The SPEAKER (Ms Anna Burke) took the chair at 13:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (13:01): by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:02): I am pleased to speak today on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which, from the beginning, has been something of a sham. Even in the government's own explanatory memorandum, they claim that this fund will provide $300 million over two years to all long day care services which are approved for child care benefit. Regrettably, this is not true, as the fund will only provide pay increases to between 27 and 40 per cent of the sector, leaving more than 60 per cent behind.
We have not even got an accurate number of workers in this sector, with estimates between 62,000 and 78,000. So the minister talking about 40 per cent of the sector is just not true. We do not know how much increased income those who are lucky enough to receive money under this fund would get, despite the union United Voice publishing a handy table for their members, citing figures they have pulled out from goodness knows where. The minister has put the responsibility for determining that actual amount in the hands of a seven-member advisory committee, which has recently been appointed.
So we are starting well behind the eight ball on this piece of legislation. About the only accurate figure the government has been able to provide is the amount of money they are appropriating for it—$300 million, in an environment where every single extra dollar borrowed is a burden on the next generation.
I am the first to admit that those who work in early child care and childhood learning are poorly paid. I have visited hundreds of centres and met thousands of staff and their young charges, and I know that they are doing it tough. They work long hours and they have such an important role to play in helping shape the futures of our next generation, and they do deserve to be fairly recompensed.
I say to the government, in a pre-emptive strike, that this is not about the opposition not believing that those on low pay should be better rewarded; those on low pay everywhere deserve to be better rewarded. Unfortunately, the system does not allow for them to be as lucky as this particular group of workers, where the government has done a deal—some have described it as a dirty, dodgy deal—with the union about increasing that union's membership. It is also a cruel hoax because it is giving false hope to a group of the most vulnerable workers in this country.
There are existing processes for making fair and lasting wage claims. In this instance, the correct process would be, and still could be, to lodge a claim with the Fair Work Commission, seeing responsibility for this decision rest with an independent umpire. The Fair Work Commission is the Prime Minister's own creation, a proud record—as the government talks it up—of having an independent quasi-judicial body tasked with implementing the modern award system and, in so doing, being equitable across every single wage category. But this completely usurps that process. It should be said, too, that it is not the role of government to write blank cheques. Given the diabolical mess that this government has put us in financially, we should be tightening our belts across the board instead of giving in to 'union mates'.
What we need to do is approach this issue in a manner that will see a fair and equitable outcome for all who work in the sector. Had United Voice lodged a claim with Fair Work Australia, as the commission was called two years ago, they would have had a decision by now and I am certain that all in the industry would be taking home more than they currently are. Instead, they did not do the hard yards; they did not do the hard work. They cosied up to their mates in this government and produced this half-baked deal which gives false hope to a group of the most vulnerable workers in this country.
In my travels to childcare centres around Australia I spend a lot of time chatting with the mainly young women on the floor. The absolute majority are doing this job because they adore the children. They love watching them learn and helping them grow. They view this as a vocation. It is not about the money. It is something many of them feel they were born to do, so we are lucky to have them. We know they work for low wages and we want to support them, but we do not want to cheat them, we do not want to hoax them and we do not want to give them the false hope that this piece of legislation and this scheme are doing.
The requirements of the national quality framework deserve a mention here. Whenever I speak to childcare educators and ask whether the job is what they expected it to be, nine times out of 10 I get the answer: 'Well, yes, except for the paperwork. I never thought I'd have to spend my days ticking checklists and writing minireports that parents don't seem to want to read when I know that what I want to do and what I am gifted to do is to sit on the floor educating and caring for the children.'
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate inquiries were bombarded with submissions on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill that we are debating now, yet there were many voices that were unable to be heard as the government allowed only one week in their haste to push this through the parliament. Many submissions arrived after the deadline, but there is a common theme with the majority of the submissions, and that is inequity. Instead of distributing this fund fairly across the sector, resulting in a pay rise of around $40 a person per week, the government has agreed to just provide increases to a small portion of the workforce. It absolutely appals me that a Labor government could be supporting a measure that will clearly disadvantage and disenfranchise more than 60 per cent of this workforce. Not only has this funding been confined to long day care workers but it will reach well under half of them—not occasional care workers, not family day care workers, not in-home care workers; just long day care workers.
What sort of message does this send to those who will miss out? In the words of the Childcare Association of Western Australia, it is likely to make them feel undervalued and could actually lead to a higher staff turnover. Even if it were 40 per cent of the workforce—and, honestly, estimates are saying it will be a lot less—this is one small subgroup of the entire workforce in child care. But it happens neatly to dovetail with a section that this government is clearly aiming this legislation at, and that is union members. In spite of the minister's small and humble insistences that, no, you do not have to be a union member in order to get this particular increase to your pay, the overwhelming view in the world out there is that you do, because union delegates are visiting childcare centres—of course, they have right of entry provisions beefed up under this government—and saying to the workforce there: 'Join the union and you'll get the pay rise—you will be one of the lucky ones.' It should be everyone's individual decision whether to join a union, and, as I have often said, I have belonged to three unions and have nothing against unions. I have a lot against this union's particular campaign in this area, because it is not true. The minister, instead of stating categorically and making it absolutely clear—this is not the minister at the table; this is the minister for early childhood—that you do not have to be a member of this union to get the pay rise, simply updated the frequently asked questions on the department's website. He was hiding behind the department, unable to clearly state to a vulnerable group of workers that they are being misled by this union and fleeced of their $500 membership fees—that is a lot of money for somebody on low wages. They have joined up to the union and they now have an expectation that they will get this pay rise, and the union's campaign—well known as 'Big Steps' across this country—has falsely given them that expectation.
If you look at the Big Steps Facebook page—and I encourage everyone interested in this area to do exactly that—you will see the comments made by the workforce, including such things as, 'I can now go on holiday,' 'I can now afford to buy a car,' 'I can now afford to get married,' and, 'I am going to get this pay rise.' The irresponsibility of the government in breaking the hearts of vulnerable workers by turning around and saying, 'Well, maybe not—and, by the way, it has nothing to do with the $500 membership fee that you just handed out to United Voice,' after allowing this campaign to run rampant across the childcare centres of this country, deserves extreme condemnation.
As the Australian Childcare Alliance has pointed out in its submission, there is a very real danger of other centres being forced to raise their costs to match the centres that would receive the funding in order to address a government-generated inequity. Regrettably for the families of Australia who have already seen an increase in the cost of child care—to the tune of about 26 per cent since Julie Gillard became Prime Minister—the cost may well increase quite a bit more as the result of this abysmal policy decision. Understandably, the sector is also aggrieved by the requirement to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement in order to be able to access the funds. Currently, only marginally more than 20 per cent of the sector uses EBAs, and for many smaller centres these are a costly investment, can take months to negotiate and cost thousands of dollars.
We have seen sizeable protests outside the childcare minister's Adelaide office. There would have been protests outside of Minister Garrett's office, but he is tucked away on the eighth floor of a very poorly signed building, so it is hard to actually find him. Both ministers with responsibilities in this area appear deaf to the pleas not only of childcare operators but also of the many workers in the industry who also do not think it is fair that only a proportion of their number get rewarded more highly for doing the same job.
Another area that I believe deserves attention today—I have highlighted it and I do want to highlight it some more—is the role played by the union United Voice. Their behaviour in this campaign has been nothing short of outrageous. We have seen a United Voice member post a photograph of a childcare peak organisation's president on their Facebook page, mocking them. We have had centres being phoned or visited by United Voice officials and being informed that, unless a minimum of 60 per cent of the workforce signs up, they will not be able to secure the pay rise. I guess that 60 per cent figure that they are quoting comes from the fact that, to have a EBA, you have to have 60 per cent of the workforce sign up, but it has nothing to do with this.
Young workers have been told that, if they do not join the union and give $500 of their annual wages to union dues, their colleagues will not get the pay rise—and they must not let down their colleagues; they would be letting their friends down. I know of a centre where the United Voice representative told them that, without union involvement, they were not even allowed to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement. Some centres have been told that they need to enter into memorandums of understanding with the union, committing to:
Provide access to at least one paid/ compulsory staff meeting so United Voice can explain the EYQF, the funding process and the importance of union membership as part of a long term solution … [and]
Provide ongoing ease of access between United Voice and our centre staff (lunch rooms, staff meetings, or being released from the floor by another staff member).
Despite a letter being sent from the department's David De Silva to Louise Tarrant in early April that noted their transgressions and referred them to a document that clearly states that union membership is not a prerequisite for being eligible for this fund, they have persisted. That is where I am critical of the ministers in this area—for essentially hiding behind departmental letters and frequently asked questions on websites. The letter, by the way, is very lightly worded and I suspect that there was quite a bit of red ink applied to the draft from the minister's office. But the fact is that the union knew—and knows—that the information it is peddling is untrue. What is even more disgusting is that this is the union that is supposed to represent the interests of low-paid workers but it is more than happy to lie to them in order to secure more memberships.
We have a government that has failed to heed the cries of industry and that is intent on racing through this legislation without even enabling the opportunity for consideration of the guidelines by those of us in this place. Yet again we see a complete and utter lack of transparency. So who knows what inclusions will be in play? How do we know, for example, that the panel will not insist on union membership? I refer to the seven-member advisory panel that is appointed to draft the guidelines to oversee the fund. So immediately you would think, 'The guidelines haven't even been drafted yet, so how do we know what they'll be?' Well, the minister says they have got to cover various things in a few areas in a press release. But, no, the actual guidelines have not been drafted. And the seven-member panel does not include the Australian Childcare Alliance, which represents 70 per cent of centres. It does not have a seat at the table.
The seven-member panel also includes those who would actually be applying for funding for their centres. There is a bit of an inconsistency there. There could be a conflict of interest. They are good people. I am sure they will manage the conflict appropriately and professionally, but we are talking about the optics here: guidelines that have not been written, rules that have not been released and a minister who is saying on the one hand that this is how the system will work but on the other getting his departmental officials to say, 'You'll just have to wait and see the guidelines.' Who knows? Maybe the guidelines will say you do have to be a union member. I am sure they won't, because it would be absolutely reprehensible for them to.
If you are in the sector and you are considering applying for this funding and you have to write an EBA and you feel compelled and caught up in this because your workforce is saying, 'Will we be getting the extra money and how much will it be and when will it arrive in our pay packets?' and so on, then you are taking steps now to add hugely to your costs. You might be a small business; you might be a community centre with a hard-working volunteer board. The money has got to come from somewhere no matter which model you use. You will be working hard to fund the costs of an EBA. It is not something you can knock up at home when you are doing all your other work for your childcare centre. You have to pay an industrial lawyer and it is expensive. You do not even know, when you lodge the EBA, what the guidelines will be. You do not even know if you might meet those guidelines. You do know, however, that you will incur significant costs just to begin the process.
The panel will have responsibility for monitoring the fund over its two-year lifespan. It only lasts two years. It is apparently the case that one would write into the EBA that the wages will go up for two years and then go down. But we know that wages do not go down and expectations are built in. That is part of the reason why wages stay where they are. This raises further questions. If the panel deems a centre to be in breach of the guidelines somewhere through that two-year period, what action can be taken? Say, for example, a centre were to raise their fees, would the panel or the department have authority to cease their funding immediately? What would this mean for the workforce? If the two organisations represented on the panel are recipients of the fund, who will have oversight for them?
At the very least we really should delay debate on this bill until we have had an opportunity to review the guidelines. Why weren't the guidelines included in the explanatory memorandum at least so we can consider the impact of this selective fund on the sector as a whole? It is treating the sector with disdain and disrespect. As I said, the guidelines are incomplete and some of the minister's statements have not, to my mind, actually logically made sense and they have not given the assurances that they should to those who have skin in the game, who apply for the funds but ultimately will be paying the workforce in their centres.
One of the things that was mooted when this was announced does get referred to in the explanatory memorandum. It is not clear but it goes a bit like this: in order to access this fund you cannot as a centre be putting up your fees to your parents. It is meant to give parents assurance that fees will not rise beyond a certain level. Obviously fees are going to rise. They are going to rise in accordance with the National Quality Framework, the reducing ratios and the increased qualifications that staff members need to have. That is recognised widely. I think even the union itself has said fees are going up 11 per cent. So we know that fees are going up. But will this mean that, as a centre, you have to give someone from the department access to your statements and your books to determine whether your fee increases are reasonable or not? Will they be asking questions about your return on equity? Will they be interviewing your banks? Will they be monitoring how you run your business and saying, 'You shouldn't be putting fees up and if you did this, you wouldn't,' and so on? It is just not clear. If you apply for this money, you are inviting that sort of examination of your business practices, which I have not heard of and which is totally unreasonable.
Let us revert to the heart of the matter just for a moment. I appreciate we are talking about the likelihood of childcare workers and I understand for some listening that our opposition to this bill sounds like we might be kicking them. We are not opposing this bill because we do not believe they deserve a pay rise; we are opposing this bill because it is poorly designed and grossly inequitable. Those in the government, so anxious to appease members of the union and avoid the spat that would clearly arise if they had not given in on this occasion, will push this bill through, I am sure, with no regard to what is right and what is fair. Because, you know, the ugly underbelly to all of this is what happens to those union fees that are paid to United Voice. What happens to those $500 commitments from some of the most vulnerable, poorly paid workers in this country? They go straight back to the Labor Party to fund the election campaign, and that is a disgrace.
We on this side of the chamber cannot support a bill that will throw the childcare sector into turmoil and create massive division between workers who are always collegiate, who always share information and who belong to a special group that understands the special work they do but which is now being divided by sentiments such as: 'Well, I'm getting the pay rise. My centre's getting the pay rise, is yours? Well, you'd better come and work for us.' I was told today about an educator who resigned from her small centre, saying to her employer: 'It's not that I don't like working here—of course, everyone loves it here—but I've been told that if I move to this larger centre I'll get the pay rise. It's already sorted; I's is already locked in.' I am not going to name names here because that is not necessary, but I do want to assure people that I can give them that information. I can say that anyone who is assuring their workforce that they will get this pay rise deserves the strongest condemnation because we have not had the guidelines yet and we know that the fund can only cover a small proportion of the workforce.
We cannot support this bill. We do not believe in the division that it is creating in the sector. Australian families cannot afford to pay any more for child care. They have already seen increases of almost 26 per cent since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister. While we are all speculating about what might happen in the future, I do not think any Labor leader will act to decrease the cost of child care in this country any time soon.
I do want to assure those listening and the centres—whether they be community or private, small or large, corporate or family, in the country or in the suburbs—that we in the coalition understand how hard you work every day, whether you are running the centre and on the floor yourself or whether you are struggling to find the right people that you know you need in your centre to nurture the young people on the floor. We know how tough you are doing it and we also know how families struggle to fund the cost of child care. We have a plan that will stop the cost of child care soaring to levels which basically make it unaffordable and which mean that children exit into backyard arrangements, which are not good for them and not good for quality in this country.
We know the red-tape burden. It is no good for the minister and the government to say that this is all supposed to reduce red tape. Maybe it was supposed to, but it has not. When I see a childcare centre, I ask, 'How much time are you now allocating to compliance and how much time do you think you will do so once you have implemented these new arrangements?' We have seen that ratchet up. We have seen one whole job perhaps out of a staff of seven just dedicated to being in the office doing the paperwork. It is not good enough. We in the coalition believe, and we know, that we can act to reduce the red tape in centres. We also want to engage very cooperatively with everyone in this space to make sure that the costs do not rise at the rate they have and, therefore, put child care out of the reach of working families. I look forward to support for the coalition's position from the crossbenchers and I urge them to really seriously consider the divisive nature of this piece of legislation and to support the coalition's condemnation of it.
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide—Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare) (13:25): I am incredibly proud to speak on this Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013 implementing the government's Early Years Quality Fund. I am particularly proud to do it at a time when recent debate on this sector has descended to an entirely new low. The offensive, outdated and incorrect mutterings of Judith Sloan and the like must be exposed for the rubbish that they are. The statements that have been made in recent days could, of course, just be dismissed as the dinosaur views of an irrelevant commentator, but sadly they are views that are shared by some of those opposite. They are views that other people have put on the record and supported and they are views that must be challenged for the sake of this critically important sector.
Our government is the first federal government in our nation's history to recognise the importance of the early years of a child's life through the early childhood education and care sector. We have led historic reforms to improve the quality of early childhood education and care through the national quality agenda. With more children in care than at any time in our nation's history, this is vital for our nation's future. Earlier this month I announced that there are now more than one million children using child care at any given time. Whilst in recent days—and from the contribution we have just heard—we have heard scaremongers talk about how people will be fleeing the sector, about reduction and people pulling children out of care, what we have actually seen is a rapid expansion following our government's efforts to massively increase the affordability of the sector. We are also improving the quality of child care so that every one of those one million children is able to get the best early learning opportunities possible.
We have seen conservative cheer squad member Judith Sloan label early childhood educators as 'dimwits'. This follows the opposition's own shadow minister referring to them as 'so-called early learning educators'. We see that this follows a pattern of ignorance. We have seen the member for Higgins say that the National Quality Framework is based on 'nothing in particular'. We have seen the member for Aston suggest that childcare quality improvements were 'for no discernible benefit'. The member for Herbert has even said that early childhood educators campaigning to be valued and to be paid fairly in Townsville were chasing the dollar and that they should do their job for the love of it.
The views opposite could be right. The NQF could have been based on nothing in particular—that is, if you disregard the decades and decades of compelling international and domestic research which clearly demonstrates otherwise. Early childhood professionals have absolutely had enough of this rubbish. I have had enough of this rubbish. So let us put the facts on the record. The research is now unequivocal that the first five years of a child's life are critical to their development, that it is a time when 90 per cent of brain development occurs, a time that sets up children for the rest of their lives. What happens in these early years will not just impact on them now but will also impact on social outcomes, on their future health outcomes and on their educational outcomes for years and years to come. Therefore, the quality of early childhood education and care provided is fundamentally important.
We know that there are two main drivers of quality in our early childhood settings: local child to staff ratios and the qualification standards of those staff. Early Childhood Australia has recently released an evidence brief which summarises these key drivers of quality. The research shows that higher numbers of staff to children are associated with important learning outcomes including more extensive language skills through increased opportunities for conversations with adults, increased literacy skills, improved general knowledge, more cooperative and positive behaviour with peers and with adults, and better concentration and attention skills. The research also shows that the most significant factors affecting quality are the qualifications and training of the staff. Children in early childhood education and care settings led by an educator with a bachelor's degree in early childhood show greater progress and achievement in language, in literacy, in numeracy and in learning and are better prepared for school compared to children in programs led by less qualified educators. These are the facts.
In addition, there are less reportable child accidents or serious incidents when educators with higher qualifications are employed. All of the research, including the OECD analysis, shows that qualified early childhood educators have a significant positive impact on early child development. This research is why our government has led reforms, in partnership with all of the states and territories of all different political persuasions, to ensure that we lift the qualifications of staff and that we improve staff to child ratios so that children can better learn and develop. The evidence is now clear that involvement and interaction between qualified early childhood educators and children is critical to driving better learning outcomes for children during their early years. Long gone are the days when childcare staff were regarded simply as babysitters. These are early childhood professionals and they must be recognised and they must be valued as such.
To support these standards our government is making a significant investment of over $190 million to train and retain a higher qualified early childhood education and care workforce. However, significant challenges still exist in developing a qualified workforce to meet the growing childcare needs of families. The Productivity Commission have made it clear that if we want to attract and retain qualified early childhood educators, wages will need to increase, particularly in long day care centres. We know that there are already many early childhood educators earning above award rates through their centres' current enterprise agreements. While the government supports more providers valuing and rewarding their staff at above award rates, we also have a key priority in that we want to ensure that child care remains affordable.
I am proud to say that with this bill the government will establish the Early Years Quality Fund with $300 million to support more long day care services to improve the wages of their early childhood educators. This Early Years Quality Fund is a historic step for early childhood educators. It is particularly important for Australian children who want to be able to form a bond with an early childhood professional who they are familiar with and not with a different educator each week. I know it is particularly important for the peace of mind of parents that they know that when they drop their child off in the morning they are dropping their child off with someone with whom they are familiar and have a strong bond with and affection for. Services that sign up will have to make a commitment to quality. They will also have to agree to limit fee increases and to provide transparent information so that Australian parents have all the information that is required to make the best choices for their family.
Not all employers will want to sign up to an enterprise agreement or indeed agree to the terms the government will put in place to ensure fee restraint and a commitment to delivering high quality child care. But we know that enterprise agreements are absolutely necessary to ensure that employers pass on the grants in wage increases to employees and grants will be contingent on these agreements being in place and supported through the processes available through the Fair Work Ombudsman. An enterprise agreement is the only mechanism available to protect this fund. We do not want it used to prop up revenue and we do not want it used to improve anyone's bottom line; we want it used for the wages of our hard-working early childhood educators and professionals. An enterprise agreement is the instrument to achieve wage increases unless the children's services award is increased. I recognise that this is a sector which has undertaken huge steps in recent years and while this bill establishes a fund for the long day care sector I also acknowledge that there are a range of critical early childhood educators who are working in other settings, who are working in family day care, who are working in out of school hours care and a range of other approved childcare services.
