite different on the ground to the one that you have presented.
There is a very real concern of a deep, agonising, inhumane death for many of these animals that are in areas immediately adjacent to national parks or conservation zones that are on the periphery in regional areas. They represent the one hope of preventing these animals from suffering an agonising, slow death from starvation or of farmers having to make the equally agonising personal decision to shoot the animals so that they may lie where they fall. On that basis, does the minister honesty believe that it is a higher environmental purpose to protect one season's grass growth rather than to prevent the extreme suffering of animals that need simply travel a short distance to be on land that until recently was grazing land?
My second question is on quite a different matter. This question is in relation to synthetic greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substances. Can the minister explain how the reductions in funding under the synthetic greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substances component of the budget will operate? What will it mean? How will the issue be addressed?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and Population and Communities) (21:03): Obviously I cannot accept the framing of the question as do I believe this rather than that in the way that the member for Flinders has sought to frame his question. I suspect this is not a surprise to him. We need to remember that for the cattle experiencing a lack of feed and the stock experiencing a lack of feed in that part of Queensland, national parks are an issue, even if you accept everything the Queensland government says, for very much a minority of stock. We should not pretend for a minute that this issue somehow solves the problem being faced by graziers and pastoralists at a time of drought.
I would also remind the honourable member that during the Federation drought—the longest and deepest drought on memory and on record, depending on your part of the country—and even in all the years of the Howard government, I do not remember anybody actually arguing that national parks were the way to deal with drought. As one of the farmers, graziers or pastoralists,—in different parts of the country they like to use different terms—who was quite angry about other owners of stock being able to get free agistment on public land, commented to me, 'Well, there might be grass there, but there's no water.' We need to be careful that we are not allowing a game to be played, by people who live in cities, that pretends there is a quick answer when the truth is that, even if you do not hold my environmental view about national parks, even if you accept the framework that has been put forward by the Queensland government, it would sell people horrifically short on an answer to the problems that are being faced.
How do I then deal with all of these issues? You deal with them according to the law. It is as simple as that. In relation to the alpine grazing issue in Victoria, if there had not been a national heritage listing for the alpine national parks, I suspect I would have been unable to send the cattle out of the national park. Personally that would have been frustrating, but you make you decisions according to law. While I am asked to answer as though there is a broader executive power, you receive the advice, and decisions under the EPBC Act are highly litigated. Time after time you find yourself in court from one side or the other. I often get asked at interviews, 'How do you feel about someone threatening to take you to court?' Well, part of this job is that people take you to court most days. But you make your decisions according to law and certainly, to date, the courts have backed up the decisions that I have made.
Where does that leave us with the Queensland situation? All I can confirm is that the powers which were available in Victoria are not available in Queensland. At the moment Queensland are going ahead, as far as I understand, with what they had announced. I have a view that it is not the right way to treat a national park. That is my view. I do not believe we take backward steps in national parks. I also find it hard to believe that once the cattle are in the Queensland government will ever provide the money that is required for management of those areas. Wetlands will get trampled and there will be a whole lot of challenges to the environment.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 21:08 to 21:25
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (21:25): I move:
That the order for consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to on Monday, 3 June 2013 by the Federation Chamber be varied by next considering the proposed expenditure for the Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio.
Question agreed to.
Resources, Energy and Tourism
Proposed expenditure, $1,041,472,000
Mr GRAY (Brand—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (21:26): It is a good time to be in resources in Australia. It is no accident that Australia has the reputation of being a safe and secure place to invest. With a $400 billion investment in our resources and energy sector over the past decade, the proof is genuinely there for all to see. What is also there for all to see is the tremendous work that has been done by resources ministers in the past. I speak of course not only of my predecessor, Martin Ferguson, but also of his predecessor, Ian Macfarlane. The truth of the resources portfolio in the context of the Australian parliament is that it sits in a special position supported by both sides of politics and supported because of the great wealth that it generates for our country, the great lifestyle it creates in our hinterland and the great jobs that it produces.