Our government also believes that the professionalism of the early childhood workforce needs to be recognised on a sustainable and permanent basis across the entire sector. We are really proud of our government's record in ensuring that lower paid workers can access permanent across-the-board wage increases. Our government abolished Work Choices. We introduced the Fair Work Act, which removed barriers to equal remuneration claims to be considered under federal workplace relations law, making possible equal pay claims under the federal system. This has already achieved some great results, which we have seen through the first successful pay equity decision for the social and community sector workers and it has encouraged other sectors to pursue cases to improve outcomes for low-paid workers. Our government will build on those achievements by investing a further $6.2 million to establish a specialist pay equity unit within the Fair Work Commission, which is due to start work from July 2013. The new unit will undertake research and data collection to inform matters related to pay equity under the Fair Work Act, modern award reviews and annual minimum wage decisions. These measures are laying the foundations for pay increases for feminised sectors like the children's services sector into the future.
These are substantial achievements and I really want to take a moment to acknowledge the role of the Big Steps campaign in generating wide support for addressing wages for early childhood educators across Australia. This was a broad-based campaign which won support from parents, from educators, from small and from major childcare providers right across the country. Thousands of educators across Australia held stalls, letterboxed, made signs, petitioned, held rallies and spoke passionately about the difference that educators make to children's lives. I can speak from firsthand experience of this: I received the letters, I received the emails, I received the tweets. We heard you loud and clear. In fact, your voice was heard in every town and city in the country. Your campaign made our community recognise that it is no longer good enough in Australia to entrust the development and the safety of our children with you and do nothing about the low level of remuneration attached to it.
I want to particularly also recognise the Big Steps team in my electorate of Adelaide in building support amongst our community for the professional sector. Unfortunately, despite the support generated in the community, the coalition are intent on destroying this bill, threatening wage increases for thousands of early childhood educators. If you listen to coalition speakers on this bill here today, you will not hear a single commitment to quality. You will hear no recognition that qualification standards and child-staff ratios are important. You will hear no recognition of the role that early childhood educators play in giving children a better start to life. You will hear no support for the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care, which is delivering these improvements in childcare settings across Australia, despite the fact that every other state and territory government have signed up, because we all know that this is the critical way forward.
There is only one group that is left sitting out that has not recognised that. Sadly, it is the group that sits opposite me right now. We know that if the Liberals have their way, there will be no advancement of this important professional work and staff will continue to be deeply underpaid for their important work. For decades, early childhood workers have been lumped in with babysitters, with no appreciation for the role that they play as critical early childhood educators.
What started off as ignorant misunderstandings has now descended into the breathtakingly vile and malicious slander from the conservatives that we have heard from in recent days. I am here to say: it must stop now. Those opposite must abandon their Judith Sloan like dinosaur views. The facts must dictate the future policy in this critical area. And the evidence is compelling. The coalition just do not understand the hard work that all childcare centres across Australia have been putting in to improve the quality of child care for Australian children. Only Labor will make record improvements in early childhood education and care, as we have in the budget, with over $25 billion going to this sector over the next four years. We have demonstrated our commitment by the fact that we have now tripled expenditure in the area, compared to what those opposite were spending when last in government. Only Labor will continue to support services to improve the wages of early childhood educators and, importantly, give Australian children the best start in life, as all of the evidence shows it can do.
With this bill, our government is setting the path towards a quality early childhood sector that recognises early childhood educators as the professionals that they are and that values the work that they are doing in communities across Australia each and every day. I am absolutely proud to commend this bill to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:40): I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. Any piece of legislation introduced in this House in the area of childcare policy needs to have the express aim of improving the industry for providers and workers. It must ensure that child care is more affordable, more available and more flexible to the needs of Australian parents which, in turn, could improve workplace participation rates. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that a child is receiving the best, positive early experiences during their most critical period. Unfortunately, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill does not have any relevance whatsoever to these goals. It neither addresses any underlying problems in the sector and nor does it genuinely improve wages and conditions for workers.
This bill proposes to provide for a $300 million fund, over two years, to set up a special account to administer the Early Years Quality Fund to cover pay increases for some childcare workers. The government has proposed a two-year fund, with $135 million in the first year and $165 million in the second year. To qualify for funding for their employees, childcare providers enter into enterprise bargaining agreements, EBAs, and apply to a seven-member childcare advisory board, which will then determine who receives the funds. The explanatory memorandum states that these funds have the very laudable but lofty aim to retain qualified hardworking professionals in the sector and to reduce the numbers of educators leaving the sector overall. However, there are several very important concerns about this bill: the way it operates and, importantly, the way in which it affects providers and workers in the childcare sector.
The Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into this bill and reported on 17 June 2013. The coalition senators of the committee published a dissenting report to highlight many of the concerns that we have and to highlight the concerns that stakeholders raised throughout the committee process. The Labor government introduced the bill into the House on 30 May 2013 and it was referred to the Senate committee that day. With their focus always on the latest leadership challenge rather than on proper governance, this gave stakeholders only six working days to make a submission. Fortunately, more than 62 individuals and organisations used that opportunity to note their opposition to the many stark deficiencies in this bill. As coalition senators remarked in the opening of their dissenting report:
Coalition Senators consider this bill to be among the least meritorious pieces of legislation put by the Government in the 43rd Parliament. It proposes and promotes inequality in the workplace, and in doing so, creates division and workplace disharmony.
That is a very blunt assessment of this bill. However, these comments are justified for two main reasons: firstly, the fund is a short-term fix which does nothing to foster real long-term wage growth in the early childhood sector, while many employers and employees are left out; and, secondly, this is a blatant attempt to favour unions and to increase unionisation within the workforce.
Important questions remain as to how many childcare workers will actually be covered under this fund. The United Voice union have been campaigning since 2008, with requests for wage increases ranging from $7 to $10 an hour. Their proposal was that the government fund the increase in full, to the tune of $1.4 billion per year and indexed afterwards. The proposal before us today is a far cry from that figure. It is only $300 million, which ceases after two years. Therefore, as the Senate committee has noted: 'Only up to 40 per cent of the workforce would be eligible for a wage increase.'
The primary problem with any increase in wages as a result of this bill is that it will not be targeted in such a way as to increase quality. Providers are already struggling to comply with the National Quality Framework, due to come into effect on 1 January 2014, and to ensure that they have the required number of qualified educators. I have heard already from long day care providers in my electorate who are concerned that they simply will not cope with further changes to the childcare system. They are worried about more red tape, more boxes to be ticked and more vague procedures to be followed.
I do note that at this stage the specific grant guidelines have not yet been determined, meaning stakeholders cannot determine whether the guidelines are in any way fair or reasonable. Instead, it appears that funds will be allocated on an ad-hoc basis to those who are able to submit a grant application to the 'advisory board' faster than another provider. Those who do not submit quickly will miss out, which will only result in differential wages for similar work between different centres. Furthermore, the grant is payable only to those working in long day care. It will not benefit those working in preschools, family day care, out of school hours care or other types of early childhood care or education. This creates division between workers at different providers and potentially even division between childcare workers at the same provider but in a different category of child care.
As the Chief Executive of the Child Care Centres Association of Victoria noted, there is the potential to distort the market locally—for example, where there are only two centres in an area, such as in a regional town. If one centre receives a grant, if for no other reason than it manage to submit the paperwork faster than another provider, how is a community supposed to perceive these changes to wages? Parents certainly cannot base their determinations on either the quality or the true affordability of the centre because it is receiving supplementary government funds. I expect such discrepancies to result in post-hoc disruptions across the country whereby employers deliberately poach the employees of another provider, further reinforcing a two-tiered system between those who do receive the government funds and those who do not.
In many submissions to the committee, concerns were raised about what might happen to those centres who do not receive grants. Given the relative mobility of childcare workers, will all providers now have to immediately offer a higher pay rate in order to keep staff, and then try to absorb those costs without passing them on to parents? The usual course for increases in wages arises through rulings of the Fair Work Commission, established by this government with responsibility for determining appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. I do not dispute that childcare educators are often low paid and that they are struggling, as are childcare providers. It is worth noting that unions, including United Voice, have refused to lodge a wage claim with Fair Work.
Relying on government funds to top up wages means, in this case, that $300 million is allocated for only the next two years. The question then is what will happen to the wages of employees once the funds run out. Providers will face the very tough decision of having to in fact reduce the wages. I expect, however, that many of those in the unions will be relying on providers and management maintaining their nominal wages rather than dropping pay rates. This would only create further tension in the workplace and providers will be forced to source those funds elsewhere. Often the only way that childcare providers can do this is by passing on the costs to the parents, who are already struggling with skyrocketing childcare costs. This is not a desirable outcome for providers, their employees or parents who use childcare services.
One of the central tenets of this bill is that employees in the childcare sector will only be eligible for a grant if they are covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement. At present, according to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, only 20 per cent of providers currently have an EBA with their employees. This is reflective of the way in which this market operates. Often a provider may run only one or two centres with a small number of employees, where an EBA is not necessarily the most appropriate workplace structure. There will be cases where this is an EBA which covers not just long day care workers but also those in preschools, family day care, out of school hours care and others, and then all workers may have to vote for an amendment to the EBA to cover wage increases for only the long day care workers. Those other workers will be rightly wondering why they are being asked to approve wage increases for others when they themselves are not deemed worthy of a pay rise. As the coalition senators have noted, such a ballot being required would only involve great 'cost, inconvenience, confusion, anger, disappointment and ultimately disputation' and would only promote disharmony between the employees.
However, unions such as United Voice have used this bill as an opportunity to launch an orchestrated campaign to encourage workers to unionise, even when the unions know that there is no guarantee of a wage increase for those who join. The union has made other spurious claims, including telling workers that if they do not sign up their colleagues will not receive a pay rise or that joining will guarantee a pay rise. This led the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to write to United Voice in April this year to remind them that 'union membership is not a prerequisite to potentially receive a pay rise'.
When appearing before the committee, Mr Michael Crosby from United Voice admitted that legislating and funnelling a wage increase through EBAs will benefit his union. He said:
Any enterprise agreement helps unions to sign up members, there is just no doubt about that … Every enterprise agreement we do starts off with a message to workers to join the unions … I heard this attack, and I saw it in the Australian yesterday, that we are using this to sign up workers. Of course we are.
Every worker has the right to voluntarily join a union if they believe it will serve their interests. What I strongly object to is this Labor government introducing legislation that serves only the interests of the unions and not their members. As I have said, in this case the vast majority of workers will not see a wage increase whether they join the union or not.
It is therefore unsettling to see evidence in submissions to the committee about intimidating behaviour from the union and its members. The Australian Childcare Alliance, or the ACA, informed the committee:
Many of our members have reported that … union activity has been intimidating to both themselves and their staff. Our members around Australia have been advising us of the strong arm tactics of the United Voice Union organisers who have been telling members that they must have 60 per cent plus membership to engage with them to submit the Enterprise Agreement.
The ACA also indicated its concern that United Voice may have breached privacy laws in making public information about approved providers and educators:
The ACA President has had a photo of her home posted by a union organiser on the Big Steps Facebook Page with disparaging comments and also on the same organiser's personal Facebook page and her personal email address advertised to the general union membership.
Any breaches of privacy or the targeting of individuals are not acceptable. I note that the union involved has not apologised for the actions of its members.
The coalition recognises the importance of affordable child care to help Australian families meet increasing cost-of-living pressures, especially as the need for a second income has become more important for more Australian families. We support improved standards and conditions for early childhood educators to ensure quality care is provided to all Australian children, but we are very mindful that child care must also be affordable. Ultimately, this is a poorly designed and inequitable proposal which will have a far-reaching negative impact on the sector. The coalition opposes this bill.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:53): Early childhood education and care is obviously an essential service. Clearly it has a long-lasting effect on the children in that care and clearly it allows a great many parents to return to the workforce. It is a very important part of Australia's education system and should be resourced and recognised accordingly. But I do worry that early childhood education is an industry in crisis. A junior early childhood educator—someone with a certificate III—is paid only about $18.58 an hour. It escapes me why we pay so little to the people who care for our most precious people. I do not understand why those who care for our children and those who care for our aged are some of the worst-paid people in our workforce. For heaven's sake, you can get $22 an hour packing the shelves at one of Australia's supermarkets, yet we put our most precious little children and older Australians in the care of people who are earning substantially less. With the cost of living in this country, you cannot run a household and be all that you want to be on $30,000 or $40,000 a year. No wonder something like 180 early childhood educators are leaving the sector each and every week.
I know how hard this is for those people. I was very proud to take part in the United Voice Big Steps Walk in My Shoes campaign, where I was able to work as a childcare worker for just a few hours. I have two young children, so I know about the demands of looking after children, but I have to say that, after a few hours in this one relatively small and very well run centre, I was run ragged—and I was able to walk out at lunchtime. How the rest of the staff stayed on and did their jobs for the rest of the day and the next day escapes me. So I will support this bill by the government. I think the injection of $300 million into the sector is a positive development and worth supporting. But I cannot support it without expressing a number of serious concerns.
The shortfall in funding to ensure that our early childhood educators are paid appropriately in this country is something like $1.4 billion each year; so, while I applaud the government for chipping in $300 million, I condemn the government for not funding this reform properly. The result, as we know, is that only 40 per cent of early childhood educators will see a pay rise, which means that 60 per cent of early childhood educators will not see a pay rise in all sorts of situations, including caring for children in their own home. It is not fair that 60 per cent of early childhood educators will be forced to continue to go about their work and live on $30,000 or $40,000 a year. That is unfair. I make the point that I have made many times already in this place: we live in one of the richest, cleverest and most fortunate countries in the world. There is enough money to ensure that all Australians have a reasonable standard of living. There is enough money in this country to ensure that the people who look after our young children and our elderly get paid a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.
I will support the government's bill, but I will only support it because there is no chance of getting the full $1.4 billion. I am certainly not going to stand in the way of the $300 million. I do call on the government to look again at the figures. It is fortunate that the Treasurer has joined us. I call on the Treasurer, if he is the Treasurer after the next election, to look afresh at this issue and to see whether our early childhood educators can be fully funded in the next federal budget. I call on the alternative government, if they are successful at the election later this year, to look afresh at this. The comments that have been made by speakers I have already heard today suggest that you well understand that our early childhood educators should all get a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Based on what the alternative government has said in here today I would hope that, if they are successful—I see the Leader of the Opposition has walked into the chamber. I call on the Leader of the Opposition: if you are successful at the next election, look afresh at this and commit to fully funding the shortfall in the pays of our early childhood educators. Three hundred million dollars is a good start, but it is not the $1.4 billion that is required.
I again make the point that it beggars belief that in this country we put the most important people in our community—our very young and our very old—in the care of the lowest-paid workers in this country. Surely that can be rectified. Surely Australia is rich enough to rectify that. It is all about priorities. The federal budget is maybe $350 billion a year. Surely there is enough money that with careful planning we can ensure that our early childhood educators are not being forced to scrape by on $30,000, $35,000 or $40,000 a year. No-one in this place would try to do that; we should not be making other people do that.
I will support the bill, but I do it with the important qualification that the government should not crow too loudly. They should have gone much further and they should have stumped up the full $1.4 billion that is needed to ensure our early childhood educators get a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.
Debate interrupted.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:00): I inform the House that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research and Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, and the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister for Housing and Homelessness will be absent from question time today as they are attending the state memorial service for Hazel Hawke in Sydney. I will answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation will answer questions relating to tertiary education, skills, science and research. The Minister for Defence will answer questions relating to foreign affairs, trade and competitiveness, and will represent the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House. The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform will answer questions relating to housing and homelessness. The Minister for Health will answer questions relating to mental health and ageing.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Treasurer. I remind him that the respected research firm Roubini Global Economics has warned, 'Consumer sentiment has taken a hit due to the government's big miss on the budget this year.' To help consumer sentiment, why won't the Treasurer reverse Monday's planned increase to the carbon tax?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:01): I reject the premise of the question entirely. This government has a AAA credit rating from the three major global rating agencies with a stable outlook. If you go through the reviews of the budget, and most of the analysts agree, you will see that people appreciate that our support for jobs and growth is absolutely fundamental to our future prosperity. There is only one threat to that, there is only one threat to confidence, and that is the approach of the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite. They have said very clearly that they will take an axe to jobs. Just because the global economy took an axe to our revenues does not mean that we should take an axe to jobs and growth. But that is the position of the Liberal Party in this House. The position they are putting forward is European-style austerity policies. This was repeated again by the shadow Treasurer yesterday in a speech.
Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very simple question: why won't he axe the tax increase for next Monday? He should answer that.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: What we are seeing from this Leader of the Opposition is simply more fearmongering—talking our economy down and trying to exaggerate the impact of a carbon price. Everybody on this side of the House believes that dangerous climate change is something that should be tackled. To the Leader of the Opposition it is just: something is happening out there. Well, something is happening out there and we are dealing with it, as a responsible government that faces up to the challenges of the future. We will always deal with the challenges of the future. We are dealing with the funding model for education. We are investing in the NBN and facing up to the challenges of the future. The consequence of that is an economy which is growing which is the envy of the world, supporting jobs and growth. There is a clear alternative: those opposite would take an axe to jobs and growth in this economy, with austerity European style. That is the only threat to confidence in this country.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is warned!
Broadband
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (14:03): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the National Broadband Network building a modern economy and a smarter, fairer and stronger society, and how is the NBN part of the government's plan for the nation's future?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:04): I do thank the member for Parramatta for that question. When you look at the Australian economy, it is one that is envied right around the world—eight per cent larger in the last three years, 14 per cent since the government was elected. In the last three years, 500,000 jobs were created and almost a million jobs in the time that the government has been in power. This government understand the importance of supporting jobs and growth, which is why this country did not go into recession when most other developed economies did. It is because we did not go into recession that we have the economic strength to make the investments for the future. Governments should be always looking over the horizon, looking to the future, looking to tomorrow. What are the investments that we can make for the long term? We know what is important here. Education is very important—getting rid of that broken funding model and making investments for a decade's time which will lift our productivity and make us a stronger and smarter country.
This is where the NBN comes in. Those opposite do not accept the need for superfast broadband in our economy. They have the minister for the 'copper' economy over there, the shadow minister for communications. They believe in the 'copper' economy. On this side of the House, we are preparing our country for the future. The future is superfast broadband. It is absolutely essential to lifting our productivity and making our country more efficient—the digital economy. None of these things are understood by those opposite, just as they do not understand the importance of education. Investing in the NBN is truly a nation-building project. It will drive a digital future for this country.
Since those opposite were last in power, the amount of data downloaded over the internet by Australians has grown 15 times. Of course, we all know the Leader of the Opposition does not understand this transformation that is happening in our economy. But we know that through investment in the NBN we can drive investment in our economy and drive growth in the services sector, which is there to take up the slack as mining investment comes off. This will drive a revolution in efficiency and productivity in our economy.
Those opposite do not understand the need to invest in this technology for the next 50 years. What they have is their 'fraudband' scheme. That is what they have got. They are going to get copper to the node, nothing to the house. We are going to get the fibre right to the home where it is needed so that people can get the speeds they need for the future. This Leader of the Opposition has been wrecking for his entire adult life. On this side of the House we are making investments for the future.
Mr Turnbull interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wentworth.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, because you won't be given it, if you want the question.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Yes, he cannot actually just ask your colleague. The member for North Sydney has the call.
Budget
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:07): I will give him another chance. My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that in last year's budget speech he said: 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the success of our policies.' Given that the government posted a deficit of $19.4 billion this year and is projected to deliver $29 billion of further deficits, is that not a powerful confirmation of the failure of the government's policies?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:07): No, it is not. What this government stands for is jobs and growth and in our time in office there have been over one million jobs created—one million jobs—and 500,000 jobs created in the last three years. We have put in place a range of policies to ensure that that continues. It would have been deeply irresponsible in the circumstances of this year's budget to come back to surplus quicker because the effects of that would have been on Australians in small businesses right around our country. So it is very clear now what the contrast is in this House between the policies of the government and the opposition. We stand for jobs and growth. The logic of their position is very clear: they stand for savage cuts to public expenditure to come back to surplus at any price and at any cost. That is the very clear contrast.
We get this fiscal fearmongering from those opposite. They go around and talk our economy down, exaggerate the levels of debt, and what is that all about? It is all about the fact that they do not want to tell the Australian people what they would do if they were in power, which is a Newman-style austerity program, which will slash jobs in the Australian community and make massive cuts to health and education.
We on this side of the House are proud of the fact that our No. 1 priority—it is in our DNA—is to support jobs and growth. It is the responsible thing to do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves as a nation. Global uncertainty demands that what we do is support growth with a responsible level of debt and deficit. That is an important thing to do. The contrast was there during the global financial crisis when those opposite refused to support our stimulus. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition slept right through the critical vote. He was drunk and did not come into the House. He slept right through that vote—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will withdraw. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Bendigo is not assisting. The Treasurer will withdraw.
Mr SWAN: I withdraw.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has the call and does not have the right to direct me as others on the bench are about to suggest.
Mr Pyne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, with great respect to you, I put it to you that the Treasurer has vastly gone past what is considered reasonable in this place. I would ask you to be absolutely certain for the rest of question time that he does not repeat that extraordinary performance.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I was trying very quickly to draw the Treasurer's attention to what I thought was a very outrageous comment. I was actually trying to do it at the time. I take it very seriously and I will be watching carefully. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: Thank you, Speaker. Those opposite—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And those who want to talk about trashing parliament perhaps should take a look at their behaviour at every question time.
Mr SWAN: Thank you, Speaker. Those opposite voted against the stimulus that saved Australia, that saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are many members on this side of the House who remember that vote. I will remember it for the rest of my life. I could not believe that those opposite could be so irresponsible to come into this House and vote against that stimulus that protected our community when global demand fell off a cliff. It was deeply irresponsible. The Leader of the Opposition was not here. He was around in the House earlier in the evening and he was witnessed by many people on this side of the House for his activities on that evening.
The SPEAKER: I now warn the Treasurer.