The Australian investment pipeline is the largest, most productive investment pipeline of any country the world has ever seen. We still have an estimated $268 billion pipeline of committed capital investment projects in around 73 committed resources and infrastructure projects around the country. Indeed, in the six months to April 2013, 21 projects with a combined capital cost of $15.3 billion were completed.
The numbers are staggering, but what they mean for the future wealth and productivity of our nation is genuinely a matter for interest and for support by our parliament. Not only did this investment pipeline generate jobs in the construction phase of the mines and processing plants but also, when those mines and processing plants reach production phase, they will support hundreds of thousands of jobs in mine services, in mine operations, in minerals processing, in kitchens in mines and in the communities that support the families who work in mines.
This transformed resource economy is an economy that produces not simply wealth for our nation and is not simply the great balancer in our export accounts but genuinely produces life and lifestyles for our community. It pays for mortgages. It trains young men and young women for productive jobs in the future. And the resources sector, singly, of all of the employment sectors in our economy, has done more than any other sector to provide training, jobs and a livelihood for the Indigenous people of our country. On any given mine site on any given day at any given time, we now know that we will find Indigenous workers proudly learning a skill, driving a truck, operating a piece of processing equipment, earning an income and living a lifestyle that 20 years ago some of the great miners of our country could only ever aspire to. That reality is now here and it is here because of the very deep penetration of the new projects we have seen in iron ore, in coal, in nickel, in copper, in uranium, in oil and gas, in sophisticated minerals processing such as magnetite production and sophisticated minerals processing in nickel and copper and in sophisticated minerals processing such as LNG production.
This transformed economy is an economy that, nurtured properly, cared for properly, has the capacity to underwrite the future of our nation. It has the capacity to underwrite the future education of children not yet born and it has the capacity to fund the retirements of people who are currently working. The value of our resources sector to our nation is not simply that stuff is taken out of the ground and put on a boat and sent off to a customer, it is that serious, sophisticated value adding takes place in regional communities and that adds life and vigour to those communities and gives life and vigour to our country. It is impossible to overstate the importance of our resources sector and therefore the budget measures that support it.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (21:31): I ask the minister in his capacity as the Minister for Tourism to reconcile these two facts. On page 159 of Tourism Australia's portfolio budget statements 2013-14, under the line-item revenue from government, the amount listed for 2013-14 is $130.4 million. On page 214 of Tourism Australia's portfolio budget statement 2007-08, which was the final budget of the Howard government, revenue from government is listed at $136.3 million. To show Labor's $6.2 million cut to funding for Tourism Australia I seek leave to table the two documents, being page 159 of the portfolio budget statements for 2013-14 and page 214 of the portfolio budget statements for 2007-08.
Leave granted.
Mr BALDWIN: I refer the minister to his media release of 23 May 2013, in which he said that 'funding for Tourism Australia has gone up.' I ask the minister this simple question: is your media release wrong or are the budgeted financial statements you put to the Parliament wrong? You cannot say that funding for Tourism Australia has gone up and then present budget papers to this parliament which show that under Labor funding for Tourism Australia has been slashed by $6.2 million. Which one of your statements is wrong—your media release or your budget papers? I ask the Minister for Tourism to justify Labor's funding cut to Tourism Australia without tricky accounting or laundering the money around the budget.
I would also like the Minister for Tourism to confirm that Tourism Australia has to give back to the department of finance any foreign currency gains greater than one per cent of revenue. I would also like the minister to explain what impact the consumer price index has had on Tourism Australia's purchasing power. Can the minister confirm that in real terms funding for Tourism Australia has dropped by 19 per cent since Labor came to government? How can Labor address these factors by cutting funding for Tourism Australia? Will the minister confirm that under Labor total government spending has gone from $280 billion to $398 billion, and what kind of message does it send to the tourism industry when a government increases its spending by $118 billion only to cut funding for Tourism Australia by $6.2 million? Does the minister agree that on this evidence it appears that while the Gillard government's reckless spending has reached record highs, the cupboard has been bare for the tourism industry.
Can the Minister justify why funding for tourism has been so poorly prioritised by the Rudd-Gillard government? I refer the minister to Labor's 2010 election commitment to spend $10 million each year and $40 million in total on T-Qual grants programs. I draw the minister's attention to page 46 of the portfolio budget statements he has presented to the parliament, and I ask him to confirm that in every year since the 2010 election Labor has spent less than the $10 million it committed to. Will the minister confirm that the Gillard government will deliver less than $25 million of the promised $40 million before the next election?
I refer the minister to Labor's election commitment to give $6 million to the now-abandoned National Long-Term Tourism Strategy. I ask the minister to confirm that his government announced the Long-Term Tourism Strategy on 16 December 2009 and then that it had ceased on 6 December 2011, replaced by Tourism 2020. I ask the minister: does he consider the 721 days this strategy survived as 'long term'? I note a key deliverable listed by the minister's department on page 47 of the portfolio budget statement is:
Engagement with key stakeholders to ensure that tourism interests are taken into account in broader context of Australian Government policy development and implementation …
I therefore ask the minister to explain why his department failed to ensure tourist interests were taken into account when his government increased the passenger movement charge by 45 per cent, hitting inbound tourists with an extra cost on their airfares; introduced the world's biggest carbon tax, which has hit our airlines and our hotels particularly hard and given our overseas competitors a price advantage; and increased tourist visa fees by 53 per cent, placing a further cost burden on tourists? Minister, given these three examples, can you actually name a single policy where tourism interests have been taken into account by this government?
I ask the minister to explain how tourism operators in Australia can have any confidence in Labor's budget, given they will have to pay more tax while Labor increases their business costs and cuts funding for Tourism Australia.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (21:36): I used to wonder what a shadow minister for tourism does. Now I know: nothing, absolutely nothing—except sleep. The previous minister for tourism, alone amongst Australian tourism ministers over the last 20 years, succeeded in unifying an industry across our states and a sophisticated industry itself, substantially 90-odd per cent of them small businesses, to grow that industry to today to be in excess of $100 billion in bed nights per year. That growth has been achieved by serious efforts for cooperation between state tourism organisations, Tourism Australia, the federal government and tourism operators. Tourism operators are, as the shadow minister would know, the most delightful, tenacious and energetic small-business people that our country has to offer. Every one of them has a vision that we would share—a vision to provide customers with the best and most enjoyable experience at the best possible price.
We as a federal government rejoice in the opportunity to give these businesses growth, but mostly we work to underpin their business opportunities by ensuring a continuous stream of customers. These days, the growth in our inbound tourism mostly happens as a consequence of insightful decisions made by the federal government to support increased numbers of tourists from our region who come to Australia to enjoy a terrific experience and who support our tourism industry because of the great qualities it offers. In the course of the last two months, I have been getting around tourism businesses, and not once have I heard a person argue for an additional grant, for more funding for this or that good idea. They just want government to support more tourists coming out to Australia—more people, more bed nights, more customers and a better business environment—and, most importantly, to do that with a great degree of certainty.
The Tourism 2020 vision is a vision that aspires to grow our tourism economy to between $120 billion and $140 billion by 2020. That growth will support jobs. Those jobs will be good jobs. Those jobs will be in kitchens, in bars. Those jobs will be in communities that are sustainable and enjoyable, and in businesses that are run by families. And those jobs will be in businesses that will be around for a long time to come.
In this budget we are providing more than $186 million for tourism. Tourism Australia alone will receive $130 million to continue to market Australia as a tourism destination to international and domestic audiences and will also provide additional marketing funding into Asia to attract the new growth stream of customers. That new growth stream comes about because of the extraordinary economic growth in our region. In this the Asian century we know that increased tourism numbers from China in particular will support a specific tourism experience that will, in and of itself, help grow the diversity of our tourism industry and, at the same time, support additional skills and businesses in the growth throughout our region.