Mr Briggs interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I would not be tempting my fate, Member for Mayo.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:12): Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I refer to the Treasurer's answer when he claimed he is all about jobs growth. Treasurer, is it not the case that if in fact you had the same level of jobs growth as occurred under the previous coalition government, an extra 400,000 jobs would have been created in the last five years?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will have the call when I have silence.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:13): Well, so here we go again. The global financial crisis and the global recession never happened—did not happen—and therefore there was no need for a fiscal stimulus and no need for the actions that the government took which saved our country from recession. This is acknowledged by every responsible economic authority in the global economy, but it is not acknowledged by those opposite because there is no length they will not go to to talk down our economy, to talk down its performance. They are not proud of the fact that there has been just under a million jobs created since we have been in power.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has the call and has the right to be heard in silence.
Mr SWAN: And, indeed, 500,000 jobs created in the last three years. Let us just think about the last three years. What has been happening in the global economy in the last three years? There were the aftershocks of the global financial crisis and a global recession. We have had recession in Europe for something like six quarters. We have had the fiscal crisis in the United States. We have had all of the challenges in Japan. And in the middle of all of this our economy has shone out like a beacon for its resilience and strength. That does not mean to say that everything is okay for everybody but those opposite should have the pride in our country to at least acknowledge how well we did.
Opposition members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: Members opposite need to understand that they do not have the right to continually interject during everyone's answers. The member for Reid has the call.
Broadband
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:14): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the government's National Broadband Network? Minister, why is the government investing in the technology of the future, not the past?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (14:15): I thank the member for Reid for his question and I note that by the end of this week NBN fibre is scheduled to be switched on in suburbs and in more premises in Homebush and Lidcombe in the member's electorate, as well as in South Perth, Victoria Park, Sawtell and Penrith. The National Broadband Network is being rolled out right around the country.
Mr Gray interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: I am reminded by the member for Brand that it is being rolled out in Mandurah as well. This is bringing 21st century technology right to people's homes. Right to people's homes where it is needed.
The alternative policy by those opposite proposes fridge-like boxes on the corner of every street and then copper to the home. In the 21st century they want taxpayers to pay Telstra for 19th century technology—not that their plan has actually factored in paying Telstra for the copper network. Of course the shadow minister for broadband and the copper economy is not alone in arguing the merits of copper in this chamber. Indeed, Mr Thomas Brown, a member, is recorded as arguing in the old chamber, at the old place, 'Copper is used for greater efficiency.' He was out there arguing the case for copper, just like the member for Wentworth today. You can look it up in Hansard—it was on 23 November 1910. This bloke would have been a visionary 103 years ago, but today he is way behind. Let me tell you there were similar nay-sayers back then. There was a fellow that the member for Wentworth could relate to, Mr Mathews. He said this:
The practical men in the Department, not the theorists, think that nothing is gained by using copper wire for short lines. Some of the iron wire lines have been in use for thirty years, and give as good results now as copper wire lines.
You can just envisage the member for Wentworth back then with a top hat on rocking up to parliament and saying: 'We don't need this copper rubbish. The iron is fine.' Just like today he argues, 'We don't need the fibre. The copper is fine,' and just like the Leader of the Opposition sees Sonny Bill Williams at a launch and goes, 'Oh, is that Sonny Bill or is that an apparition?' You have a situation whereby those opposite are simply unprepared for the future. We on this side are engaging with the NBN because it is a part of our economic future not the past. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (14:18): My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry small business pre-election survey—this one—states that the abolition of the carbon tax is a priority for small business. Why won't the government reverse the planned five per cent increase in the carbon tax due next Monday in order to give small business some relief?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:18): What can I say? I do welcome any question on the economy and any question on investment, particularly when it comes to Australia's small businesses, because we have got in place a fundamental piece of public policy called the instant asset write-off, which is a major benefit to millions of small businesses right around our country. Of course, ironically, it is something that is opposed by those opposite and would get the axe if they were in government—
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question had nothing to do with the instant asset write-off nor was it a general question about the economic conditions facing small business. It was about scrapping the tax increase on 1 July. I would ask you to ask that—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The answer is to the entirety of the question. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: The instant asset write-off is a major boost to cash flow to millions of Australian small businesses. I am not surprised that those opposite would not acknowledge what an important boost it is to the cash flow of small businesses, because they want to get rid of it. They are not going to tell people about it and be honest about it. Loss carry back is also very important to many small businesses. This is opposed by those opposite as well.
I have been asked about the carbon price. The carbon price is working and it is having a dramatic impact on emissions. That is a good thing for our country. We on this side of the House understand the importance of dealing with dangerous climate change, unlike those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition has called it absolute crap. He said he has been a weathervane when it comes to climate change. On this side of the House we have conviction. We have conviction about jobs and growth. We have conviction about doing something about dangerous climate change. We have conviction about doing something to increase the resources available for the education of our children. There is a very clear contrast.
So when it comes to small business and the rest of the business community there is nothing more fundamental that we can do for business than to support jobs and growth. Growth in our economy is solid: 0.6 and 2.5 through the year. Where else do you see those sorts of growth levels in developed economies around the world? Indeed, many of the developed economies are going further backwards. Where else do you see an economy which is 14 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007? The Canadians are only up to about six per cent.
The fact is that the most fundamental thing we can do for business is to make sure we are supporting jobs and growth so we have consumers who can spend a dollar and keep the doors of those businesses open. That is what drove us when responding to the global financial crisis and the global recession—to keep the doors of small business open when global demand fell off a cliff. And guess what? We were pretty successful at that. We are successful at it now because we understand the importance of jobs and growth. You do not. The people who will suffer, if you ever get the chance to take the axe to public expenditure, will be the small businesses of our country.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:22): I welcome to the chamber this afternoon Kay Elson, the former member for Forde. We welcome her.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Health and Hospitals
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:22): My question is to the Minister for Health. Minister, on 3 June you wrote to the Tasmanian Minister for Health and offered to reallocate funding to continue for three years the Psychiatric Emergency Nurses program at the Royal Hobart Hospital—thank you. But three weeks later doubt remains about the program continuing for anywhere near that long. Minister, what is going on with the Tasmanian government, and what assurance can you give that the PEN program is safe?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (14:22): I thank the member for Denison for his question. I appreciate the interest that the member for Denison has taken in psychiatric services in his electorate. It is an issue that has been raised by him with me over a number of months—and this program in particular several weeks ago—as well as by other Tasmanian members.
I am happy to confirm, as the member for Denison has said, that I have provided the Tasmanian government with a funding offer to use Commonwealth funds for important psychiatric services. As the day-to-day manager of Tasmania's health system, the Tasmanian government will have to make important decisions about the allocation of resources, but I have put on the record that the Commonwealth government stands ready to assist. We are in frequent, ongoing discussions with the Tasmanian government. I am very hopeful, indeed confident, that we can conclude these arrangements satisfactorily.
I also want to take the opportunity of the member for Denison's question to update other members of the House on progress in Tasmania on the health package. The Tasmanian health system is a strong beneficiary of increased investment in health expenditure. In this year's budget there will be a record $399 million from this government to Tasmania for its health system for the 2013-14 year—that is, a $29 million increase on the 2012-13 year, a very substantial amount. Of course, funding is increasing every year, including through our spending on the $325 million package that was designed to get the Tasmanian health system back on track.
The package includes funding, for example, for 2,600 additional elective surgeries. This year, there was an expectation that we would do 745 of those surgeries. I am very pleased to say that by May we had already completed 700 of those 745 additional surgeries. That is, people have had operations on cataracts, hips and knees—all elective surgery that they otherwise would have been waiting for years for. They have been able to get the surgery sooner. We are also supporting existing programs and expanding them across Tasmanian—things like the terrific Cradle Coast Connected Care advanced care planning system, which will allow people to have advanced care directives on their personally controlled eHealth records.
We are completely rebuilding the Royal Hobart Hospital, as the member for Denison well knows passing the building site almost daily in his work, no doubt, with a $340 million investment. Right across Tasmania, there have been developments, like the fantastic GP superclinic in Burnie that I visited recently with the member for Braddon and $36.6 million for the Tasmanian Cancer Care project. Right across Tasmania, in Hobart and in all of the cities, there has been extra investment from our Commonwealth government in supporting better health for Tasmanians.
Broadband
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (14:25): My question is to Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister outline to the House the benefits that the National Broadband Network and digitally connected classrooms will bring to schools across Australia?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:26): I thank the member for Throsby for his question. As many people listening will know, the classrooms of today are much different to the classrooms of the past, particularly for students who are online, who have handheld devices and who are clearly learning in places other than sometimes in the schoolroom. We understand that students need to be educated in the digital age and that is why the National Plan for School Improvement, coupled with high-speed broadband, can resource classrooms for learning in the 21st century.
Think about the opportunities to connect with classrooms in Asia to deepen cultural understanding of students. Think about teachers accessing high-quality resources under the national curriculum, the Australian curriculum, one of the world's first ever to be delivered online. Think about students in regional and remote Australia, the vast distances no impediment to them learning, for example, through high-quality video interaction with other schools. Or think about students researching something like the personal journeys of early European settlers. They can go onto the National Library or the State Library of New South Wales, working in their NBN connected homes, and access high-definition primary resources, like Joseph Banks's diary, and debate with peers in a live-stream video environment. All of these things are important, rich, learning environments and opportunities for young students in Australia.
I can see that stakeholders understand this. The principal of Willunga High School, already connected to the NBN, I should say, said:
The NBN has facilitated a revolutionary change in the delivery of content and co-contribution of learning input. Students who used to hand in C-grade work are now producing A-grade work.
That is what digital learning opportunities are all about. But the fact is that not all schools are on fibre and too many schools, particularly in regional Australia, are on slow download speeds. I saw the 2011 School Broadband Connectivity Survey, noting that around 40 per cent of schools had access to four megabits per second or less of download speeds. So, state education systems have to make the necessary investments in their broadband services and be ready to work with NBN Co. to provide improvements.
Let us look at the choice in digital learning between the government and those opposite. After about 11 years in government we had around 3,000 flagpoles. We delivered support for nearly 3,000 libraries. We have the member for Sturt wrapping himself in the Union Jack and wanting to rewrite the history curriculum. Importantly, we have the coalition locked into a broken funding model, with less resources—some $16 billion going to schools over the next six years. For us, there is the national curriculum, the online additional resources for teachers, the National Plan for School Improvement and the NBN to deliver the best possible education to Australian students. (Time expired)
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:29): My question is to the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister. I refer the Treasurer to this training t-shirt, made and used by the crew of one of our Navy patrol vessels, which refers to them as the 'Ashmore Island to Christmas Island water taxi service'.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will desist from using—
Mr MORRISON: When will the government stop using our Navy as a water taxi service for people smugglers and embrace the Howard government's full suite of policies on border protection that stopped the boats?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has the call but will ignore the argument in the question.
Honourable members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt will desist with the prop. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr Albanese: Speaker, on a point of order. The men and women of our Defence Force deserve our respect, not to be used as a stunt by any member of this chamber.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer has the call and will ignore the argument in the question.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:30): It is sad that this question is being asked on the day we have the coronial inquiry going on in Western Australia for the deaths of almost 100 asylum seekers just over a year ago. The question should be seen for what it is, which is a pretty disgraceful piece of politicking and seeking to move the opposition away from the fact that they have a completely ridiculous and ineffective alternative to stopping the boats.
Mr Alexander interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bennelong will not continue with the prop. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr SWAN: Since May 2011 they have refused to support proposals from this government for regional processing and regional arrangements. Sadly, more boats are coming and, sadly, more people are drowning. We ought to pause there and think about our responsibility as a parliament to put in place the full range and suite of policies which can stop these boats coming and which can deal effectively with the people smugglers.
To that end, in a responsible way, we commissioned the report from Mr Houston and his committee as to a range of proposals which needed to be implemented. The key part of that is regional processing, which was once again rejected by those opposite. They say openly to the public that they support a regional solution and they actively vote against it in the parliament. How can anybody take that mob over there seriously, particularly when their public position has now been repudiated by the Indonesian ambassador and by the Vice-President of Indonesia?
This sort of crude politicking is repugnant. The fact is that we need to put in place a regional solution to deal with the people-smuggling model. We have been frustrated at every part of the evolution of this saga by those opposite, who will not come to the party and who are being negative, just as they are always being negative about everything in this parliament. Their refusal to support regional arrangements just shows how unfit they are for high office.
Broadband
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (14:33): My question is to the Minister for Regional Services and Local Communities and Territories. What economic benefits is the government's National Broadband Network delivering to Australians living in regional communities, and is there any opposition to these?
Ms KING (Ballarat—Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Regional Services and Local Communities and Territories) (14:33): I thank the member for Lyons for his question and acknowledge his long-term advocacy for regional Australians. For those of us who represent regional constituencies, like the member for Lyons and I, the NBN is an absolute game changer for our regional communities. It will fundamentally change the way in which we do business internationally and domestically. It is infrastructure that is absolutely critical to the future of our regions not just in terms of health and education services—or the downloading of movies, which is what the member for Wentworth seems to think is the only thing the internet is used for these days, or perhaps I should call them 'talkies'—but also in terms of economic opportunities that are available for regional Australia—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Flinders might also know about the standing orders.
Ms KING: It is critical to improving the competitiveness of our regional, rural and remote communities. The National Broadband Network removes the tyranny of distance and gives regional communities the opportunity to engage right across the world in a way that has never been possible before, developing clients and markets right the way across the globe. There are already regional communities that are benefiting from this government's investment in their broadband future. Communities like Coffs Harbour, Townsville, Gosford, Toowoomba, Bacchus Marsh and Armidale are already connected to the National Broadband Network and are benefiting from the National Broadband Network.
But there is a clear choice for regional communities: Labor's high-speed fibre-to-the-home or the coalition's copper-to-the-home. The digital divide the coalition's policy would leave us with will be especially pronounced for those of us living in regional Australia. Under the coalition's policy we will be left even further behind. The coalition thinks it is fine to leave Australians with broadband that in 10 years time will be like dial-up is today. The coalition's copper-to-the-home policy is a dud for regional communities—an absolute dud—and they know it. Under the coalition, regional Australians will pay more for a much slower and inferior service. It abandons uniform pricing and will force people outside of capital cities to pay more. Even IT experts will tell you that. They describe the coalition's policy as 'too little, too slow and too backwards'. You bet it is: too backwards.
Whether it is infrastructure investments in our roads, our regional rail, our ports, our freight hubs, our regional airports or other nation-building programs, the opposition has demonstrated time and time again that it has no vision for this country, no vision for the future and no idea just how critical the National Broadband Network is for the future of our regional economies and our regional communities.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:36): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Shelley Hancock, Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. On behalf of the House I extend to her a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Is the minister aware that, in the past 12 months, the US Coast Guard has intercepted and returned 1,900 people who attempted to illegally enter US waters? Why does the government claim that the Australian Navy and our Customs and Border Protection Service cannot turn boats around, when the US Coast Guard has been doing so for decades?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:38): I thank the honourable member for the question. I can assure you that we do not want the immigration problems that the United States have in relation to the Rio Grande. If you want to talk about numbers coming into the United States, I can assure you that they have a much greater challenge than we have. That is partly the problem with this debate. There is a sense by those opposite—
Mr Pyne: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the US Coast Guard, which operates in the oceans, not on the Rio Grande. To be relevant he needs to answer the question put—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat! The minister has the call and is being relevant to the question.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: One of the problems with those opposite is that there is a sense that this challenge insofar as dealing with people seeking asylum is one that only this country confronts, when in fact that is not the case. Almost all First World nations have this challenge and deal with this in the way in which they have to.
Can I also say with respect to the question asked by the member for Solomon that the one thing about this government is that we seek the advice of the experts and we seek the advice of the agencies, including the Australian Defence Force. The problem we have with those opposite is that they will not listen to the defence personnel who have suggested that the proposition put to turn people back—
Mr Robb interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein will stop interjecting.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: and turn vessels back on the high seas is very dangerous for the men, women and children on those vessels and is very dangerous for our own personnel on our vessels. Yet those opposite continue not to listen to the experts with respect to that advice. That is because they have total contempt for our naval and customs personnel.
We saw that displayed by the member for Cook, who just asked a question and then belittled the brave efforts of our customs and naval personnel. I was there on 15 December 2010 and I saw the absolute courage and valour of our personnel plucking people from the sea. You think it is a joke, Member for Cook. Well, it is not a joke. The fact is that we will continue to listen to the same security agencies that were listened to by the Howard government.
The difference here of course is that we have a Leader of the Opposition who does not listen to expert advice. He did not listen to the expert advice when it came to the global financial crisis. He will not listen to the expert advice when it comes to border protection. He will not listen to the expert advice when it comes to refugee settlement. This is an opposition who are all about slogans and empty promises, who never listen to the advice of the experts and continue to abuse and have little regard for our naval and customs personnel. This question is an outrageous slur on them, and you should hang your head in shame!
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): Speaker, my supplementary question is to the minister who has just been at the dispatch box. It is a very simple question. If the US Coast Guard has the professionalism to turn around boats, why does he say that the Australian Navy lacks the same professionalism?
Mr Albanese: Speaker, I do not think people could hear the question. Could I ask the member to ask it when there is silence?
Mr Randall: We heard it.
The SPEAKER: The member for Canning was not assisting anyone actually hearing the Leader of the Opposition's question. The Leader of the Opposition will ask the question again.
Mr Dutton: Give him some more time.
The SPEAKER: And the member for Dickson will not assist. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: If the US Coast Guard can turn boats around, why can't the Australian Navy?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:42): This government will continue to take the advice of our agencies, and that includes the Navy. I understand that the opposition does not support that position, but we will always have regard and defer to those agencies who do the hard work and indeed endanger their own lives—and not the Leader of the Opposition.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister had concluded his answer.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister has concluded his answer, and I doubt that that is for the Leader of the Opposition to determine. The member for Robertson has the call.
Health
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Health. How is the government using the National Broadband Network and digital technology to give patients greater access to health care where they want it and when they want it? Are there any barriers to modernising Australia's healthcare system?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (14:43): I thank the member for Robertson, who is a terrific local member. Labor is the party of the National Broadband Network and we are the party of the modern technology-driven health system. The NBN will help us bridge the digital divide between city and country areas. With the NBN people in regional Australia will be able to see city based specialists without the need to travel long distances.
There are so many examples. There is Professor John Wilson's program in Melbourne treating cystic fibrosis patients. It connects him as the specialist, the patient's GP, a nurse and other specialists—all able to save patients hours of travel. I met one of his patients from regional Victoria and he told me how grateful he was to have this regular contact. There is the Townsville-Mackay Medicare Local connecting a patient in Mackay with a physio in Townsville, all via videoconferencing. There is the Country South SA Medicare Local doing telehealth consults for patients with heart conditions. There is our telehealth trial in Coffs Harbour—older Australians having access to telehealth nurses and remote monitoring, including things like being able to monitor blood pressure remotely, making sure that people are able to stay in their own homes longer and stay in their own communities longer but get the medical attention they need and deserve in their own homes.
In coming months we will be launching a new video consultation service to go along with our GP after-hours service, so if you are not sure what to do in the middle of the night when your baby has a rash you will be able to show the doctor what the problem is. We are also launching the new enhancement for the Pregnancy, Birth and Baby Helpline, where mums will be able to talk to a counsellor online about the things that are troubling them with their children. There is our personally controlled e-health record, now approaching 400,000 registrations over the last few months, with enhancements like the baby health app that parents can download.
I think the member for Robertson will be interested in this one in particular. As school holidays come up, I know people flood to her electorate as it is such a beautiful part of the country. There is the National Health Services Directory that anyone can download and that can find a local GP, local hospital, local hospital emergency or local pharmacy. They can check the hours; ring up—'Are you still open?' Wherever you are in the country, you can use your personally controlled e-health record and you can use the National Health Services Directory to get information about local health services.
When the Leader of the Opposition was health minister he said that if he hadn't got e-health records up within five years it would have been a failure—a systemic paralysis. That paralysis is certainly on exhibition when it comes to the opposition's health policy. We have had an opposition health spokesperson who has not asked a question now in 200 weeks. He could have completed his own medical degree in that time!
Asylum Seekers
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Is the minister aware that Australian Navy intercepts vessels in the Gulf of Aden as part of Operation Slipper, combating pirates, drug traffickers and terrorists? Minister, why has the government sent 31 Navy warships since 1991 to the gulf to intercept vessels carrying arms and dangerous criminals but claims our Navy is not capable of intercepting and turning around fishing boats being used by people smugglers?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:47): I thank the member for his question. Our Customs and Navy personnel that are on the vessels in our waters do intercept those vessels. The fact is that they intercept these vessels and they do a remarkable job. In so far as those that have arrived on the mainland, there were far more who were arriving on the mainland under the previous government. That means what has happened is that the capacity for them to interdict these vessels has been improved.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. I am failing, however, to see what point of order the Leader of the Opposition might be raising. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr Abbott: Direct relevance: if the Navy can turn them around in the gulf, why can't they turn them around in the Arafura Sea?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! The minister has the call and is being relevant to the question.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: The first thing to say is that they do intercept vessels, and that is in itself a very significant challenge, given the flow of vessels. We know that. I have referred to some of the really challenging circumstances that they have confronted, including having to rescue people in SOLAS situations and indeed having to deal with, as I have already referred to, that awful situation on 15 December 2010, where 50 people died when a vessel foundered on the rocks of Christmas Island. On that occasion our naval and Customs personnel went into RIBs and tenders and went to the rescue of those people.