We know that the programs we offer, which are supported by Tourism Australia and support the Tourism 2020 Vision, will grow the industry beyond it being simply a political plaything. It grows an industry to the point where its training requirements are taken seriously by the Commonwealth government and by the industry itself. Ensuring good career paths for people who work in our tourism industry is not just something we do incidentally; it is something we do to grow the quality experience in Australian tourism. I will get back to the shadow minister with answers to each question he has asked and I will do that in writing.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (21:41): I come from Queensland, a state not dissimilar to Western Australia—decentralised, growing and resource rich. You only need to go to Curtis Island and Gladstone to see some of the pressures and opportunities there. I also come from a state where there have been significant cuts to TAFEs, which, it is my understanding, has also been the case in Victoria and in New South Wales. The private RTO sector has not traditionally been venturing into providing support in the traditional trades, the ones we particularly associate with the resources sector.
In your introductory remarks you talked about $268 billion of capital commitments. We can see it in Gladstone, we can see it all over Queensland. My question goes to the skill needs of this year, of tomorrow, in five years time and in 10 years time and obviously the balance between the construction and production, and other associated things. I know you have experience in chairing the Northern Australia task force, which has looked at some of this. You have looked at the challenges in mining areas and the support provided to them through regional support centres. In the past I can remember when flying to Canberra or to Sydney looking out to see infrastructure bottlenecks and the challenges they have brought to our economy. Bottlenecks have dragged down productivity. My question is about the skills hand break being applied in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales by TAFE shutdowns. I know you have spoken publicly about 457 visas and their short-term role, and about regional migration agreements. Obviously our focus is on jobs and opportunities for young Australians. I say that particularly in the light of, historically, of the Xstratas and the like with their long tradition of putting on apprentices in traditional trades. Could you comment on the future challenges?
Mr GRAY (Brand—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (21:43): I thank the member for his question. Training and skills development in the resources sector will be a critical issue for our country over the next decade or so as we move from construction into production. It is the case that in his home state of Queensland we have seen savage cuts to TAFE training which genuinely compromises the capacity of Queensland to meet the skills need in industry in the future. It is a tragedy to see that industries within the resources sector make massive investments in growth opportunities and the state government sees fit to make cuts to training and to TAFE which affect the very capacity of that great resource state to be productive.
It is the reality that for most insightful governments, most insightful Commonwealth governments, the best response to labour and skill shortages is training. The member has quite accurately identified 457 visas as a potential source of skills, but we all know—everyone in our parliament knows—that the best source of skills training is in Australia. We must train our own workers for the future to ensure that Australian mines, Australian resource projects, Australian minerals processing and sophisticated minerals processing is done by well-trained Australians who have been through our TAFE system or our university system and have developed the skills required to support industries into the future.
The resources sector employs over a quarter of a million people. It has grown massively in the course of the last six years. In 2009, the resources sector accounted for fewer than 265,000 employees. Today it accounts for in excess of 260,000 employees. That growth has been not just in labour as such but also in skilled labour and in the categories of labour that add minerals processing and sophisticated mine-site activities, from geotechnical work through to standard trades, electricians, plumbers, gas fitters, kitchen staff, cooks and the like. If we are not turning these people out of our TAFEs in order to join the great workforce in our resource community, then it is genuinely the case that our community will not get the benefit that it could get from the super resource cycle that is currently benefiting our Australian economy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Resources, Energy And Tourism portfolio be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Yunupingu, Dr M
Debate resumed.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (21:47): 'A trailblazer'—this fitting description from my colleague, the shadow minister for indigenous affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, encapsulates an Australian icon whose passing we acknowledge and mourn. Mr Yunupingu was a leader who helped the Yolngu people of North-East Arnhem Land and demonstrated to them and to the nation just what an education can help you achieve. He was the first Aboriginal Australian from Arnhem Land to obtain a university degree and continued his passion for education right throughout his life. He was appointed school principal of the Yirrkala Community School in 1990—the first Aboriginal man to do so.