The fact is, firstly, that the honourable member compares intercepting pirates on the high seas to returning or not returning people who are seeking asylum. I do not think intercepting pirates on the high seas is analogous. I refer the honourable member to the former admiral of the Navy—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cook is warned!
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: The former admiral of the Navy Chris Barrie, a naval officer who was directly involved in these operations, has made it very clear that without the cooperation of another country—that is, a return country on the high seas—it is extremely dangerous for men, women and children and it is extremely dangerous to our naval and Customs personnel to do that. People who have already placed themselves and their crews at risk, who have actually dealt with these operational situations, should be listened to. These are people with many years of naval experience. That is why we do listen to those officers.
Further to that, as the Deputy Prime Minister has already said in question time, we have a situation where the Vice President of Indonesia and the Indonesian ambassador have made clear that what the Leader of the Opposition would like to put in place is not going to work, is not going to happen. And insofar as our own personnel are concerned, it is unsafe. For those reasons I would disagree with you in making the comparison with pirates on the high seas.
Broadband
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation. Minister, how will the NBN assist innovation in the Australian economy?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) (14:50): I thank the member for McEwen for his question, because it is an important one. The rollout of the Broadband Network is so important to the future of our economy and will underpin massive investment and prosperity for years to come. We have had strong economic performance. We have had strong GDP growth, notwithstanding the difficult international environment in which we have found ourselves over the last five years. We have had almost one million jobs created since Labor was elected to government, interest rates are down—
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Mr COMBET: The member for North Sydney hasn't quite noticed it. Inflation is under control, investment is strong, unemployment is at 5½ per cent, productivity has been improving. But there are, of course, pressures on the economy, particularly in the international context. We have had a strong value of the Australian dollar and there are structural adjustment pressures. In any circumstance, any government discharging its proper responsibility has got to be looking at the reforms and the investments that are going to continue to improve productivity and drive competitiveness in our economy. That is exactly what this government has been doing, and the rolling out of the Broadband Network is absolutely fundamental to our economic strategy, because it will lead a revolution in productivity. It will lead a revolution in service delivery in areas like health and education in my own region in the Hunter. It is going to be able to create the opportunity for people to access healthcare services they otherwise would have to commute to Sydney to achieve. That is already starting to occur. For those reasons it is also going to lead investments in regional areas throughout our country that will be massively important for the creation of jobs in those areas.
We are looking to strongly support innovation in our economy by investing in the National Broadband Network. We have also announced our $1 billion plan for Australian jobs, which includes the development of innovation precincts in our economy. The guidelines for the innovation precincts have been out for some time. Literally thousands of submissions have been put in by collaborations of the business community in particular industries and particular regions with universities and other research organisations like the CSIRO. There has been an overwhelming response to this policy initiative and it has a very strong digital economy focus. This will underpin massive investments for years to come. It is equivalent as a reform to rolling out the railways, the electricity system and telephony in decades gone by. But it is all at risk from the coalition's backward looking policy to rely upon decades old copper networks that are going to place a constraint and a serious brake on our future economy growth. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Can the minister confirm that the total increase in the refugee and humanitarian program over the next four years will be entirely filled by people arriving illegally by boat? Why is the government allowing 25,000 people who have arrived illegally by boat in the last financial year to fill the increases in our refugee and humanitarian program and, in so doing, take the places of those waiting offshore in refugee camps?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:54): I thank the honourable member for her question. Firstly, this government is very happy with the fact that we are able to increase the humanitarian program places to 20,000. That is a 50 per cent increase, the largest increase in humanitarian program places in 30 years from 13,750 to 20,000. We have increased the offshore assessments as well as those onshore, so it is completely wrong of the honourable member to suggest that there would not be an increase of offshore assessments because of our increase to the 20,000. Effectively, your question is wrong. We have increased the offshore processing. We do that because, of course, we want to deter people from endangering their lives by getting on unseaworthy vessels. That was the recommendation of the expert panel and that recommendation was opposed by those opposite.
With respect to the 20,000 places: the Leader of the Opposition opposed the 20,000 places, then he supported the 20,000 places, then he opposed it, and then he supported it again because he wanted to stop one of his members from crossing the floor. As soon as he managed to convince them not to cross the floor, he then opposed it again. That is pretty much the way in which the opposition leader deals with these matters, which is entirely cynical when it comes to providing humanitarian places for people seeking asylum. We as a government are very proud of the fact that we are providing opportunities for genuine asylum seekers to be provided the haven they are seeking from persecution. Just to repeat: the question is wrong; the premise is wrong. We are to increase the offshore program places and we will continue to do that because that is the way in which we will deter people getting on unseaworthy vessels.
Whaling
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (14:56): My question is to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General update the House on what the government is doing to protect whales in the Southern Ocean?
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (14:56): I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I know he has a deep commitment to Queensland's tourism industry. Whale watching is an important part of tourism throughout Australia that employs thousands of people and brings great pleasure to visitors and locals. Last century—
Mr Robb interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will resume his seat. The member for Goldstein is not doing well. He has tested my patience beyond belief and I am going to ask him to leave the chamber under 94(a). It is not a tough call.
The member for Goldstein th en left the chamber.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will join his friend under 94(a).
The member for Sturt th en left the chamber.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I am not finding it amusing and, if the member for North Sydney wants to try it, I am here for a trifecta. I could go a hat trick at this point in time. The Attorney-General has the call and has the right to be heard in silence.
Mr DREYFUS: Thank you, Speaker. Last century commercial whaling decimated global whale populations. Two million whales were killed and some species were hunted almost to extinction. In the 1980s an international moratorium finally brought the slaughter to an end. We stepped back from the brink and now have a second chance to protect and learn about these magnificent creatures. Despite the moratorium, whales can still be hunted under special permit and more than 10,000 have been killed under Japan's so-called scientific whaling programs in the Southern Ocean since 1988.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bradfield might be stopped in a minute.
Mr DREYFUS: For more than 20 years Australian governments have tried through diplomacy to end Japan's whaling without success. When we came to office we promised to resolve the matter once and for all in the International Court of Justice and we are honouring that promise. Proceedings against Japan were initiated in 2010 and I can inform the House that tomorrow an expert legal team will start representing Australia and presenting our case before the court in The Hague in the final phase of proceedings.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The members for Aston and Flinders are both warned.
Mr DREYFUS: The Australian government will argue that Japan's so-called scientific whaling is contrary to its international obligations and must be brought to an end. Modern science can obtain the information we need to understand and protect whales without harming them. An example of this is that Australian scientists achieved a world first this year by attaching satellite tracking devices to Antarctic blue whales and minke whales. They will use this research to understand how whales feed and where they breed. Our scientists tell us that we still have a lot to learn about whale behaviour.
Of course, Japan is a friend and our nations agree that the International Court of Justice is the best place to resolve our differences. We have many differences with the coalition, but on this matter there is consensus across the political divide. I look forward to joining our legal team at the international court. I consider it an honour to represent our nation in this case. I know that all Australians look forward to the court's judgement, which we hope will bring to an end whaling in the Southern Ocean.
Asylum Seekers
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (15:00): My question is for the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and I remind the minister of the government's decision to remove families from the Manus Island processing centre. Given that there will now be no offshore processing facilities for children and families until later this year on Nauru, why has the government created an incentive for people smugglers to put more children on boats?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:01): It would be a lot easier if the honourable members asked me these questions and did not embarrass themselves in the House as this honourable member has done. There is no change to the policy in relation to regional processing centres. There are children and in fact all demographics on regional processing centres including Manus. There are men, women and children on the regional processing centre on Manus right now as we speak, so the premise of the question is fundamentally wrong. But again I am not surprised by an opposition that does not care about the facts and only wants to insinuate all sorts of things and sloganeer. We have an opposition leader who really does not want to fix this problem. He says yes to a country that says no, Indonesia, and no to a country that says yes, Malaysia, when it comes to returning people safely to a transit country. That is because fundamentally this man is not a leader. He does not care about people dying at sea, he does not care about what is happening to people—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I apologise, I actually did not hear what the minister said. I was engaged in something else. The minister will resume his seat. The member for Cowper on a point of order.
Mr Hartsuyker: That was an outrageous statement, Speaker, and you should ask the minister to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I do withdraw. I say to the member for Bonner that if the member for Cook wrote that question he should go and complain to him, because the premise of the question is wrong. Children and other family members are indeed in the regional processing centre. The question is wrong and the premise is wrong. What I think is most important is that the opposition consider for the first time genuinely listening to the experts and the recommendations of the Houston panel's report and helping the government with this very significant challenge. That includes the Malaysian arrangement, because that is something that is absolutely critical to see a reduction and ultimately a cessation of vessels coming in this manner.
Superannuation
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Will the minister inform the House how the government is supporting good jobs and more secure retirement for Australia's part-time and lower paid working people? Minister, how are these policies helping to build a stronger economy, and are there any obstacles?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:03): I thank the member for Deakin for his question. He is very interested in what happens to Australia's part-time workers. He knows there are 3½ million Australians who work part time. He also knows there are 3.6 million Australians who earn less than $37,000 a year. Some of the occupations that these people represent include the checkout operators in our supermarkets, the hairdressers in our high street, childcare workers, people who are midwives and nurses, and receptionists. None of them have enough to retire on. Let me repeat that: a lot of Australians do not have enough to retire on currently.
The good news for a lot of those occupations I just mentioned is that from 1 July this year there will be hundreds of dollars extra in people's superannuation accounts because of Labor, hundreds of dollars which will in the next 10 and 20 years translate into tens of thousands of dollars in retirement income because they do not have to pay the 15 per cent tax on their superannuation contributions. I will repeat that: because of Labor, low-paid Australians will not have to pay 15 per cent tax on their superannuation. As of 1 July this policy will benefit 3½ million Australians, many of whom are women.
I was asked by the member for Deakin whether there are any obstacles to this policy. Unfortunately there is one great big new obstacle to this policy, which is the opposition's great big new tax on people who do not earn a lot of money. They want to put a new tax on people's superannuation contributions. Let me repeat that: with every person opposite, a vote for them is a vote for a new 15 per cent tax on people's superannuation. When coalition members go up to the high street in their local suburbs and are getting their hair cut or getting their kids picked up from child care or when they are shopping in the supermarket, no doubt those opposite benefit from the work of the low paid. I wonder if those opposite ever have the courage to tell 3½ million Australians that a vote for a coalition MP is a vote for a new tax on people's superannuation. I am sure they do not.
So there is a very clear choice. When you vote for the mob opposite, you are voting for a new tax, a 15 per cent tax on their savings. Every person opposite in the coalition, do you know what they stand for? They stand for less money in retirement for hard-working part-time workers and low-paid workers. I promise the coalition that we will never give up on this argument. You have got the wrong policy, you have backed the wrong issue. Those opposite are not on the side of the poor, they are not on the side of the low paid, they are not on the side of part-time workers. We will never give up on this argument. Frankly, I do not care when you give up on it because you will, and every day you do not give up on your silly policy is another vote for the Labor government. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: I will, again, remind the minister of the use of the word 'you'.
Asylum Seekers
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:07): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Given that over 25,000 people have arrived on illegal boats this financial year—triple last year's figure—will the minister explain to the House his decision to cut $14 million from the Customs and Border Protection enforcement program?
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (15:07): I thank the shadow minister for his question. It gives me an opportunity to make this point: the Customs' budget is bigger now than it was under the Howard government. The departmental appropriation for Customs in this budget is $12 million bigger. The budget also includes an additional $50 million to target people smuggling, including for aerial surveillance, patrolling and interceptions. It includes funding to build the 12 new Cape class patrol vessels. Our Border Protection Command has access to 18 vessels and 17 aircraft, as well as communications satellite imagery. They work very hard. They would not have to work as hard if the opposition would work with the government on this.
This is a wretchedly difficult area of public policy. Whatever you think the solution is, we should all agree on this principle: that the government of the day should be given the power that it thinks it needs to save people's lives. That is the power we gave John Howard after Tampa, that is what John Howard would do if he were here now and that is what we have been denied by the Liberal Party, as well as by the Greens. It is a simple proposition: that the government of the day should be given the power it thinks it needs to stop people dying. We think that is flying people back. Flying people back to Sri Lanka dramatically reduced the number of people coming from Sri Lanka. The biggest cohort coming now is coming from Iran. We cannot fly people back to Iran because Iran refuses to take them. But we can fly them halfway back. We can fly them back to Malaysia and that is why the Malaysia agreement is so important. It is a simple proposition. The government of the day should be given the power it thinks it needs to stop people dying at sea. That is what we have been denied by the Liberal Party and it is what we have been denied by the Greens. We do not need questions, we do not need points of order; we just need you to vote for the legislation in the parliament.
Taxation
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (15:09): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. How has real tax reform given Australian families a fair go under this government? How would families fare under other approaches to tax reform?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (15:10): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. This Labor government has delivered real tax reform that has given Australian families a fair share. Apart from delivering the $47 billion worth of personal income tax cuts, we have also cut taxes for small business, cut taxes on superannuation and acted upon more than a third of the recommendations of the Henry tax review.
Of course, those opposite have no interest in these tax reform measures, because they are more interested in three-word slogans or three-letter taxes. When the Liberals introduced the GST they originally intended to apply it to everything, including fresh food. Now we see them lining up, champing at the bit, hoping to come back and finish the job.
It is interesting to go back and have a look at the Hansard at the time when the GST was being introduced. Those opposite fought tooth and nail against exemptions that were put in place on the GST. In fact, the member for North Sydney said at the time that the biggest losers from any exemptions would be:
Consumers, hardworking Australians, families, pensioners and disadvantaged Australians … who will bear the cost of a complex taxation system.
He said complexity hurts those people. We know that he has a really simple plan. He wants to put the GST on everything, including fresh food, and he wants to make people pay more tax. Indeed, there are many others on that side who endorsed his comments. But my personal favourite was the contribution of the member for Boothby. He said:
If you exempt food, the benefit goes much more to people on higher incomes than people on lower incomes.
Go figure that one out! He is out there on the side of the low-income earner; he wants to make you pay more tax. He wants to put the tax on fresh food and so do his colleagues. And all the consumers, all the low-income earners out there are meant to say: 'Thank you very much for that.' You can see them now—they are all out there dancing in a supermarket aisle near you, thanking the member for North Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition, saying: 'Thank you very much. Thank you for proposing to put the GST on fresh food; thank you for proposing to put the GST on healthcare products; and thank you for proposing to put the GST on education products like school fees.' When it comes to the GST, we all know that the coalition have always wanted to put the GST on everything. They tried it when they had a go last time and they want to come back and have another crack. They want to drive up prices on food, drive up prices on health care and drive up prices on education costs. When it comes to the GST, only Labor can be trusted to stand up for working families.
Mr Swan: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Hockey: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a statement from the member for Lindsay, saying, 'We've delivered a surplus on time as promised.'
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will remove the document.
Leave not granted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): Speaker, I have been misrepresented most grievously and repeatedly by ministers opposite—many of them. Ministers opposite repeat this claim that the coalition has voted against the Malaysian people-swap—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr ABBOTT: The government—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! I do not need to repeat myself three times. He needs to show where he has been misrepresented. The member for Cook was seeking the call.
Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. The member for Cook does.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:14): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Cook claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr MORRISON: I do. Today the Treasurer asserted that I had voted against the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012. I inform the House that, as a member of the opposition, I voted to approve that bill on 15 August 2012 and that bill was subsequently supported in the Senate by the coalition and it was passed on 16 August 2012. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill, which was the government's bill, was introduced to this House after the High Court's decision in relation to that matter. We voted for that bill.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition was seeking the call again?
Mr Abbott: Speaker, I simply wish to correct the misrepresentation—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has just seen the member for Cook speak. I did not stop him. All I said was the Leader of the Opposition needed to show where he had been misrepresented.
Mr Abbott: The claim that I have voted against the Malaysian people swap is false. It is false and members opposite should not keep repeating it.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Portfolio Allocations
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (15:15): Speaker, you mentioned during question time that I may end up on the frontbench at some time. I would like to ask you to clarify a portfolio and a timeline indicating when this may happen. I would also ask you to write to the member for Warringah on this matter on my behalf.
The SPEAKER (15:16): I am more than happy to oblige the member for Herbert if he is more than happy to oblige me by observing the standing orders for the next two days.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (15:16): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Dickson claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr DUTTON: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: The member for Dickson has the call.
Mr DUTTON: In an article in the AFR this morning the journalist stated the coalition had announced a policy to privatise Medicare, which is, of course, completely false. Clearly, the reference was to privatise Medibank and, when contacted this morning, the journalist admitted the error and immediately corrected the online version of the story—for which I am grateful.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (15:16): I seek to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Boothby claim to have been misrepresented?
Dr SOUTHCOTT: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: The member has the call.
Dr SOUTHCOTT: In response to his question, the Assistant Treasurer used a quote of mine from 1998—
The SPEAKER: The member for Boothby will resume his seat. He needs to show where he has been misrepresented. I am finding it hard to see how he would be misrepresented from a quote from Hansard.
Dr SOUTHCOTT: Speaker, it is very simple. The Assistant Treasurer went from that quote to assert the opposition had in mind—
The SPEAKER: The member for Boothby will resume his seat.
Dr SOUTHCOTT: a whole lot of things that—
The SPEAKER: The member for Boothby will resume his seat!
BILLS
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013
Explanatory Memorandum
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (15:17): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:18): For the benefit of the shadow minister for local government, that was in response to a request of Premier Campbell Newman in Queensland—but they don't talk to you; I know that.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:18): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 52 and 53 of 2012-13
The SPEAKER (15:18): I present the following Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2012-2013 entitled Audit reports No. 52, Performance audit: Management of debt relief arrangements: Australian Taxation Office, and No. 53, Performance audit: Agencies’ implementation of performance audit recommendations.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:18): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members’ business notice No. 1 given for Tuesday, 25 June 2013, Telecommunications Amendment (Protecting Local Workers) Bill 2013 standing in the name of the Member for Melbourne, being called on immediately and being given precedence over all other business until all stages of the bill have been concluded.
There are about 390 jobs that are about to be lost, starting in the next few days, unless this parliament acts before it rises. Jobs associated with producing and printing the Yellow Pages and the White Pages are about to start going offshore to India and the Philippines in a few days time unless we act. There is a simple mechanism to stop this, and that is contained in the Telecommunications Amendment (Protecting Local Workers) Bill 2013. It is also one that I have raised with the government on a number of occasions over a number of months and, in the absence of a proper response to that and with only a few days left, the appropriate course is to suspend standing orders to deal with this urgent matter. Currently the jobs associated with the White Pages and the Yellow Pages, both in print and online, are all taking place here in Australia, primarily in Melbourne and Sydney. Now Telstra—and its subsidiary, Sensis—is currently under a legal obligation that flowed out of the privatisation of Telstra to produce the White Pages and make it available to anyone who wants it. That is an appropriate service that it provides to the Australian community and it is appropriate that this parliament continues to regulate that, because Telstra was a public company that was built up with public support, including government support and support from this parliament.
Mr Katter interjecting—
Mr BANDT: As the member for Kennedy says, it is the people of Australia who built up Telstra and its predecessors. The mechanism proposed in this bill is a very simple one. It says that for so long as Telstra, through its subsidiary, Sensis, produces the White Pages and the Yellow Pages in online form and print form they should be produced here in Australia.
It would come as a shock to many people, if you were to ask them, to learn that the White Pages and the Yellow Pages could potentially be produced overseas, but that is what is about to happen. We know that because Telstra and Sensis have announced that from 1 July they want to make 390 jobs redundant, sent offshore and outsourced. They will be sent to India and they will be sent to the Philippines, where the graphic design work and the call centre work will be done. Telstra is a company that last year made a record half-yearly profit in the order of $1.6 billion and its subsidiary, Sensis, made a profit of $650 million. Simply to make a bit of extra cash they are about to make 400 jobs disappear from this country.
When there is a threat to car manufacturing in this country—when there is the prospect of hundreds of people being made redundant—this parliament and the government rightly say that this is a matter of national importance and we should do what we need to do to focus on it, to see what we can do to stop the jobs from going offshore or to mitigate it. I say that a job in graphic design or in a call centre should be worth as much as a job making a car and those jobs should be performed here. It is perfectly legitimate to ask what was formerly a public company but remains a national carrier—and a highly regulated one at that—to keep those jobs onshore.
I mentioned the urgency of this. Over two months ago I wrote to the relevant minister and said, 'There is a problem coming, and we in this country are about to see almost 400 jobs added to the scrap heap and sent offshore simply to make some extra profit for a very large and very profitable company.' I have not had a response to that letter. When I called I was told that the government was considering its position. Here we are with 2½ days left before the end of this parliament, and from 1 July there are a number of people, many of whom are in Melbourne, who have the high-value, high-wage jobs that we hear Labor talk about a lot, and they are about to lose them because it is cheaper to go to India or the Philippines for this highly educated workforce. So it will be the case that, for the sake of making an extra few dollars for a company that is already bringing in massive, record half-yearly profits, when you go to organise your ad for the Yellow or White Pages, it will be done in India or the Philippines.
I suspect that, if you asked most people in this country what they would prefer—400 trained people staying in high-skill, high-wage jobs here or allowing Telstra to send those 400 jobs offshore just to make a bit of money—they would say, 'Let's keep that workforce here.' It is important to recognise that the question of globalisation and the challenges that this country is facing do not just exist in the manufacturing, tourism or education sectors; they exist in those sectors where highly educated and skilled workers are now competing with people overseas. This is the kind of step that we have to take if we want to turn the phrase 'high-value, high-skill, high-wage workforce' into a meaningful reality. If we do not, it really means nothing.
We have heard a lot about protecting local jobs over the last couple of months, and my criticism has been that it has been very high on rhetoric but low on action. Here is a chance to take some action. Here is a chance for a very simple measure. If we support this suspension, debate this very simple bill, pass it this afternoon—because it is a simple bill that can be easily understood—and get it to the Senate in the last couple of days of this parliament, we will have saved almost 400 jobs here in this country without parliament or the government having to spend one extra cent. All we will have done is said Telstra has an obligation to the Australian people. Telstra, as a successor to public companies built up by the Australian people, continues to have obligations to those Australian people. That is not just an obligation to make the White Pages available; it is an obligation to make sure it is produced locally. This will be a very simple bill to support, will come at no cost to the government and will make a massive difference to a lot of people. If we do not support this bill then, from 1 July, 390 jobs, including many in my electorate of Melbourne, are going to start going offshore and will have gone by the end of September. That is what Telstra and its subsidiary Sensis have said.
Given that parliament is rising and given that there is currently no intention to reconvene before September, this is our last chance. If the government has another plan to save these jobs, I would love to hear it, but we are at five minutes to midnight for these workers and their families; and, for the cost of absolutely zero, a public company the government heavily advertises in, has a commercial relationship with and we regulate in respect of other things could make some contribution to the Australian people and Australian society. So I hope that this suspension and the bill itself gains support. It would put some meat on the bones of all the talk we have heard about protecting local workers. We would be sending a very clear signal that a job in these white-collar industries is just as important as a job in blue-collar industries.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (15:28): I second the motion. I think everybody here knows the issues. I outlined in question time yesterday, 4,000 jobs have gone in the last seven weeks. For anyone who has even the most cursory interest in public affairs, it must be obvious that manufacturing and food processing in this country are simply closing down and that agriculture is in the most desperate straits. Holden has put off 500 people in Adelaide in the last seven weeks. Ford has announced 1,200 jobs to go there. Thanks to the policies of successive governments—ALP, LNP, ALP—where once 74 per cent of motor vehicles in Australia were Australian made, the year before last 12.7 per cent were Australian made. I presume that, when the next figures come out, it will be less than 10 per cent. Soon we will live in a country that cannot produce a motor vehicle. We already live in a country that cannot produce an electric motor or a tyre. And you people sitting here understand that your decisions, your ideologies and your policies have destroyed manufacturing in this country.
I went down to a cafe this morning and met a person who was a textile manufacturer. He told me we do not manufacture textiles in this country. We had the ignominious situation on Anzac Day where throughout Queensland catafalque parties marched in socks because the soles had fallen off their boots, which were made in China. As for the food industry, 5,000 people in Victoria have now attended dairying crisis meetings. I addressed one meeting in Western Australia where 1,063 people attended. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, they did not attend to listen to me; they attended because they are desperate. In a little country town, 1,063 came to the meeting. In my own area, the cattle industry is on its knees. The LNP government in Queensland has not given a single dollar to the cattle industry.
We have here a proposal before the House that you will cold-bloodedly vote against and condemn another 400 jobs to go overseas. I would like to know what jobs we will have in Australia. Your concept and your vision for your country is to have an iron ore quarry over there and a coal quarry over here. We are not a mining country anymore. One of the greatest copper mines in the world, Mt Isa Mines, will be closing for the first time in 75 years. We do not mine anymore; we quarry. When you mine, you dig it out of the ground and you sell metal. When you dig it out of the ground and sell the ground, that is called 'to quarry'. I speak with great authority because all of my life I have been a miner or in the mining industry. I am a mining man; I am not a cattleman. It is no joy to see mining leave the shores of Australia.
Just remember, when you leave this place, as some of you will at the election, you will have presided over the destruction of manufacturing and agriculture in this country. Do not think the history books will miss you. I have written a history book, Madam Acting Speaker. History books tell a tale and it will be upon your grandchildren when they read those history books to pass judgement upon what you did in this place.
The SPEAKER: I just remind the member that the word 'you' is inappropriate. As I come from a manufacturing electorate, I am actually getting a little tetchy at a personal level. The member for Kennedy has the call. The use of the word 'you' is inappropriate. And I am not acting as Speaker; I am the Speaker.
Mr KATTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. If you are getting a little tetchy about what I am saying then I am very pleased.
The SPEAKER: No. The member for Kennedy, the use of the word 'you' is inappropriate. That is all I am saying.
Mr KATTER: I withdraw—
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr KATTER: but I am pleased that you are feeling tetchy.
The SPEAKER: I am, and you have contributed as many others have today.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:32): I am always very sympathetic with the position that Australian jobs are the first responsibility of this parliament to advance. The government is always concerned at the loss of any Australian job. Australian companies should certainly be encouraged to employ local workers and to undertake their work here in Australia; therefore, maximising the economic benefit to the nation of economic activity.
As the member for Melbourne knows though, the Senate committee that looked into the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill considered the particular issue that has been raised. The committee did not receive evidence about the potential impact of the proposed amendment. Therefore, this issue needs to be further examined and appropriate review and scrutiny processes should be followed. I contacted the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy prior to question time to ask what his response was to the issues that the member for Melbourne raises because I was not completely across the detail. He informed me that he will refer the issues which are canvassed in the bill to the Senate for further evaluation.
I certainly respect the motivation here from the member for Melbourne and certainly the member for Kennedy, who consistently stands up for his views about Australian jobs. However, to support this suspension to allow, essentially, a private member's bill to be moved in this place without notice being given is something that I cannot support. I point out to the member for Melbourne that he has had five bills and 10 motions voted on during private members' business in this place.
I point out to him that time spent on private members' business each week has nearly quadrupled if you compare what we are doing now with what was done in 2006. We have eight hours 30 minutes; the previous was two hours 15 minutes. Time available for private members' business to move bills and motions has been nearly quadrupled. In this parliament, we have spent 666 hours—and I do not draw any reference to the meaning of that number—of parliamentary time, or 23 per cent. One in every four hours that we have been in this chamber has been about private members' business.
There has to be, though, a proper process. I said this in response to another suspension last week regarding our opposition to that. I think it is legitimate to argue that private members' business needs space to be created by the parliament for determination. What is not legitimate is to say that it should gain precedence over all other business that is before the House, and that is really what is being proposed here with this suspension.
During this parliament five private members' bills have passed the House. That is the first time for a long while that that has occurred. They include a bill that was strongly supported by me, moved by the member for Melbourne, on fair protection for firefighters. In 2005 there was not a single private member's motion or anything else voted upon—not a thing. So we have given time up for private members' motions and bills but, as the government, we cannot support the situation whereby you have precedence given to bills in a way in which members are not able to put forward proper debate, when members are not able to consider what the legislation is. With respect to the member for Melbourne, I have not seen a copy of this bill. It is, one would assume, a bill in which I, as the minister representing the minister for communications, would have to represent the government's view on. But to ask that the parliament suspend standing orders in order to do that is something that I am not in a position to support.
I would certainly be prepared, as always, as a member of the House of Representatives—this is not my portfolio—to at any time discuss with any member, any trade union or any community organisation how to maximise Australian jobs. That is something that I am always prepared to engage in, but I say, with respect to the member who has moved this suspension of standing orders today, this is not an appropriate way in which to change the order of business that is before the parliament. We do have important business to get through for which proper notice has been given and proper consideration has been given to.
I know that last Thursday the opposition chose to be opportunistic and vote for a suspension of standing orders. We could do the same thing today and deny the member for Wide Bay what I believe will be, in his own thoughts, a very eloquent and important speech that he will put forward as a matter of public importance.
Mr Tehan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wannon is warned.
Mr ALBANESE: But I do not wish to do that, so the government will not be supporting this suspension of standing orders.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (15:40): Certainly, concern about lost manufacturing jobs in Australia is a just cause. It is a matter of concern to all Australians. However, the opposition will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. The Leader of the House has given a list of sound reasons why that should not happen, however that does not indicate any lack of concern about what has been happening in Australia, particularly over the last few years, about the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. In fact, since Labor has been in office, one job has been lost in manufacturing every 20 minutes. That is a pretty appalling record for a government that prides itself on representing the workers.
There are some things that I think can be done to help keep more jobs in Australia: get rid of the carbon tax; certainly, get rid of a lot of the red tape that is tying up Australian business at the present time; do something about uncompetitiveness and our industrial relations situation. People are going from Australia to New Zealand because our minimum wage is $23 and theirs is $13—in the US it is $8—so it is not surprising that there are issues with uncompetitiveness. We want to have high wages in this country and we want to have a high standard of living, but for us to be able to do that and pay those wages we must have a very competitive economy, and that has not been apparent over recent times.
You cannot pass bills in this House, as proposed by the honourable member, to stop jobs moving overseas. You cannot pass a law to prevent that from happening. In reality a company is just as likely to axe a job altogether and you have gained nothing whatsoever. The reality is that business has to be competitive. Workers, management and government need to work together to help create that kind of environment. If I could pass a law to prevent jobs from going overseas, I would pass a law to prevent SPC and Simplot jobs from going overseas—they are going to matter a very great deal to regional communities—and to stop Ford or Holden jobs going overseas. As a member who represents heavy engineering and train manufacture, I would pass a law to prevent the manufacture of trains going overseas. But if I were to do that, and if I had enough support in the parliament to do it, it would be ineffective because by simply passing a law you cannot make something happen. You have actually got to undertake positive actions to create the kind of environment that enables manufacturing to prosper.
Whilst I have no doubt that the member's intention to try to save jobs in Australia is supported by every member in the House, I do not believe his bill will be effective. To spend time debating that at this stage of the day would not be productive or helpful to those workers.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Wilkie and Mr Katter voting aye.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Cost of Living
The SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of The Nationals proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The adverse impact of Government policies on the cost of living for Australian families.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (15:48): I thank all those who stood to support me on this occasion. Perhaps they may even like to stay and listen to what I have to say. As the government lurches towards the end of its term Australians are looking for change. Frankly, they have had enough. They have had enough of three years of constant internal warfare which has just left the country with a feeling of despair. Here we are, just two days of parliamentary sittings left and just 80 days away from an election, and the government still has not made up its mind who its leader is going to be when it comes to this election campaign. Will it be the current Prime Minister or are we going to get a re-run of the previous Prime Minister? The facts are that, with all the division, the chaos and the dysfunction, neither is worthy of the Prime Minister's office. The party they purport to lead is not worthy of being entrusted with government. Both have proved that they cannot be trusted by the Australian people.
The coalition is focused on a better future for our country, focused on families and businesses. Labor have forgotten all about the people they purport to represent. They just look inwards. They are fighting amongst themselves. Australia's national interest does not get a look in. Families are forgotten. The people are forgotten. Is it any wonder that so many people look at their lives and wonder how the last three years could have been so wasted? They wonder how the opportunities that our country had, with the best terms of trade that it has enjoyed for ever, could have been squandered by a government that has no direction, knew not where it was going. This government was just being as creative as it possibly could be to develop and invent new taxes that actually hurt the Australian people and have sent our country backwards. Labor has just governed itself for almost six years now, self-obsessed and self-destructive. Around 40 new or higher taxes have been imposed on the Australian people.
Above all, Labor's carbon tax is hurting Australian families. It is costing jobs. It is sending manufacturing overseas, as was just alluded to in the previous debate. Under this government, three manufacturing jobs are being lost every hour. Is that the kind of record a Labor government would want to leave behind? The Treasurer said in his last budget that this budget would be about growth and jobs, except the budget forecasts lower growth and fewer jobs, more unemployment. There was a budget a few years ago that was about jobs, jobs, jobs. But this government has in fact stalled the rate of jobs growth and manufacturing jobs. Indeed, so many other jobs are being sent overseas on a daily basis.
But the carbon tax is slugging all Australian families, particularly those who live in the regions. For most of the last 12 months, the $23 per tonne carbon tax that Australians are paying has been more than five times higher than the rate in Europe. What is worse, our tax is much more comprehensive in its coverage of the economy. The European tax just touches a handful of industries. Many of Europe's key industries—the export industries, the food-processing industries—are exempt. If you go to New Zealand, the food-producing industry is exempt, but the rate is only 75c a tonne.
Australia has the world's biggest carbon tax and it has done the world's biggest damage. It is a tax that is costing jobs and hurting families. But Labor has not yet had enough. Next week the carbon tax goes up. It goes up to $24.15 per tonne, 32 times higher than New Zealand's effective rate of 75c a tonne. Is it any wonder, therefore, that jobs are moving to New Zealand, that the people at SPC, at Simplot and at so many of our processing industries are worried about their jobs going to New Zealand? Indeed, food processing was Australia's largest secondary industry, but it is largely now being exported to other countries, and permanently lost as a result of this government providing an uncompetitive environment in which to operate. Is it any wonder that Australian food producers are moving to New Zealand? Is it any wonder that Australian manufacturers are giving in to competition from Asia? They do not have any of these sorts of taxes to pay. They are not lumbered with these burdens.
People who live in regional communities have to pay over the odds when it comes to the cost of living, and the carbon tax just makes life harder for them. But there is more to come. If Labor are re-elected, the carbon tax will go up again next year, on 1 July 2014. It comes with an extra kick in the guts, especially for regional Australians. If the Rudd-Gillard soap opera gets another run, the carbon tax slug will hit road transport for the first time. The government have not actually legislated for this carbon tax on road transport, although the Prime Minister has reaffirmed again and again and again that they intend to do so. They would save the embarrassment of the members for New England and for Lyne from the magnitude of what they have done in supporting this tax on distance. But if this government is re-elected, there will be an increase in the carbon tax to above $25, and there will be a 7c a litre or thereabouts increase in the price of diesel.
That is going to make it more expensive to move things around our country. Every item on every shelf in every supermarket in the country will be more expensive as a result of the extension of the carbon tax to include transport fuel. That means higher costs of living for families. It means that everyone will have to pay more for the basics in life. If you happen to be unfortunate enough to live outside of a capital city, you will pay even more, because you have to pay more freight on everything that goes to your stores.
The reality is that this is a government that has lost touch with the impact of its policies on Australian families and on their lifestyles. It means that every Australian family lives with an Australian government that no longer cares about the impact on their lives and on their lifestyle. There will be less profits to go home and investments are being put on hold. More jobs are at risk, and the opportunities that have generally been regarded as the birthright of every Australian are disappearing. As a nation, we need to be investing in industries that create Australia's wealth—the mining industry, the farming industry, the manufacturing industry, the electricity generation industry, the tourism industry and small businesses. We should be supporting them, not penalising them. A coalition government will abolish the carbon tax. We will get our industries competitive again. We will give families hope for a better future.
Australians have also suffered from other taxes in Labor's plethora of taxes. What about the mining tax? This is a tax that has undermined investment and cost jobs, but the much promised windfall of revenue simply has not happened. For regional Australia, therefore, the so-called benefits from the regional investment fund have just disappeared—$2 billion simply taken away from that fund in the last budget, because the government recognised the money was not there. They have not earned the money because the tax, personally negotiated by the Prime Minister, has been a debacle. It is the bitter fruit of the secret deal hatched by the canny negotiator, our Prime Minister, with the three big miners. Big miners managed to carve themselves out of the mining tax and to leave the small miners to carry the can and so, not surprisingly, the can is empty.
The Treasurer stripped this $2 billion out of the regional infrastructure fund and moved another amount of money across to try and prop up the roads budget, which has basically been halved in this year's budget. The attempt to prop it up is to try to make the figures look as though they are not as disastrous as they actually are. A coalition government will abolish the mining tax as well. We will restore confidence to our great mining industry, and we will give them the opportunity to invest and to create jobs—jobs for Australian families and opportunities for our country.
Small business has been the backbone of our country for such a long, long time. But Labor's high-tax, high-debt and high-regulation merry-go-round is also undermining the engine room of our country. Under Labor's mismanagement, the engine room of our country has seized up because of a lack of confidence, a lack of optimism. As a nation we have stopped playing to our strengths. We have stopped looking after the engine in our economy. Small businesses are being vilified in the name of green dogma or union power and the tax binges from this government. Their costs are increasing, and the skids are being put under the millions of Australian jobs that they support. The job losses are mounting, and job security is simply a pipe dream, particularly for employers and employees in regional communities. Many of these industries are facing the impact of the carbon tax, which is affecting them not just directly through electricity prices but also through extra costs on things like the gases in their freezers. Shopkeepers are pulling out refrigerators and abattoirs are unable to afford to recharge their freezers because of all of these costs.
When employees and families feel as though their futures are threatened they can no longer afford to go for the holidays they once had, and so our tourism industry suffers. Our new industrial relations climate makes it so difficult for a restaurant to open on a weekend or to serve a cup of coffee after hours, reducing the pleasure of the experience of holidaying in our own country. It also reduces the pleasure for those coming to Australia, who have paid all the extra arrival taxes and so forth that this government has imposed only to be greeted with closed restaurants or special surcharges for weekends because businesses and restaurateurs are simply unable to afford the high costs of labour in this country. That does not make us competitive; that gives us disadvantages. That makes it harder to be successful in this country, and that is, sadly, the record of this government along with its endless regulations, destroying the spirit of somebody who may be wanting to invest in or to propose a new project.
A coalition government will slash red tape, saving at least $1 billion a year. We will reward those who are prepared to invest. We will reward those people who have the willingness to work hard in this country. We are prepared to back them when they back themselves, and to give them a real chance to succeed.
The reality is that this government has lost its way. Its proposed NBN, which is going to save the nation, is years and years behind schedule and tens of billions of dollars over budget. There is virtually no-one signing up and there are more costly delays yet ahead. The wireless network, we are now told, is so far behind that fewer than 10 per cent of the target businesses and homes will be connected by 30 June. And the latest excuse that the NBN has for not being able to get its wireless up and running? They did not realise there were trees in Australia! The tall trees are blocking the signal. This is the whole scheme that never had a business plan, that does not know where it is going, but we certainly know it is not getting there. The reality is that Australians are being left without the services that they were promised. A coalition government will deliver fast broadband sooner and more cheaply, at an affordable rate.
This government has delivered a gross debt that is going to take generations to recover from. This government has left families without hope, without opportunity and in despair for the future of their country. We need a change. We need a new government. We need somebody who believes in our nation and who is prepared to back it, invest in it and make sure things happen—to give Australian families the hope, the reward and the opportunity that they need to build for themselves and for their families.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham—Minister for Higher Education and Skills) (16:03): It was an interesting story of doom and gloom by the member for Wide Bay. I am pleased that he managed to just fit in his little spiel at the end on the current theme of the opposition. The claim that they are going to deliver for the Australian population has an interesting disconnect between the claim and the reality. That is not an uncommon circumstance in terms of the arguments put forward. I am going to try to encapsulate what was a stab in the dark by the member across a number of portfolio and policy areas, and to address it and respond from the government's perspective.
The member seemed to be progressing an argument that there was a significant problem with the Australian economy. This is a key area in which the member, in his contribution, made a lot of doom-and-gloom claims—a bit of a nightmare bedtime story for people but, I suggest, very little connected to the facts of the situation. Just for his information I indicate that the facts of the economy are quite contrary to the doom and gloom that he outlined, in particular in his story on employment. For the member's interest, since this government came to power there have been over 960,000 jobs created within the context of an international situation that has put a lot of pressure on advanced economies, including ours, and a situation where most advanced economies would be giving their eye teeth to have the outcomes that we have achieved in this nation.
I know that this does not fit the doom-and-gloom story; I understand the political dynamic that is going on on the other side; I understand the standard procedure that rolls out from coalition oppositions—we have seen it in state governments up and down the east coast. In opposition you have to create a sense of crisis. You have to get an argument up that things are terribly difficult, that we are faced with a position that will require, when they come to government, some serious intervention. This then lays the groundwork for some form of audit or review of the circumstance. My colleague would know this very well in Queensland, where the former Treasurer Mr Costello came in and did an audit for the state government. It lays the foundation for an audit, and then they will wring their hands and say, 'It's so terrible, we're going to have to cut to the bone across a whole range of services and, in fact, walk away from a lot of the very investments that this nation will need to create a future of growth and opportunity for the populations of all of our communities.'
In particular I would point out that the member for Wide Bay in his contribution expressed a great deal of concern about jobs and a great deal of concern about families and providing some security for them. However, as some of my colleagues noted in the previous debate when we were talking about the potential to suspend the procedures of this House, the member for Wide Bay indicated that a lot of this problem came down to wages and conditions and things like penalty rates. We well know what this debate means; in fact, it is not even code these days. We are again hearing from those opposite an engagement in a conversation that makes it quite clear what the future for families across this nation will be under a coalition government, and that will be a revisiting of all of those interventions under industrial relations that caused such distress and rejection in the broader community that saw Work Choices profoundly rejected at the 2009 election. Indeed, it led to the current Leader of the Opposition, and other leaders of the opposition that have progressed through this place since that time, saying that the thing was 'dead and buried' and saying, 'We are not going anywhere near it anymore.' Yet suddenly the ghost of Work Choices starts to filter through the contributions in this place. So I think families know very well what the reality will be under those opposite.
The MPI talks about the cost of living for families. It is the case that the most profoundly important contributor to sustainability for families is a job. That is absolutely true. It has been the permanent and ongoing focus of this government to support access to jobs for people, particularly during the time when the international economy went through the global financial crisis. It has not only been our focus; it has been an achievement. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, over 960,000 jobs were created in that period, despite those serious international headwinds for our economy. I know this only too well, as do many of my colleagues, having come from an economy that is in transition and that has a manufacturing, mining and service industry base. We live it every day and we absolutely know it.