To most Australians—certainly those of the Riverina, who join in our sorrow at his passing at just 56 years of age this week—he was the lead singer of the iconic Aboriginal band Yothu Yindi, which brought us such hits as Treaty. He won eight separate ARIA awards throughout his career, including Song of the Year for Treaty with Yothu Yindi in 1992. Theirs was the story of vibrant culture and a proud people, which was rightfully acknowledged by Yothu Yindi's induction into the ARIA Hall of Fame just last year. For a generation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, our first Australians, Yothu Yindi and Mr Yunupingu brought to the nation's attention the critical issues of Aboriginal health and education, which remain challenges today. Yothu Yindi consists of both Yolngu, Aboriginal, and balanda, non-Aboriginal, musicians and embodies a share of cultures. When he was named Australian of the Year in 1992, Mr Yunupingu's dedication to building bridges between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and the sharing of cultures that Yothu Yindi seeks to highlight was recognised.
In addition to his achievements in education, Mr Yunupingu co-founded the Yothu Yindi Foundation and helped start the influential policy forum known as the Garma Festival. But, more than this, he captured the hearts of the nation and brought their attention to the Yolngu people. It is for this the nation will most likely remember a proud representative of a proud people. It is right we stop as the nation's parliament tonight and acknowledge Mr Yunupingu's remarkable contribution to Australian life.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle—Parliamentary Secretary For Homelessness and Social Housing and Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health) (21:49): I would like to join with the other speakers in expressing my condolence for the passing of Dr Yunupingu, a great Australian, a man who absolutely lived the change he wanted to see in the world who looked past barriers and looked towards fairness and full participation for Indigenous Australians. I would like to join with other speakers in expressing my gratitude for the fire that Dr Yunupingu lit in our hearts through music, for the great challenge that he made to us all and for the truth that he sang out loud in his anthem of protest and reconciliation:
This land was never given up
This land was never bought and sold
The planting of the Union Jack
Never changed our law at all
Dr Yunupingu was a man who contributed significantly to change in this country. Over the recent Indigenous round of AFL, we reflected on the 20-year anniversary of Nicky Winmar's famous display of pride after the game between St Kilda and Collingwood. That was in 1993, the International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples. The year was launched in December 1992 by Prime Minister Paul Keating's famous declarations in Redfern, where he challenged all Australians by saying:
The message should be that there is nothing to fear or to lose in the recognition of historical truth, or the extension of social justice, or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include Indigenous Australians … there is everything to gain.
It was in 1993 that Dr Yunupingu was named Australian of the Year—20 years ago, a lot has changed. Keating's acknowledgement at Redfern that we took the children from their mothers was a first instalment of prime ministerial truth and reconciliation that was finally delivered upon with a national apology to the stolen generations in 2008. A lot has changed but not enough. Australia has made and continues to make a too slow journey towards the full healthy, productive and enabled participation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, too slow progress away from discrimination and towards full justice and full reconciliation. The gap is still too wide.
Dr Yunupingu has died too young. He has died from renal disease, which afflicts Indigenous people at four times the rate of non-Indigenous Australians. Indeed, it afflicts Indigenous people in remote communities at 10 times the rate of non-Indigenous Australians. That is one stark measure of Indigenous disadvantage and there are others. We must take every opportunity to spur ourselves on to greater effort and greater action in this area.
I want to recognise the heartfelt and wise words that others have said on this motion. Like many others, I am sorry that Dr Yunupingu is not with us in life but I am glad to think that he will always be with us in song and in spirit.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (21:52): It is my pleasure to follow the eloquent words of the member for Fremantle. In 2008, 17 years after he first sang of 'hearing about it on the radio and seeing it on the television', Mr Yunupingu reflected on the Hawke government's promise for a treaty for Indigenous Australians. 'I am still waiting for that treaty to come along for my grandsons,' he said. 'Even if it is not there in the days that I am living, it might come in the days that I am not living.'