But I also know that the reality is that businesses across our communities benefitted from the interventions by this government and the stimuluses that we put in place. There was the immediate short-term stimulus of the cash injection which kept people spending over the Christmas period during the initial impact of the GFC and helped keep open those businesses that the member for Wide Bay talked about—all those small businesses in retail, hospitality and tourism who are, as we know, run on a cyclical yearly income and need that expenditure over the Christmas-New Year period to make their books balance for the year. That initial, short-term cash injection in response to the global financial crisis actually kept open a lot of doors of small businesses over that period of time. I remember those opposite rubbishing it and saying how outrageous it was that people were buying TV sets—and now we are worried that the very small businesses that sell the TV sets might be in trouble. It was a really significant and important intervention to support jobs and to support small businesses.
Of course, off the back of that, there was the more medium-term intervention in terms of the building and construction programs that occurred. As many of us know, the Building the Education Revolution provided facilities that are greatly valued by schools. If you want to talk about cost of living, try being a family buying raffle tickets all the time because the school needs a new hall—and then there is the lamington drive, the chocolate drive and the raffle—as school families try to raise the funds that they need for those facilities. I can assure you that they were profoundly grateful for that injection.
Also, as a result of that building program there were a lot of small and medium building and construction companies in my electorate—and I am sure they were in everybody else's electorate—that got work through that period. I met companies in my area working on BERs who said to me, 'We were within weeks of laying off staff.' That was the reality—and they were not only keeping their staff but also putting on apprentices. One of the really important outcomes—if you want to talk about jobs and security for families—out of the global financial crisis was the fact that apprenticeship commencements were sustained through the global financial crisis at their pre-crisis levels. That is an unprecedented outcome for an economic downturn.
I live in the Illawarra and I well remember the downturn that occurred in the late eighties and early nineties. One of the first things that paid the cost was apprenticeships. During that downturn, there was a massive drop-off in the recruitment of apprentices and the opportunity for young people to get a start in life to get a good quality job for the long-term future and to raise a family off the back of that. The outcome of that, of course, was that as we went through the cycle and the upswing occurred, we had significant skill shortages across this country. The intervention by this government, particularly through the Apprentice Kickstart program, meant that those companies not only had work to do through that period but also had the capacity and support to employ the next generation of young tradespeople on those job sites. It was significantly important, and we will be for the next generation very grateful that we had those skills in place and rolling out across our communities.
Job security and access to jobs are important, and we have been all about that the whole time that we have been in government. I will not go through the extensive interventions that we have made in the education system more broadly to ensure that the jobs that are emerging, the jobs of the future—which of course will require much higher levels of qualifications and skills—are going to be available to the Australian population because we have upped the standards of our preschool teaching, we have upped the standards of our schools, we have upped the standards of our vocational providers and our universities and we have injected into them in significant ways and created new training opportunities.
On top of having access to a job, you also want fair remuneration for your work and reasonable working conditions that make it possible to actually engage with and have a family life as well as financially support your family. The interventions that we have made in getting rid of Work Choices and putting the Fair Work Bill into place and supporting things like the accumulation of superannuation—an historic Labor reform that we are now expanding—and making sure that there is fair pay for all workers have been significant. In particular, for me, the fair pay case that enabled community service workers—many of whom are women—to get some pay equity was a significant outcome. I sat on the House's committee chaired by Sharryn Jackson, a former member, that did the pay equity report. I indicate that it was a bipartisan report.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Ms BIRD: That is right—the member was also on the committee. It was a bipartisan report. It acknowledged that there had been an inherent, entrenched discrimination against what was generally termed 'women's work', although there are a lot of really fine men working in the field, of course, too. But it had become an entrenched equity issue in terms of pay and remuneration. As a result of the government's reform, action was able to be taken on that front.
So there have been a number of initiatives over a number of areas by this government to ensure fair remuneration and decent working conditions are in place for Australian families—and they value that very much. That was reflected, I would suggest to those opposite, in the 2007 election. So it is very interesting to see the emergence again on that side of some of those Work Choices type campaigns, particularly, as the member for Wide Bay said, around penalty rates and conditions. So we put the facts on the table.
The other area I want to identify some facts around was the member's contribution on the National Broadband Network. It is astonishing. I think there will be a lot of people sitting on that side of the House who, when their grandchildren say, 'What did you do in parliament? Can I have a look at some of your contributions?', will be directing them to everything but their contribution on the NBN. It is going to be one of those spaces where, as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport showed today, in another generation they will be reading into the new Hansard the contributions of those opposite in the current Hansard around the NBN and having a good old chuckle about it, because it will seem inconceivable that people who said they had a focus on the future could have made the contributions that they made.
I actually feel a real twinge of sympathy for those on the other side who I know actually get this and actually do understand why it is such significant nation-building infrastructure and would no doubt like to break out of the shackles of the Leader of the Opposition, who will struggle I think to comprehend why that is such a significant future investment for this nation. They would really like to break out of those shackles and say, 'Look, can we just support the government? They are on the right track here.' This is significant and it will make a huge difference, particularly in rural and regional areas, where you know as well as I know that the rollout of telecommunications infrastructure is never as good as what they get in the city. How you could not be getting right behind a platform that rolls out broadband across this nation and provides equity at that access level for the infrastructure? I really don't understand. It is going to be the technology that will create connections across the nation, that will give equity to people wherever they live in accessing services, and that will provide the backbone of a whole lot of new business activity—new small businesses that the member for Wide Bay said he was so concerned about. The reality is that that program is the program of the future, and it is the one that delivers to rural and regional areas. The reality for families under the coalition's policy is that it will come to the end of their street and if they have got $5,000-odd they will be able to connect it to their house. I just think that is an appalling position to be in.
So across all the policy areas that the member for Wide Bay made a contribution about, it is quite clear that they are still living in the past. They want to revisit pre-2007—they want to go back to an outdated NBN program, they want to go back to a rejected industrial relations policy, they want to go back to a world before the GFC and pretend it never happened. Fairy tales do not happen in reality. This government deals with the facts. We deliver the policies that address the future and we will continue to do that in the interests of families.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:14): I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance debate initiated by the Leader of the National Party. The reality today is that, wherever you go around this country, there is a lack of confidence about economic management and a lack of security about the future. People are concerned about their jobs and they are saving because they are concerned about what might happen next week, next month or next year. If you walk down the high street of any town or suburb in Australia you will see shops that are closed. You know that businesses are not employing people. Indeed, many of them are laying workers off. When people look for some sense of security at the present time all they see here from the leadership of this country is a sense of chaos and confusion.
Three years ago this week the Australian Labor Party was arguing about who should be the leader—who should be the Prime Minister of Australia. Three years on, this week, what is happening? That same Australian Labor Party is arguing about who should be the leader, the Prime Minister of Australia. Of course, the current Prime Minister came to office having removed the previous Prime Minister by saying, 'We had lost our way'—the government had lost its way. Have they found their way since then? We still have the same chaos—still the sense that the only thing that matters for this government is who lives in the Lodge, who has got the job of Prime Minister, rather than the jobs, the future and the security of the people of Australia.
There is no greater impact upon the cost of living of Australians than the introduction of a carbon tax. Remember prior to the last election that famous statement of the Prime Minister—'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.'
A government member interjecting—
Mr ANDREWS: The honourable member opposite can interject all he likes. All that indicates is once again why the people of Australia so distrust this government. Because having made the statement in the dying days of the election campaign that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—and this comes to their manic concentration on just the top job—and having failed to secure a majority on the floor of this House, enough members to form a government alone, the Prime Minister was prepared to walk away from that solemn promise to the people of Australia and to introduce a carbon tax. And that carbon tax is having an impact on the cost of living of ordinary Australians.
Let us just look at the increase in the cost of living that people in Australia are bearing, the percentage increase since the ALP came to power from the December quarter of 2007 to the March quarter of 2013, CPI data taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Electricity, one of the most basic commodities that Australian households and businesses need, has increased by 93.8 per cent. Water and sewerage have increased by 63.1 per cent. Other utilities have increased by 79.2 per cent. Gas has increased by 61.8 per cent. Insurance has gone up by 45.4 per cent. Education expenses have increased by 38.7 per cent. Rents have increased by 30.2 per cent. Housing costs are up by 29.6 per cent.
Let us just take the period in which this government has supposedly found its way, the period since the current Prime Minister has been the occupant of the Lodge. Over that period, the last three years, since Ms Gillard has been the Prime Minister of Australia, electricity has gone up by 44.7 per cent, water and sewerage have gone up by 26.4 per cent, utilities by 36.9 per cent, gas by 28.6 per cent, insurance by 21.3 per cent and education by 18.8 per cent.
Childcare expenses—something which many families are struggling with in terms of cost of living—alone have gone up by 26 per cent. There are many struggling families today whose childcare costs are so great that it is hardly worth them being able to work. In fact, what I am hearing from childcare centres and operators in my electorate and elsewhere around the country is that the childcare costs are going up by such an amount that it is becoming almost unaffordable for many struggling families to keep their kids in child care.
Rents have gone up by 11 per cent. In Australia today, according to the experts, we have a deficiency of about a quarter of a million dwellings. That means more people are renting if they can get into renting. There are more people that are homeless. There was the famous promise by the previous Prime Minister that he would do something about homelessness. Homelessness has gone up by almost 15,000 to 16,000 in Australia since then and housing has gone up under this Prime Minister by 13 per cent.
What is the only response we get from the government? The only response is a series of excuses. It was the global financial crisis some years ago. What was the government's response to the global financial crisis? To waste more taxpayers' money on things like pink batts in housing roofs causing fires and on a cash-for-clunkers scheme. That was a waste of money. Or they blamed the states or anybody but this government that was in power. The reality is this: when you are elected to occupy those Treasury benches in this place, you are elected to take responsibility for the government of this country. What we have instead of that is chaos and confusion, this internal warfare going on between various factions as to who supports Mr Rudd, who supports Ms Gillard. I suspect a majority support neither of them and would like to get some new leader, but this continues to be played out. All the time what are being forgotten are the people and the families of Australia.
On top of that this government have taken decisions which have cost more for families in this country, whether you are talking about the family tax benefit part A or part B, or the four lots of changes they have made resulting in the abolition of the baby bonus, or the changes they have made about other taxes—the cutting and the capping of the childcare rebate, which was capped to a maximum of $7,500. If it was still being indexed as it was, families would be receiving $700 or more in assistance. Since Ms Gillard became the Prime Minister, childcare costs in this country have increased by 26 per cent. There are the means test on the private health insurance and the changes in the net medical expenses tax offset. We can go on and on.
There are the changes in the means testing of our aged-care system, the parenting payment recipients taken from people who have been moved from a system where they received a much higher parenting payment to the Newstart allowance. The reports I get back from emergency relief centres, not just in my electorate but as I travel around the country, are that we have effectively created a new group of poor parents by simply ripping away those payments from them in every area. This government has been concerned about simply who is going to be the Prime Minister, and how it is going to continue to stay in office, rather than doing the things it was elected for—that is, to provide security to the people of Australia.
No wonder wherever we go around this country people are concerned about the future. People are concerned about whether they will have a job next week or next month or next year. They are certainly concerned about whether their children and their grandchildren will inherit the sort of Australia that they have inherited. I believe it is the aspiration of every Australian to be able to hand on to the next generation—and the generation after that—a better country than they inherited. That is something that is central to our belief, it is central to what we as Australians want, and yet here we have a government which over the last three years has put very much in danger that ability to say, 'We can hand on to the next generation a better Australia than we inherited.' That is a pity, that is a shame on this government. In distinction from that, the coalition have a plan in which we will deliver a prosperous economy and a safe and secure country for the people of this nation.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (16:28): We have heard from those opposite a list of fiction. I am going to give a list of facts in relation to what this government has done to make Australia a stronger and smarter and fairer country. We heard the deputy leader of the coalition, the Leader of the Nationals, talk about wages and labour costs in two speeches in the last hour or so. On each occasion he inferred quite clearly that in fact wages were too high in this country and that we had to drive down wages. This is from a person who voted for Work Choices on more than two dozen occasions.
One of the proudest days I have had in the six years I have been in this place was when we got rid of Work Choices. We know what Work Choices did. It drove down wages and made it more difficult for Australian families to be able to meet their costs of living, pay for the education and health needs of their kids and the recreational pursuits that they wanted for their families. The reality of those opposite is that they brought in Work Choices in this country and the result was that on average women and low-paid earners lost about $115 per week from their wages and salaries.
They bleat in this place about adverse impact on families. I would have more respect for what they had to say if they supported things that actually helped families. For example, we increased the childcare rebate from $4,354 per child to $7,500 and doubled the funding for child care. One of the first acts of the Howard coalition government when they came to power in 1996 was to rip a billion dollars out of the childcare sector in this country. In addition to that we are putting millions of dollars into child care to assist in increasing wages and conditions and making fairer each and every place—whether it is bush kids in my electorate or some other childcare facility in any other place in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane or in any regional part of this country—to make sure that people get a fair go when it comes to the workplaces of this country.
With respect to wages and conditions we have provided $2.8 billion for the social and community sector to fund the equal remuneration order that took place with respect to Fair Work Australia. Those opposite did not support that. It was 150,000 low-paid workers—people who work in childcare centres; in domestic violence facilities, helping women in distress; people working in the tenancy advocacy services—who all got assistance. Of those 150,000 low-paid workers, 120,000 were women. So we are helping Australian families. If those opposite get on the Treasury benches, on average a family with a couple of kids going to school will lose about $15,000 because they will lose their Schoolkids Bonus. What I cannot understand about those opposite is that they supported an education tax refund. We brought the Schoolkids Bonus in to make it easier for families to not have to keep a list on the fridge of all the expenses for computers, uniforms et cetera. Those opposite opposed it and their policy is to rip it away.
Superannuation is a big difference between us and them. They want to impose a $500 tax on low-income earners. If you are earning up to $37,000 a year you will pay $500 more in tax every year under a coalition government. They oppose our increase to the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent over a number of years. They oppose it again and again because they have never believed in superannuation. The Leader of the Opposition at a press conference on 23 March last year said:
We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases.
They are against families' financial security in retirement. By our superannuation reforms we are boosting by $500 billion the benefit to Australian families by 2037—a $500 billion increase in superannuation to help Australian families. That is government policy on this side helping Australian families, opposed by those opposite. Again and again they voted against superannuation assistance for Australian families. For a 30-year-old on average full-time wages the government's changes will put an additional $127,000 into their superannuation by the time they retire at 67 years of age. That is the difference.
When it comes to telecommunications there is also a big difference. The member for Wide Bay is in a regional seat in Queensland. I am in a regional seat in Queensland as well. What the Liberals and Nationals intend to do to regional Australia is to put them into the technological Neanderthal days. They will make sure that these people will be disadvantaged compared to people who live in Sydney and Melbourne. If you live in, say, Bulimba in Brisbane or Toorak or Vaucluse, you will get access to high-speed broadband and you will have to pay the $5,000 to connect the fibre to your home because they will leave it at the node and will make you pay for the connection to the premises. If you are living in the Lockyer Valley or the Brisbane Valley or Wide Bay region, you will have to pay. It is broadband for the rich and nothing for the poor. That is typical of those opposite when it comes to telecommunications.
It is not just that, it is other areas as well like education. They are opposed to the National Plan for School Improvement. In the last hour or so I had a phone call from the Queensland Times newspaper talking about the study in relation to schools in the Ipswich and West Moreton region and the fact that we were underfunded. I said to the journalist, Peter Foley: 'Listen, if they pass the National Plan for School Improvement and Campbell Newman signs up, we will be in a position where Queensland schools will get an average $2.2 million more.' Barry O'Farrell in New South Wales has had the wit and wisdom to do this—they will get an average $1.6 million more for schools in New South Wales. So Campbell Newman and the Leader of the Opposition in this place believe that a person's state of origin determines their educational outcome. That is exactly their position.
As Peter Doyle, school principal at Springfield Lakes State School in my electorate, said in the Queensland Times recently, teachers are paying thousands of dollars to pay for the education needs in their classrooms. If the Queensland government sign up for the National Plan for School Improvement, schools in my electorate will benefit to the tune of about $184 million, making sure that their families are assisted, so that mums and dads do not have to put their hand in their pocket all the time. It means that schools like Bremer State High School get about $13.9 million more than the current funding for the next six years. Redbank Plains State High School, another big high school in the Ipswich and West Moreton region, would get $12.2 million more. Ipswich state highway would get $10.5 million more. It applies to electorate after electorate across this country, making an impact for families, helping them with their education needs.
The member for Wide Bay talked about infrastructure and the like. He said that we were not doing Regional Development Australia projects around the country. He must be politically blind when it comes to that. I could point him to things in the Lockyer Valley, the Brisbane Valley, Ipswich and other parts of Queensland where Regional Development Australia funding has been rolled out for major community infrastructure, creating jobs and supporting Australian families.
The member for Wide Bay was opposed to the biggest road infrastructure project we had in South-East Queensland in the last six years, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, with 10,000 jobs being created and sustained. He voted against it and campaigned for three federal elections his opposition to it. He talks about helping Australian families, jobs creation, growth and economic development. Those opposite have been opposed to it again and again. And guess what? We have more than doubled the road and rail funding in Queensland in the last six years. We have done that in the first stage. We have put more money in road, rail and port infrastructure in Queensland than the coalition ever did in their 12 years in office—supporting jobs, growth, development; sustaining jobs during the global financial crisis, creating 960,000 jobs, when those opposite voted against it again and again.
They talk about the car industry and manufacturing, but they would take half a billion dollars out of the car industry, leaving 255,000 jobs in the car industry at risk in the southern parts of Australia. That is what they would do. They do not support jobs; they want to drive down wages. They do not support education reform; they disinvest in health. They take away doctors and health services in this country, making it harder for health services and costs to be met by Australian families. That is the legacy of those opposite. And that is why they should not be on the treasury bench.
Dr STONE (Murray) (16:38): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. We have a crisis in this country. If you get out into your electorate and spend some time on the ground, which the previous speaker obviously does not, you will hear the tragedy of living in a country where the costs of doing business, the costs of trying to raise a family, the costs of trying to be educated have grown so high under Labor that, as I began by saying, we are now in a crisis in this country.
I never thought we would have sovereign risk in Australia. It was always our boast that, if you choose or chose to invest in this country, you could expect some stability in the tax regime or a lot of notice would be given if there were going to be changes to the costs of you doing business in this country, including the regulatory environment. But who could forget the shock of the mining sector when they discovered these new taxes—suddenly thrown into their midst without much notice at all and then negotiations with just a couple of the bigger operators. And these taxes have not even raised for the government the revenue they planned for. It is not just a case of the damage to our national and international reputation; so many of the mining companies are now thinking it looks pretty good in Brazil or in the African nations.
Let me talk about the manufacturing sector in this country and the extraordinary costs of energy, including refrigerant gases. If you have the sorts of rises in costs that I am about to enumerate for you, you actually lose jobs. My electorate of Murray has been so hard hit. We have lost half of our dairy farmers as a consequence of the absolutely shocking Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which did not take a triple bottom line approach at all but which was a captured process, with the Greens demanding the biggest possible volume of water to be thrown down the Murray River—and to hell with those who produced food—using their water security. So we lost half of our dairy farmers through the process of water buyback.
On top of that, let me tell you about the price increases of refrigerant gas as a consequence of the so-called equivalent carbon tax. These are real figures from real bills, real accounts from my electorate, which I will seek to table at the end of my remarks. So often when we ask questions at question time of the Prime Minister in particular about these horrendous carbon tax increases, she says: 'No, that's not true. That's about state infrastructure or it's about some other nonsense going on with the companies themselves.' These are actually itemised accounts which give you the carbon tax as a line item and the cost.
I will begin with the refrigerant gases. The R-22 refrigerant gas cost $56 in May 2012, plus GST. It has now gone up to $160. That is a 285 per cent increase. By the way, refrigerant gases are used in the dairy industry to cool the milk after you have milked the cows. These gases are used in cool stores so that fruit does not deteriorate after it is picked. Refrigerant gases are used in shops and supermarkets. These are very commonly used products. R404A is another very commonly used refrigerant gas. In May, it cost $44. After October, it cost $230 per unit. That is a 522 per cent increase. The gas R134A, in May 2012, cost $36. After October, it cost $112. That is a 311 per cent increase in the cost of refrigerant gases which are, as I say, a critical part of food preservation, of manufacturing and of selling products in shops that have not spoiled.
What about the electricity costs that have gone up? Unfortunately, food processing, which used to be the highest employer in this country, is now being decimated with almost a race to export not just the food but the companies themselves to New Zealand and other countries—our competitors. These countries do not have the imposts and costs that we have. Let us look at the electricity bills of the Mulcahy Pastoral estate, which are the biggest dairy farm in my region and, in fact, one of the biggest dairy producers in Australia. They actually value-add to their milk to make it a product they can deliver straight to the customer. This is a one-month electricity account of theirs and they have many such accounts across the enterprise. In August 2012, the cost of electricity for this particular part of their business was $7,069.97. The itemised carbon charge was $1,142.48. That is a 17.77 per cent increase in their electricity bill. Bear in mind that the GST is charged on the sum of their electricity charge, plus the carbon tax. So, for them, that is a 17.77 per cent increase in cost.
I have another bill—and, as I say, I will seek to table these with the itemised account—showing the carbon tax and a 20.06 per cent increase in their electricity charges. How can this pastoral company, this dairy farm, compete? How can it compete with New Zealand, which has a carbon tax equivalent charge of only 75c per tonne? How can we compete when our equivalent is $24.15 or 32 times higher than New Zealand's? And guess what? We compete head-on in the international export markets with their dairy products. How can our dairy producers compete with those costs around their necks? It is not fair. It means a loss of jobs in my part of the world. It means despair for farmers who have worked for generations to build up their herds and to build up the infrastructure on their properties. And what is killing them? Not drought, not pestilence and not plant disease. What is killing them is this Labor government's charges. That is disgusting when, of course, at the end of all of this we know that we not making one iota of difference to the greenhouse emissions around the planet. What a tragedy and what a travesty!
Let us look at child care. A previous speaker mentioned child care. If we do not have affordable child care in Australia, how does a mother return to work or how does a father participate in the workforce if he is sharing the parenting role with his wife. They are seeing their childcare costs rise by 30 or 40 per cent. We are told that with this new legislation, which was debated in the House this morning, we are going to see some $300 million go towards higher wages for some childcare workers, but not all of them. If less than half of the childcare workers are going to get a pay rise in some centres, obviously the rest of the childcare centres are going to have to put up their childcare fees in order to retain their staff. Who is going to pay? The mums and the dads—the single mums and the single dads who are trying to stay in the workforce. They simply cannot cope with higher childcare fees, yet this government brags: 'Hey, we've done a beautiful job in child care. We've brought in the fantastic new national standards accreditation scheme.' But the Australian Childcare Alliance are begging the government to delay the new regulations, which are supposed to begin on 1 January, because they say that, if no more money is provided by the government to parents and as well for more staff to be qualified, the whole system is going to collapse, particularly in the not-for-profit sector. They cannot go on with the sorts of fees and charges that they are trying to extract out of families through parents because the parents are often not paid enough to make it worth their while even to go back to work. I think this is disgusting.
The schools education minister, Peter Garrett, said no independent evidence was around 'to support claims of an impending shortage of early childhood education and care workers or a significant impact on childcare costs'. I suggest the minister had better get out more. He had better go and talk to some parents about the cost—often over $100 a day for child care.
What is blighting our productivity in this country? The fact is we have a very poor return to work rate for women after they have had their children. We have one of the lowest rates of women in the workforce in the developed world and yet we have some of the highest formally educated women of any country in the world. We have a shocking situation in Australia. Magnificent country that we are, we should be the envy of the world. In fact, we are the laughing stock of the world because we are taxing away, through the carbon tax and the carbon equivalent tax and the mining taxes, our natural competitive advantage. We are making our families fearful of the future and, in my area, we are killing an economy that was something to be envied by other parts of the world. It was the food bowl. As I speak there are bulldozers bulldozing hundreds of hectares of magnificent fruit trees because SPC Ardmona cannot compete any longer given their energy costs, their wages bill and the regulatory imposts that are now afflicting them. That is not fair. That is not honest. That is un-Australian. Bring on an election! (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (16:48): I rise to speak on the matter of public importance, put forward by the member for Wide Bay, about the adverse impact of government policies on the cost of living. My understanding of the geography is that the member for Wide Bay is actually an MP from Queensland, yet when he stood up and made his speech I thought that perhaps Wide Bay had moved or that maybe it should have been about Jervis Bay in the ACT or Shark Bay in WA or Port Phillip Bay in Victoria because he made no mention of the recent happenings in Queensland. The reality is that under the Liberal National Party government in Queensland and since the last election just 13 months ago families have been paying $1,000 more. Take electricity prices. My understanding is that the federal government does not own any power stations. I have not checked that exhaustively, but my understanding is we do not own any power stations. The Queensland government does own power stations and the other day the Queensland government foreshadowed a 22.6 per cent increase in electricity prices, starting in five days time. In fact, if you were an elderly person living alone, your electricity price cost would go up in five days by 27.9 per cent. So I was quite surprised that the member for Wide Bay—which I am pretty sure is in Queensland—who is a member of the Liberal and National parties coalition, made no mention, in a speech on the cost of living, of this hit to the budget.
My understanding of cost of living is pretty basic: it is about the roof over your head, the taxes you pay, your food and groceries, your electricity and heating, education costs, maybe your internet costs and health costs. So that is about it in terms of the cost of living. Let us unpack some of those things. Insurance was mentioned by the member for Menzies. I was horrified to see in the Queensland state budget that they are increasing the stamp duty on an insurance policy—a policy that actually has GST on it, so you have got a tax on a tax. So that is something that the Queensland government has introduced—but no mention of that by the member for Wide Bay. Let us have a look at the costs. The biggest cost for most households is their mortgage. Let us have a look at where interest rates were when John Howard exited stage left compared to today's. Are the interest rates higher than when John Howard left? No. In fact, most households are saving up to $100 per week—and I will say it again for the benefit of those members opposite who are from Queensland: a $100 per week saving. And it is great to see that people are paying off their mortgages.
Let us have a look at some of the other things. Obviously cost of living is one thing, but it is more important that you actually have a job. That is the best way to keep on top of your cost of living. There have been 960,000 jobs created since we came to power. Is unemployment sky high? Is there a budget emergency with sky-high unemployment like 11.9 per cent in Europe? No. It is 5.5 per cent. In fact, 10 years ago the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, said if you had an unemployment rate of 5.6 it would be a magnificent economic achievement. There is no acknowledgement of that. Let us also note that we have a AAA credit rating and our economy has grown from 15th to 12th biggest. We got through the global financial crisis.
Like anyone, if your economic circumstances change, you make a decision about your economic circumstances and say, 'Maybe we should borrow a bit of money to make sure we look after the household.' That is what a sensible economic manager does. What have those opposite done? Let us have a look. When the economic circumstances changed for the Leader of the Opposition, when he went from being a government minister to being a backbencher, what did he do? Did he do what he suggests and say debt is bad? I found this article by Simon Benson, who had dinner with the Leader of the Opposition the other night. He wrote an article saying:
OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott took out a new $710,000 mortgage on his family home shortly after going into Opposition, partly to help fund his family expenses after losing his ministerial salary.
But in what appears to be a breach of the parliamentary rules covering MPs' pecuniary interests, he failed to declare the loans to Parliament for almost two years.
The man who claimed in January 2008 that politicians don't get paid enough took out a new loan on his family home in April 2008, four months after losing the election and halving his salary.
… … …
Mr Abbott has made no secret in the past that he had often found it challenging to make ends meet.
Great to think that you could—
Dr Stone: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe the details of a previous member's bank accounts and loans are relevant to this debate.
The SPEAKER: The member for Murray will resume her seat. The member for Moreton has the call. It is the MPI. It is a far-ranging debate, but I would ask him to draw the link to the question before us.
Mr PERRETT: We are talking about cost of living and economic management. We are talking about a Leader of the Opposition who is, based on current polling, about to make significant decisions about the government. He said there is a budget emergency. When his budget circumstances changed, he borrowed, yet he condemns the government for having done exactly that. What he says and what he does are completely different. Obviously a sensible economic manager, when times are tough, borrows money.
Mr Robb: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We saw in question time the government get down into the gutter. Now they are getting into the gutter again.
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. That is an abuse of a point of order. I have just had a discussion with the member about the issue and was trying to accommodate the debate so we could get to the valedictories. I know that is not important to others, but it is to the member and her family with us. The member for Moreton has the call.
Mr PERRETT: Thank you. I know the member for Goldstein had been warned during question time, so I am surprised he—
The SPEAKER: The member fore Moreton was also called to account.
Mr PERRETT: would object to this piece of public information. I am merely showing the difference between what people say and what they do. What people say goes to their character if they do not do it.
The reality is the Australian economy is in sound shape. We borrowed responsibly during a tough economic time. We protected jobs. We are talking about cost of living. As I said, a job is one of the most essential things for people to be able to manage cost of living. Education costs are another one. People are able to borrow money to pay off school fees. If they make a decision to borrow money to do that, that is up to them. I think it is appropriate that we give people money to pay for education costs, because education is a sound investment. It also makes sense to invest in educational and business infrastructure like the NBN.
However, we have a policy from those opposite—the fraudband plan—that will see people paying up to $5,000 to have internet connected to their home. If you are in a block of units, heaven help you, because in Queensland that means you have to get 75 per cent of the people in the unit to agree to have that connection. All you need is someone who is a bit of a Luddite, who thinks broadband is only about sending emails, and if they say no, that means you will not be able to get the NBN connected and will not get all those cost-of-living savings that come with the NBN such as being able to pay your bills from home rather than going to the bank or the post office to pay them, being able to study from home rather than going in to university and all the savings that come to small business when they connect to the NBN.
Let us look at some of the other cost-of-living pressures. CPI is well and truly under control. Health has bulk billing rates at 81.7 per cent. Under the Leader of the Opposition it was at 67 per cent when he was the health minister. I have already touched on taxes, but let us mention those three consecutive rounds of tax cuts taking one million Australians out of the tax system. Those people earning about $50,000 are paying $2,000 less in tax. Let us contrast that with the opposition's plan to hike up the GST, rip away the Schoolkids Bonus and hike superannuation by 15 per cent for low-paid people. We have seen what happens with the Costello stealth approach. You soften up people by talking about budget emergencies and then outsource decision making to the Smirk. We saw it in Queensland. They said, 'Oh, we've got a crisis.' You bring in Peter Costello and then you sell off assets and hike taxes. That is what would happen under those opposite, so do not talk about cost-of-living increases. You have no credibility whatsoever. (Time expired)
Dr Stone: Madam Speaker I seek to table the documents I referred to in my remarks.
Leave not granted.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (16:59): In the short time left on this matter of public importance introduced by the member for Wide Bay on the cost-of-living pressures, I want to talk to the people in this House who have come to listen to the member for Gilmore. I want to talk to every person who is out in rural and regional Australia. You have a really simple choice to make at this election. If you vote for Labor, you will be voting for a 7c-a-litre increase in heavy diesel fuel. Every single thing that you eat, drink or use is delivered on the back of a truck in this country, and every one of those is going to cost you more courtesy of the Labor government. So be really clear when you have your vote on 14 September. Do not worry about the spin—
The SPEAKER: I am actually very clear about how I am voting on 14 September. The use of the word 'you' is inappropriate, I remind the member for Forrest. I get to vote for myself. The member for Forrest has the call.
Ms MARINO: Thank you, Speaker. I just wanted to say to every person from a rural and regional electorate and even those in cities, virtually everything that you consume or use comes on the back of a truck. As of next year, 7c a litre is going to be added to the price of diesel for everything that you use. So we are going to see a disproportionate impact on rural and regional Australia—and that is, as we know, almost a calculated attack on rural and regional Australia. We know the distances that are involved in delivering food and goods around Australia. All the trucks you see on the road will have to add an extra 7c a litre to everything they deliver to your town, to your community and to your business. That is the extra cost that you will get if you vote Labor in September—sorry, if people in the areas vote Labor, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I apologise to the member for Forrest, but I thank her for her assistance in this very important matter. Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (17:01): Madam Speaker, on indulgence: I have approached this moment with great trepidation, as I did for my maiden speech and it is one of the hardest I have yet had to make. Fundamentally, these words signal my last hurrah in federal politics. In order for me to move on, I need to go back 17½ years, when in my maiden speech I said, 'Today, I stand here in this place as the first woman member of parliament for the seat of Gilmore.' In fact, for the record I am a 906th person to be elected to the Australian parliament.
I am someone who left school at 15, was an immigrant from Holland, became a sole parent with two wonderful daughters, drove taxis and worked in hotels and clubs. My daughters as a great surprise to me today flew in, unbeknownst to me. No. 1 daughter, Deborah, is a school principal, a conservatorium of music fellow. She turned 50 last week. No. 2 daughter, Sonia, is a former policewoman, now 48. And I have six wonderful grandchildren aged 13 to 23: Elizabeth, Mellisa, Samantha, Cassie, Alexandra and along came Jack. Yes, I have been blessed. This, our country Australia, has been good to me and my family.
Valedictions are about those who have helped you on your way. Without that help we could never succeed in this place. We could never have done it on our own. Parliament is a different world to my electorate work and at times transiting from one to the other can be difficult to achieve. I well remember our former Prime Minister John Howard saying on the first day in our party room, 'You must ring home twice a day, for your true friends are your family.' How true, as I have witnessed many breakdowns in partnerships and friendships of my colleagues from 1996.
There have been many highs and many lows as well. Highs include being sent to the border of Iran and Iraq to witness the first ever free election in Iraq. I was whip at the time and we were contemplating becoming a partner in the coalition of the willing in the war in Iraq. For me it stirred considerable internal turmoil, yet we held it together. The highs have been going to many countries around the world to increase my knowledge, shaking hands with many heads of government, going into communities and being with people of different cultures and experiencing their way of life.
The highlights include my three months at the United Nations in New York and to speak and eat with those from other countries who were at war with each other. You get to see how it really is—totally different from the media reports that we read. Where I learnt the most was from the experience of volunteering each Sunday at the St John of God soup kitchen in the Harlem area. Many hundreds came to eat each Sunday and had never met an Australian before. Speaker, I even learnt a trade while I was over there. For someone who had never cooked or baked a cake—and I hate cooking—I am now a deft hand at cooking and baking for 500. I still get many postcards from those people at the United Nations.
The list goes on, but one highlight I will always remember is doorknocking on a fellow who could not speak to me. He had no teeth, his breath was terrible, he had lost his wife, he had lost his family and he was in the pits. He came back to me some six months later during one of my village visits with a bunch of flowers and said, 'Do you remember me?' I said no. He said, 'Look at my teeth,' because he had new teeth. So you go from the highs to the lows—to the extremes.
I recall my preselection in 1993. Yes, David Gray of Nowra came to my home at Ranelagh House at Robertson and asked if I would stand. I know you are listening, David, and it is all your fault—17 blokes and me at that preselection. Yes, I lost by one vote and that one vote was cast by someone in the public gallery today who is now in his 90s. Even though he did not vote for me, I admire him greatly. Thank you, Artis Medinis. You made me become tougher. A member of the Liberal Party for over 60 years—well done.
We lost the seat to Labor that year and some in this place will remember Peter Knott, described by Paul Keating as the candidate from hell. I stood again in 1996 and again lost by one vote. The strain of preselection can be worse than divorce—believe me, I know. Then something happened: the Liberal Party did not endorse the same successful candidate who was endorsed in 1993. I stood again—and thanks here to Bill Heffernan, and some of you heard Bill Heffernan talk this morning—and the rest is history.
An opposition member: He's here.
Mrs GASH: Thank you, Bill, I think. Then there was the dinner with the Queen—and what a special lady she is—with my table companions Bob Hawke and Blanche. How many remember the day George Bush was in this House and the debacle with the Greens leader Bob Brown? There was the time someone jumped from the gallery and almost landed in my lap. It is a dangerous seat over there on the government side where the whip sits.
My utmost gratitude goes to John Howard, who with cabinet helped the electorate of Gilmore to move forward. How sad it is to see fewer of us women now than in 1996. Some $2 billion of infrastructure projects were realised under Howard, the most significant being Main Road 92. I acknowledge the assistance of the former member for Gilmore, the Hon. John Sharp, then minister for transport. Hopefully, at some time in the future this will be named the Shoalhaven Highway, which now connects Nowra to Canberra. This was in my maiden speech: a commitment fulfilled, yet would not have been possible without Shoalhaven City Council's $12 million contribution.
We have our own university campus—and credit here goes to our former education minister Amanda Vanstone and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wollongong, Gerard Sutton. Gerard was a man of vision, strength and ability, who was able to make it happen, not only in the Nowra area but also in Moss Vale in the Southern Highlands and Batemans Bay—both locations in Gilmore. Later came the medical school and the nurses school. Those faculties changed the face of Gilmore for our residents, and I acknowledge the assistance of former minister Brendan Nelson, who has become a close friend. Brendan came to parliament at the same time as I did. He had a rough time but overcame the odds to become a great leader and supporter of Gilmore. As defence minister, he was very instrumental in securing the future for HMAS Albatross, which this next year will see the benefits of some of those decisions.
This House makes for strange friendships and I have been no exception to this. Don't laugh! I miss the days of Janice Crosio as opposition whip at a time when I was government whip and when women from all political parties would meet and just catch up: Chatham House rules, of course. I make mention here of Jennie George, a friend who now lives in my electorate, and, soon to live in Gilmore, Rob McClelland—welcome. Jock Cameron is someone whom I credit for returning my faith and sending me to the United States to attend a national prayer breakfast along with some 4,000 attendees from all over the world. It is the same with the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, of which I was for many years the deputy chair—again, a place to worship and have breakfast with our colleagues, many of whom face similar issues on a bipartisan basis. I hope that in time this can be resurrected like it was, as I know our chaplain, Peter Rose—and I see you up there in the gallery, Peter—would like to see members of both sides communicating with each other a lot more, something sadly lacking in this place today.
I was there the night Kevin Rudd was 'knifed' and, dare I say it, for a moment I felt for him as a person. But, as they say, 'that's politics'. My question is always: is it? To witness the mayhem when unionists broke down our front doors and many inside were hurt, schoolchildren witnessing the trauma of seeing people carried out on stretchers and the destruction created inside the Great Hall area and surrounds, is that politics? To me, it is un-Australian. There are times when I am ashamed at the erosion of our standards, the lack of respect we show to each other and, colleagues, the louder we yell does not make it right. We have an obligation to lead by the way of example by maintaining and encouraging better standards. Having said that, colleagues and supporters in the gallery, I have to confess that only once have I been thrown out of parliament—and I see you laughing—and that was by you, Madam Speaker, so my record has been blemished. But you have been forgiven, for I really did deserve it.
I turn now to the most important people in this place, those who are in the background who just go about their business. Many of you have become friends. I refer of course to the attendants, the cleaners, the caterers, tour guides and the clerks, like you, Bernard, and Jo Townsend. Joe, and his smiling face, deliver the papers. Joe, if you are listening, enjoy your soon-to-be retirement. I turn to my friends in the staff cafeteria. Tim, I hope you are listening and giving me a table for tonight because I know it is fully booked. No longer will you have to keep out the garlic and onions from my food, and I thank you.
Speaker, I leave this place having made the choice myself. There have been many in this place who have always been here when I needed it most and after 17 years I ask for your indulgence to allow me to mention some of them. To Christopher Pyne: I will always remember you were the first to call to congratulate me on being elected. I will remember Russell Broadbent for his wise counsel and the phrase, 'Jo, everything will be all right.' I wish you well in this election, Russell, and say to you, 'Everything will be all right.' I do not know if Warren Entsch is here, but he made a great comeback to again win his seat. Congratulations on your forthcoming marriage. I am so happy for you. But tell your future wife I will miss my weekly kiss in the party room—and just as well what goes on in the party room stays there!
Marise Payne, in the other place, has been an inspiration to me. Don Randall is another colleague who made a great comeback. Don, you taught me to take time out—thank you. And I remember other ministers in the Howard government for understanding the needs of Gilmore. You allowed us to grow and help ourselves by providing much needed infrastructure. To Joe Hockey, look after the back bench, as you have always done for me. To Connie Fierravanti-Wells, it has been great working with you for Gilmore and Throsby, even though both my border colleagues are here on the other side—thank you for being here, Stephen and Sharon.
To Michelle Moffatt, a very special person whose loyalty is first and foremost to the Liberal Party, thank you. And to someone—and I think he snuck in—who used to visit our guesthouse when he was at school, then did work experience and now you all know him as Richard Dowdy, who is with Tony Abbott and now tells us what to do: you are a true success story and I am very proud of you.
People often ask, who do you admire most in politics? They usually expect you to say Robert Menzies, John Howard et cetera. Yes, all of those. But, to me, the one person who knows Gilmore like the back of her hand and has never let me down is Bronwyn Bishop. I not always agree with Bronwyn, you know, but friendships came first. Bronnie, you have been my mentor and I salute you. Your knowledge and wisdom have done much for me in politics, as it has done for many others in this place, and nothing was ever too much trouble.
My 17 years have been exciting and challenging, allowing me to experience different roles, from being part of the Speaker's panel to whip, to chair of government policy on veterans' affairs and defence, to shadow tourism and parliamentary secretary. For the last few years I was deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and I thank the Secretary, Jerome Brown, a true professional. Secretly, I would love to have had veterans' affairs as a portfolio, but so many opportunities have been given to me, none of which would have been possible if our community of Gilmore had not believed in me and voted me in each time.
You, the community, became my family. Even with three boundary changes I will never forget that support. Over one thousand people on the ground, each election, worked hard to see us retain Gilmore. In saying that, I remind my colleagues that without your community understanding and trusting you, you would not be here. To ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the next parliament: always remember to consult your backbench for they are the eyes and ears of the community. Never mind think tanks or 20/20 vision, you have it here in your own backbench. And always remember your first priority: it is the community you represent.
Now after 17 years in the federal arena there are a few things I would like to comment on from my own personal perspective. Over time I have come to realise that, slowly but surely, we are moving towards a nanny state and that, as a result, we are encouraging the view that mediocrity is enough. Rather than encouraging people to greater things, there is a tendency emerging that discourages achievement, pride and excellence. We are choosing to scratch with the turkeys rather than soar with the eagles, and that is disappointing. Second best is just not good enough. Effort needs to be rewarded, not discouraged. And we, as leaders, need to lead by example and have the guts to say it as it is. Australians understand the truth. They may not like it, but they will respect honesty. Colleagues, do not compromise yourselves even when the going gets tough.