Mr Yunupingu's optimism rings with particular poignancy in light of his passing this weekend. At only 56, his days on this earth were too few. Pushing Indigenous Australian issues to the forefront of the national psyche in a fashion that blended the political with pop culture was a momentous achievement. His influence extended internationally. He drew global attention to the ongoing mistreatment and inequality within Australia, while always encouraging a positive and inclusive attitude. Few of us could forget Yothu Yindi's performance at the 2000 Sydney Olympics closing ceremony, bracketing, as it did, the role that Cathy Freeman played in the opening ceremony and with her victory in the 400 metres. During a period in Australian history where the government was reluctant to say sorry, thousands of voices sang along to Treaty, showing the world that non-Indigenous Australians wanted a better future with our Indigenous brothers and sisters.
Mr Yunupingu's story is one of extraordinary passion, with the importance of identity and of hope for the future. As a member of the Gumatj clan, his ancestral totem was the saltwater crocodile and his family name, Yunupingu, translates to the 'rock that will stand will against anything'.
In his youth he was known simply by a short, anglicised first name, but he chose to shrug off this anglicisation and in his adulthood adopted his Yolngu first name. This act was an embrace of cultural tradition and served as a gentle reminder that no-one should have to adjust their identity for the convenience of others, least of all for the convenience of non-Indigenous Australians, whose tongues struggle with the unfamiliarity of this country's oldest language—as I confess mine does.
Mr Yunupingu began teaching at the Yirrkala school in his early 20s, and in 1987 he became the first Indigenous Australian from Arnhem Land to gain a university degree with his Bachelor of Education. He then broke another barrier by becoming the first Indigenous Australian appointed as a school principal. The curriculum he developed blended both Western and Aboriginal traditions, and this approach was also one he embraced in his music in the band he was fronting in his personal time. Yothu Yindi translates from Yolngu as 'child and mother', and theirs was a musical project that fused traditional Indigenous music with modern rock and pop.
In 1991 Mr Yunupingu stopped teaching to pursue his musical endeavours with the band. Along with the band's other members, Stuart Kellaway, Cal Williams, Witiyana Marika, Milkayngu Mununggurr and Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, the song Treaty was released in 1991. It spent 22 weeks at No. 1 on the Australian singles chart, and gained global recognition in 1992. Yothu Yindi toured the US with the Hon. member for Kingsford Smith's band, Midnight Oil, famously performing at the launch of the United Nations International Year of the World's Indigenous People.
Those who knew him personally say that Mr Yunupingu often spoke of his 'both ways' philosophy, and the need for Aboriginal Australians and non-Aboriginal Australians to speak to one another, not just about one another. This notion of balance and harmony was described by his close friend and fellow musician Paul Kelly, who described Yothu Yindi:
They are not so much a band as a physical philosophy. All great art contains contradictions. And their art has always rested on holding opposites together. The modern and the tribal, the parent and the child, balanda and yolngu, freshwater and saltwater, seriousness and celebration.
Mr Yunupingu was named Australian of the Year in 1992 for his contribution to building bridges of understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Political activism was something of a tradition with the family. His brother, Galarrwuy, had won the award in 1978. Mr Yunupingu was also committed to an extensive array of philanthropic work. He established the Yothu Yindi Foundation as a means to develop Yolngu cultural life, and he built the Yirrnga Music Development Centre, a recording studio for Indigenous artists.
The uniting power of Mr Yunupingu can best be summarised by again drawing on Paul Kelly's words. He paid tribute to Mr Yunupingu by saying:
You showed me your country, brought me into your family, called me brother. You called the whole country brother.
Australia has lost a powerful uniting voice. As an educator, a songwriter, a musician and a tireless campaigner, the contribution that Mr Yunupingu made to bridging the cultural and communicatory divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians cannot be overstated.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:58.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Recreational Fishing
(Question No. 1524)
Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in writing, on 30 May 2013:
1. What engagement (including face-to-face meetings, roundtables and site visits) was held with representatives of recreational fishing in respect of areas for recreational fishing in determining the IUCN Category II (National Park) areas for the Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network.
2. Is it a fact that the disallowable instruments on the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan will prohibit recreational fishing access to existing and future land-based National Parks; if so, (a) why, and (b) how much change will this require to existing practice.
Mr Burke: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
1. The department has now completed a long and unprecedented consultative process to establish Australia's world-leading network of marine reserves and to develop the statutory framework to ensure the reserves are managed effectively and efficiently.
The consultation process has engaged stakeholders over the last 4 years in each of the key phases of the marine bioregional planning process which were:
identification of areas for further assessment for proposed marine reserves, including extensive stakeholder meetings (May 2009 – March 2010)
90 day consultation period on draft marine reserves networks (May 2011 – February 2012)
60 day consultation period on a final marine reserves network proposal (July – September 2012)
30 day consultation period on the preparation of management plans for the marine reserves networks (November – December 2012)
30 day consultation period on the draft management plans for the marine reserves networks (January – February 2013)
The recreational fishing sector has been involved in each of the stages of the consultation process, with 138 meetings having been held specifically with recreational fishing organisations or individual recreational fishers. Attachment A1 provides details of the organisations that were represented at these meetings. Representatives from a range of recreational fishing organisations met with the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities in May 2012 prior to the commencement of the public consultation period on the final Commonwealth marine reserves network proposal. These organisations are detailed in Attachment A2.
Additionally, individual recreational fishers were able to participate in the consultation process by attending any of the 35 public information meetings held around Australia and by providing a submission within any of the statutory consultation periods. A Schedule of the 35 public information sessions is detailed in Attachment A3.
Over the last two years, the department has considered around three-quarters of a million public submissions, including from the recreational fishing sector, with the overwhelming response in support of establishment of Commonwealth marine reserves.
The final Commonwealth marine reserves allow recreational fishing in all zones except highly protected Sanctuary (IUCN Ia) zones and Marine National Park (IUCN II) zones. Areas important to recreational fishers have largely been avoided by locating the majority of highly protected zones far offshore and remote from access points such as boat ramps. In Commonwealth waters, some 96 per cent of all waters within 100km of the shore (excluding the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park) will be open to recreational fishing.
2. No. The management plans for Commonwealth marine reserves relate to Commonwealth waters only. This area generally begins 3 nautical miles (5.5km) offshore at the edge of state waters, and extends to the edge of Australia's exclusive economic zone, 200 nautical miles from shore. Commonwealth waters do not include beaches, bays and estuaries in coastal waters. The management plans before Parliament do not change arrangements in any terrestrial national parks.
Attachment A1
Recreational fishing organisations and businesses that have participated in meetings regarding the establishment of Commonwealth marine reserves and management arrangements:
Advisory Committee on Recreational Fishing Sub Committee
Advisory Council of Recreational Fishing New South Wales
Amateur Fishermen's Association of the Northern Territory
Australian Fishing Expeditions
Australian Fishing Trade Association
Australian National Sportsfishing Association
Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation
Australian Underwater Federation
Barradave Sportsfishing Services
Belmont Fishing Club
Boating Industry Alliance of New South Wales
Boating Industry Association of Western Australia
Boating Industry Australia
Broken Bay Game Fishing Club
Broome Fishing Club
Byron Bay to Tweed Community for a Fishing Future
Cairns Professional Game Fishing Association
Calypso Fishing Charters
Canberra Game Fishing Club
CapReef
Coffs Harbour Deep Sea Club
Conservation Council Western Australia / Fishers for Conservation
Dampier Archipelago Preservation Society
Deep Sea Angling Club
Ecofishers Queensland
Floreat Reef Charters
Game Fishing Association of Australia
Game Fishing Association of New South Wales
Great Escape Cruises
Halco Tackle
International Gamefishing Association
Kiama Charter Services
Marlin Charters
Mitchell's Marine Centre
Marine Queensland
Marine Tourism Western Australia
Merimbula Big Game and Lakes Angling Club
Narooma Sports and Game Fishing Club
New South Wales Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing
New South Wales Recreational Fishing Trust Fund Committee
Nhulunbuy Regional Sports Fishing Club
Nomad Sports and Game Fishing Charter Service
Nomad Sportsfishing Charters
Norfolk Island Fishing Association
Northern Territory Game Fishing Association
Port Stephens Game Fishing Club
Ports Stephens Professional and Amatuer Fishers
Queensland Charter Vessels Association
Queensland Game Fishing Association
Recfish Australia
Recfish West
Recreational Fisheries Advisory Council
Recreational Fishing Alliance New South Wales
Seagulls Fishing Club
South Australian Fishing Industry Council
South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council
South West Rocks Country Club
Sunfish Mackay
Sunfish Queensland
Sunfish Queensland (Tablelands)
Townsville Game Fishing Club
Townsville Game Fishing Association of Queensland
Underwater Skindivers and Fishermens Association
Western Australian Gamefishing Association
Attachment A2
Recreational fishing organisations and businesses that met with the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities in May 2012:
Australian Fishing Expeditions
Australian Fishing Trade Association
Australian National Sportsfishing Association
Australian Underwater Federation
Boating Industry Alliance of New South Wales
Boating Industry Association of Western Australia
Boating Industry Australia
Cairns Professional Game Fishing Association
Game Fishing Association of Australia
Halco Tackle
Kiama Charter Service
Marine Queensland
Marlin Charters
Mitchell's Marine Centre
New South Wales Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing
Nomad Sportsfishing Charters
Queensland Charter Vessels Association
Queensland Game Fishing Association
Recfishwest
Recreational Fishing Alliance New South Wales
South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council
Sunfish Queensland
Townsville Game Fishing Association of Queensland
Underwater Skindivers and Fishermens Association
Western Australian Gamefishing Association
Attachment A3
Public information session schedules - draft marine reserve network proposals
South-west Marine Region:
Town |
When |
Port Lincoln |
Thursday 19 May 2011 |
Geraldton |
Thursday 19 May 2011 |
Ceduna |
Monday 23 May 2011 |
Jurien Bay |
Monday 23 May 2011 |
Streaky Bay |
Tuesday 24 May 2011 |
Bunbury |
Thursday 26 May 2011 |
Kangaroo Island |
Thursday 26 May 2011 |
Margaret River |
Monday 30 May 2011 |
Albany |
Thursday 2 June 2011 |
Esperance |
Monday 6 June 2011 |
North-west Marine Region:
Town |
When |
Broome |
Thursday 25 August 2011 |
Kalbarri |
Monday 29 August 2011 |
Port Hedland |
Monday 29 August 2011 |
Karratha |
Tuesday 30 August 2011 |
Carnarvon |
Wednesday 31 August 2011 |
Exmouth |
Thursday 1 September 2011 |
North Marine Region:
Town |
When |
Darwin |
Thursday 1 September 2011 |
Normanton |
Tuesday 6 September 2011 |
Karumba |
Thursday 8 September 2011 |
Weipa |
Wednesday 14 September 2011 |
Nhulunbuy (Gove) |
Monday 19 September 2011 |
Burketown |
Tuesday 4 October 2011 |
Temperate East Marine Region:
Town |
When |
Port Stephens |
Monday 21 November 2011 |
Forster |
Wednesday 23 November 2011 |
Bermagui |
Monday 28 November 2011 |
Ulladulla |
Wednesday 30 November 2011 |
Jervis Bay |
Thursday 1 December 2011 |
Norfolk Island |
Saturday 3 December 2011 |
Coffs Harbour |
Monday 5 December 2011 |
Lord Howe Island |
Thursday 8 December 2011 |
Coral Sea Marine Region:
Town |
When |
Hervey Bay |
Monday 5 December 2011 |
Cairns |
Thursday 8 December 2011 |
Gladstone |
Monday 12 December 2011 |
Mackay |
Tuesday 13 December 2011 |
Townsville |
Friday 16 December 2011 |