Now I come to the hard part and hopefully I will not lose it. People have perceptions of politicians, as I did with John Howard. I well remember when he came to Gilmore as Leader of the Opposition before the 1996 election. It was at Worrigee House in support of our campaign. We were asked to go upstairs so 'the boss' could walk down the stairs and be greeted. John looked at me as the music started—Chariots of Fire, and you know how emotive that can be—and said, 'What's wrong?' I was shaking and about to be sick. I mumbled, 'I'm so scared'. Quite something for me to have to admit to. He just took my hand and said:' So am I. Let's go together.' And we did and I never looked back. I thank you, John.
To Mark Neeham, our state director, keep the New South Wales team together. And to the two former state and federal directors who are now shadow ministers, Scott Morrison and Andrew Robb, I always had your understanding and I wish you both well. To my campaign directors over the many years and FEC presidents, John Le Bas and Kath from 1996: John, I think you finally agreed that I did understand all those curly questions you asked me, even if I was a female. Seriously, I will not forget you or Kath. Martin Laverty, you have been overseeing my campaign for many years, including three boundary changes, and each time you gave me confidence even as each one eroded our margin. You are an amazing young man and I have watched your successes over the years from our early days in the Southern Highlands.
To John Bennett, our Gilmore FEC president for the last three elections: your loyalty to the Liberal Party is unquestionable and I hope in time that the party will realise what potential you have. Your knowledge, understanding and love of our community are what make you so special. You mean a great deal to me and I know you will continue to be a great strength to our candidate in Gilmore, Ann Sudmalis. Treasurer Wes Hindmarsh is still there from 1996, keeping us on the financial straight and narrow. Liz Tooley, our secretary: you travelled the journey with me and I thank you. To our volunteers: you have been my family, my friends and always there ready to assist. To my fishing mate, Jan Natt, I say: 'More time now to fish Jan. You ready?' To Pam Coles, I say, 'No more filing, Pam'. Jan Hancock is an absolute legend. Richard and Maxine, what can I say about you, and so many more. Door-knocker supreme, Dorothy Barker, and thousands of booth workers, not members of the party, turn up when needed.
Many of my staff have gone on to bigger and better things, and that is my reward, but I do want to mention some staff for their loyalty and trust during what has, at times, been very difficult. Janelle Brown—you are here, Janelle—was my very special first PA in 1996. She came with me from the Southern Highlands, where she worked with me in tourism. She left some years ago and, after headhunting her, she came back. Josephine Barfield, who now works for the department, was also many years with me. Pat Davis has been with me in the capacity of door-knocking volunteer since 1993. Colleagues, for a full 12 months before that election, Pat and many in the audience, who are still here today from 1993, doorknocked the whole of the Gilmore electorate, some 6,000 square kilometres. I remember how we would say, 'Where are we?' But I remember none more so than the first door I knocked on. It was in Kiama. I had a long question and answer with a resident and I knew I had to keep talking to him because I had to win one vote in every 100 in order to win. Finally he said, 'Thanks, but I'm Peter Knott'scampaign manager.'
An opposition member: I hope you got his vote.
Mrs GASH: Yes, he's marked down. Each election Pat would say, 'That's it', but she is still here and her confidentiality is something I treasure. Wal Styke is the longest serving member of some 14 years. We fight, we argue, but I reluctantly heed his advice for he is usually right and his loyalty is unquestionable. Some of you will recall that some years ago I took a three-week caravan trip around parts of Australia as shadow tourism minister. It was Wal who came with me and no-one thought we would last the distance. In fact, staff put up a curtain screen so that we would not fight. However, it was a trip in which we both gained considerable insights and moved to another level of understanding.
Julia Guy, who I know who is watching, is another person I have enormous respect for. She loves the community and has run the office for many years, with a break in between in England, and will soon be joining her husband again in England. Young Brad, you thought you got out of it: he came for work experience when he was 15, went back to university and now is a media and IT expert. You have a great future. Look after yourself.
Rachael Thompson, you are simply the best. Having been my media person and then going on to bigger and better things, I am very proud of you, Rachael, and your new son. To Jemma Tribe, who could not be here today, all I say is: stay with it; I have high expectations of you. She now serves on council with me. To Ros Woolmer, thank you, you have remained a true friend. Colleagues, it has been a passion of mine to bring out the best in people beyond their expectations. They may have seen me as difficult to work with—and of course I am not—but they certainly earned my respect through their work in the community. Thank you, I could not have asked for more.
To Chris McDiven, former federal president, who guided me along the way—and not just me, but many other women who came into politics; to Debra Klika, who taught me so much without any reward except to see me do well, sometimes, I believe, to the detriment of her own career; to my former business partner of many years Kay Jones, not here today but I know listening: without your confidence in my abilities and unlimited support I would not be here. To Chris Taylor, sitting in the gallery, who helped me to raise my daughters when the going was tough and who has allowed me to come and go from her house whilst in parliament, you will no longer have to worry who it is coming in late at night. To my family, my sister Vera, who is here today, and her husband, Paul—can I say he is a Labor supporter but always helps me at every election—their daughters, Corina and Anita, and Rosy, my great-niece, my two brothers, one a Labor supporter and the other a One Nation supporter—I guess I can't win 'em all—my own daughters, Deborah and Sonia, and their partners and Kim: thank you for being here today as well. No mother could have asked for more. We have travelled a long way together, not just in politics but on life's road. You have always supported me, at times at your own expense.
As I said at the beginning, we only make some friends that last the distance, and one of those is here today, Kay Elson, the former member for Forde. Kay retired two elections go, but we came together in 1996 and bonded. We are very similar in nature and the way we run our electorates. We are still friends, and hopefully always will be. Unknown to me until last year, she lives across the highway from my daughter in Brisbane. Thank you, Kay, for making the trip to be here with me on this special day.
To all members of the branches and friends: you have been tremendous, and I know you will continue to support our candidate as you did me. I also want to acknowledge Don Harwin, Speaker of the New South Wales upper House, who before I even entered parliament supported me all the way, listening to all my angst and concerns, often late into the night, telling me to stop worrying, we will fix it. Don, I will not forget how good you were to me. To David Smith, what can I say: always there to assist, always knew when I needed a hug and had his pocket full of jellybeans, very necessary. Love you, David, and I thank you, Sandy, for sharing him.
Colleagues, the lonely figures sitting over there—she is not lonely any more—on the floor of parliament is Shelley Hancock, Speaker of the New South Wales parliament and member for South Coast, a great success story in Gilmore. Ten years ago I asked her to stand, and Shelley, as I said then, life will never be the same. I am sure your husband, Ozzie, would agree. You have not let us down. It was a great moment for us when you won your seat, and it has been a pleasure to work with you, something which will not stop even after I leave this place. Shelley, as I leave and you become the senior Lib, get ready, for the buck now stops with you. That means having to deal with Gareth Ward, member for Kiama. It has been a challenge, but I know his heart is well and truly in supporting the Liberal Party and our candidate, Ann Sudmalis. Gareth, I say this in all sincerity: know who your friends are. It comes with age. Believe me, I know.
I need time to thank our media, the South Coast Register, Milton Ulladulla Times, the Illawarra Mercury and the Kiama Independent. Remember, colleagues, the media are extremely important to us. Over the years we have naturally not always agreed, but they have always been fair and professional, even the ABC, and I thank them for that. To Frenchie, who is probably in bed by now, from 2ST: you have been the best, a mate and one whose friendship over 40 years comes above all else. You have always kept confidences, and in your profession that is rare.
Finally—and I have left the best till last—our Liberal candidate for Gilmore. Ann Sudmalis, you are the reason that I am now able to leave Gilmore and parliament in the knowledge that you are the best for the job. You understand life and you have experienced it. You fought against all odds to win preselection because you believe in yourself. Having been born in Milton in Gilmore, you have travelled overseas as an exchange teacher for 12 months, have a science degree, have three adult children, been small business operator and grew your business from a cottage industry to, after 16 years, a lucrative export business, and are a former councillor at the Kiama Council. Heaven forbid, you worked with me for six years!
All this is very important, but to me it is your honesty, integrity and sheer determination that will hold you in good stead. You continue to do the hard yards and have done so now for 12 months. The community respects you for it. It has not been an easy ride. Just remember that your heart is with the people of Gilmore and with Tony and his team. Stay true to yourself. I am very proud of you and where you are today, and you have my utmost support. I ask you to look after those in our electorate who are less fortunate and concentrate on giving confidence back to the many small businesses to provide the employment that we so desperately need. People want and need to work, and Work for the Dole started as a pilot program in Gilmore before John Howard made it Australia-wide. I am a firm believer in mutual obligation.
To conclude, yes, I will miss this place, but no change is not an option for Jo Gash. I have been inspired by the generosity of our community, and that is why I chose to stand as mayor for the city of Shoalhaven and was rewarded with 63 per cent of the vote. Many of you in this place will know how hard certain people tried to stop me. Again, you cannot do this on your own and I acknowledge the work of my friend and local campaign manager, Eve Craddock. Some may recall that Eve and I used to race go-karts—I spoke about it once. To my council team: thank you for your faith and support. Eight out of 13 on council, and five of them women—one is here today, Patricia White; thank you for being here—was not a bad effort. This will allow me to continue to serve the community and get the job done.
Thanks to Tony, Julie and the team. Thank you, Tony, for your understanding and support in my decision to retire and run as mayor, and to Julie Bishop for all those many trips to Gilmore. Tony, in your former capacity as health minister, I will never forget you giving Gilmore the MRI as opposed to it going to Wollongong—sorry, guys! You ended up getting it. It was so desperately needed, as was the cancer treatment funding.
I assure you that Ann will make a great member, and all our thoughts and prayers are with you as you lead up to 14 September. You need to win this election, colleagues, for the sake of the Australian people and our country. To other members of this House retiring—Alex, it has been a pleasure sitting alongside of you—I wish them well along their journeys. It is an honour to have served in this House.
I have left a special mention of three people until last because they have played a vital role in getting me to where I am now. John Anderson, former Shoalhaven City councillor, has performed the role of my chaperone on more occasions than he and I would care to remember. He supported me readily and made himself available to step in as necessary when I needed him. But the two most important people in my life are my mother and father, and I know you are watching from above. You brought me here to Australia and you instilled in me the values that were necessary to succeed, with the simple message of, 'Be fair; treat others as you would want to be treated.' Speaker, colleagues: I am the sum of all those parts.
In 1996 I came in with a new Prime Minister, and I know that in 2013 I will go out with a new Prime Minister. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: I add my congratulations for the member for Gilmore and I thank her for her generosity to everybody in this place and for her professionalism. I wish her well in her retirement, which is not really a retirement at all but going on to other work for her community.
COMMITTEES
Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (17:32): I present a report from the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings entitled Broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings: general principles and standing determinations. For the information of members I present the general principles for the radio broadcast of parliamentary proceedings by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. These general principles have been adopted by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings and are being tabled in both chambers pursuant to the requirement to the parliamentary broadcasting act. The general principles set out in this report determine that the allocation of broadcast between the two chambers should be approximately equal, and that question time in the chamber not being broadcast live should be re-broadcast later that day. These general principles are essentially the same as those currently enforced and detailed in the back of the standing orders but have been written in a more contemporary style.
To come into force the general principles must be adopted by both chambers. I anticipate a motion to that end in the near future as part of a broader redrafting of the resolutions concerning the broadcasting of proceedings. The general principles are compiled by standing determinations which provide more detailed advice to the ABC for the radio broadcast.
I encourage members to look at the report and I thank the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for drafting both the general principles and the standing determinations. I commend the report to the House.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (17:33): Speaker, on indulgence: I rise today in what may be my last speech in parliament but not, I hope, my last contribution to parliament. I intend to fulfil my duties as Opposition Whip to the last second. It is a position I have thoroughly enjoyed and learnt from.
Our team—the member for Leichhardt and the member for Forrest—have worked together very well. I especially thank Warren for allowing me to have my head and do things that would not necessarily be the norm, such as leading discussions in the Selection Committee on things like standing orders, where one has to have a thorough knowledge of standing orders and the Houseof Representatives Practice. I think Warren would be the first person to admit he has no idea on those sorts of things, so we work together well as a team. We have worked together as a team to advise and work with the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business in the House.
I have also enjoyed my discreet debrief with Joe Hockey and Chris Pyne after each question time. I had to add that because, at our debrief after today's question time, they basically demanded that they be put in the Hansard, so there you are.
An opposition member: Joe did.
Mr SECKER: Joe did! I never tire of this job, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the opportunity to serve the parliament and to serve the Liberal Party. Tony, I believe that you will make a great Prime Minister. The public has not seen the best of you yet, and policies like the northern development policy and the new Colombo plan I think will be policies that will be remembered for decades to come; they are that important.
Being the whip has its challenges, and I hope that in some way I have been of some help to my colleagues with advice, counselling and support. It was once said to me that being a whip is akin to herding cats, but I think it is more like trying to keep frogs in an open wheelbarrow; it is much trickier. One of my colleagues Mal Washer suggested that making me whip was like appointing the poacher as the gamekeeper. There is a bit of truth in that; I know most of the tricks because I have tried them all myself!
But I believe the whips play an important and essential role in the running of the parliament, and there are important qualities that are necessary to being a successful whip. Trust is No. 1—that is from both sides of the parliament, and I can count the whips on the other side as friends. Trust is also important because you learn confidences and what might be termed indiscretions that should not become public because they are of a private nature. I remember Speaker Harry Jenkins suggesting after I retired as a Deputy Speaker to become a whip that I had 'gone to the dark side'. There may be a grain of truth in that, which is why I reckon Harry could have made a very good Labor whip. I even lobbied for him at the recent IPU; he would have no part of it, of course.
As part of the Australian delegation to the IPU conference this year in Quito, Ecuador, I had the honour of chairing the Whips Network Meeting, which was an initiative of the former government whip, Joel Fitzgibbon. He could not attend at the last minute, due to various political manoeuvrings that had happened, so I was honoured to do that. If anyone gets a chance to be an IPU delegate, please take it up. It is a very interesting role. You go to a conference of, say, 700 or 800 delegates and about as many staff. So it is a big conference. I think Australia has a very proud record. This year the Speaker actually chaired the assembly. Dick Adams chaired one of the major sessions and did a great job. Ursula Stephens also chaired another group. With four out of the five delegates playing pretty important roles amongst all the big countries of the world, I think we can be very proud of what we do at the IPU.
I also prepared and led a session for the first and only CPA whips conference, held in the Hunter Valley in 2007. I worked with Roger Price, who was then the government whip. Interestingly, Joel Fitzgibbon came along to that, because it was in his electorate. Little did I know that he would be taking over as government whip after the election.
I can also say that I have never been kicked out of this chamber—but there is still time, Speaker. I think it is all about knowing where to draw the line. Plenty of people have come up to me and said that I get away with blue murder, but the fact is that I know where to draw the line. So I have not been kicked out yet.
But enough about whips for now. Let us go back to my parliamentary career, which started in 1998. I previously sought Liberal preselection on four occasions and had failed. I was first defeated in 1984 for the new seat of Mayo, for which they rightly preselected Alexander Downer. I then tried for a state lower house seat, won by Dean Brown, who went on to become state Premier. I also ran for a state upper house seat, where there were something like 24 candidates for five or six positions. However, I never ran for Senate preselection, because you have to draw the line somewhere—a joke of course! I am quite enthralled by the workings of the Senate and the great committee work they do and how seriously they take their references of bills process. We have tried that in the House of Representatives in this the 43rd Parliament, but I am thoroughly disappointed that, on most occasions, this government did not take it as seriously as it should have—with mere two-hour meetings and very little consultation. I think we have lost a real opportunity as the House of Representatives to get really involved in that part of parliamentary business.
On the fifth occasion my opportunity for preselection was unexpected, it was unplanned, because it came when the previous member for Barker, Ian McLachlan, suddenly announced his retirement in August 1998 after only eight years in parliament—and he was a minister. Just three weeks later I was preselected on the very day that John Howard announced the election date for five weeks later. So I had a short period to get around an electorate bigger than Tasmania, still learning the issues, especially around the GST election, which was a pretty steep learning curve. Luckily I had a reasonable understanding of how the GST worked, but it was a short and tough initiation in the world of politics.
It was also an election where the pork industry ran a strong campaign to get us to increase tariffs, bring in quotas and provide more protection and handouts—something I have always opposed. I do not believe that is a track that a government should ever go down. In fact, it was a former member for Wakefield, Bert Kelly, who had really got me interested in this issue. For years he fought an almost lone hand in opposing tariffs and the damage to efficiency of those industries with high tariff walls that made goods more expensive. When I did my economics degree it was one of those subjects I enjoyed doing my thesis on. I thought tariffs, as a general policy, had been thoroughly discredited, until very recently when another member for Wakefield called for tariffs to protect Holden. I am sure Bert Kelly would have turned in his grave.
Anyway, I digress. In those five weeks leading up to the 1998 election I remember usually getting home at midnight or later and then filling out surveys by fax from my home fax machine—we are talking about 1998 here—until the early hours and then starting out early again the next morning. I had no office and no office staff support; I just did it all myself. I am not sure if I was meant to do the surveys or not; I just did them—reams of faxes. I think we actually encourage people not to fill out those surveys now. After five weeks I was pretty exhausted by election night. I had used my own ute, my own fuel and my own time—but it was worth it, of course. I paid for my own accommodation and even paid for my own polling, because the party did not poll my seat as 'Labor would never win it and have never won it since Federation'—one of only three seats never to be won by Labor since Federation. So they must have thought that even I could not lose it! I was not so sure and I did not want to be the first.
On the night of the election the first booth to come in was the Tailem Bend booth and Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party came in with 23 per cent. People can win with that sort of vote, especially when there are nine candidates. Thankfully, that was their highest vote and ended up with about 11 per cent of the vote over the whole electorate. Eight booths out 127 favoured Labor but, by the next two elections, I had won every booth bar Nangwarry, but got up to 48.5 per cent there in 2004. Nangwarry was a forestry town and they did not like Mark Latham's intervention in the Tasmanian forestry election. So it was not my charm or expertise; it was Mark Latham. Thank God for him!
After the 1998 election I flew from Adelaide to Mount Gambier for some function, even before the declaration of the poll, and with exhaustion I fell asleep on the hour-long plane trip. When we started to come in to land, I woke up and looked out the window and my first thought was: 'The sea is on the wrong side of the plane.' My second thought was: 'I've got on the wrong plane—perhaps to Melbourne.' My third thought was: 'I can see the headlines—"New member gets on wrong plane to wrong city; oh, no!"' The explanation was much simpler: a passenger had died on the way and the plane turned around and headed back to Adelaide—hence the sea was on the wrong side.
I still remember the declaration of the poll, the orientation of new members where we were bombarded with all this information—and, frankly, I think you need another one six months later to take it all in—and of course you will always remember the first day of parliament. On the first day I was staying at the Forrest Lodge, as was the member for Lowe, now the member for Reed, John Murphy. We decided to walk to Parliament House. I got on well with John from the moment we met and we enjoyed our walk to Parliament House, only to be met by the cameras outside the door wanting to know why we walked when everyone else came by big white Comcars. We made national news that night but, being new, I am not sure that either of us knew that we could actually get a Comcar. But we sure do now.
The first day is always exciting for the new member, with the pomp and the ceremony and swearing in. Our whip then was Michael Ronaldson, now Senator Michael Ronaldson—and I will have more to say about you later, son! In his election one year his vote went up when he spent all his time in hospital and did not see anyone or go anywhere. Work that one out. Ronno, as whip on the first day, asked me whether I had written my maiden speech. Stupidly, I said, 'Mostly written,' when I had not written a word or thought about it that much. So Ronno said, 'Right, then you're speaking tomorrow morning and seconding the Governor-General's address in reply.'
I went back to my office and started writing, expecting to finish it that night back at the Forrest Lodge Hotel. Unfortunately, I got caught up with the Speaker's brother, Stuart Andrew—the Speaker at the time was Neil Andrew. Stuart could have put on the robes and literally walked in here and nobody would have known the difference—they looked so well. Stuart has a line that, on average, the Andrew family of mum and dad and four offspring were moderate drinkers but, because the other five were teetotallers, he had to make up the rest—and he did raise the average to moderate. Certainly we enjoyed a bit of cordial that night.
Somehow I finished the speech the next morning and on Remembrance Day, 11 November 1998, I gave my first speech in parliament. Parliament paused at 11 am. Then came Vietnam vet, Graham Edwards who would be known to many in this chamber, and I followed him. I remember in that speech that I quoted the few books and philosophies such as J. S. Mill, Hayek and Milton Friedman. To those I would now add another book lent to me by my good friend Kep McGovern, who is here today. That book is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, which shows the folly of government subsidies instead of rewarding excellence and letting excellence get on with what it does well. It was written a long time ago but it has many parallels for today.
In that maiden speech I also extolled the beauty of the electorate of Barker and its many great qualities. Like my neighbour John Forrest in Mallee, we have similar challenges but between us we represent about two-thirds of the Australian wine industry. Of course I have the best. I have the Coonawarra, Barossa, Mount Benson, Edenvale, Padtheway and Wrattonbully and so on. And so I tried to use that to my advantage as often as I could. As a member for nine years in government, I attracted 63 ministerial visits, or on average seven a year, and people wondered why a safe seat like mine was able to achieve that. Usually all I had to do was mention those wine areas and where would we would be having the functions, and that seemed to help.
Before I came to parliament, I had 11 years in local government and I always thought it important to keep in touch with my 14 local councils. I would certainly recommend that to all members, as the civic leaders are a valuable resource who know what is going on locally.
In my maiden speech I also mentioned that Barker was named after Captain Collet Barker who was sent by Charles Sturt to solve the mystery of where the mouth of the Murray River was. I noted that upon discovering the mouth in 1831, he climbed a sandy hill only to be speared by the local Indigenous people. I said it was a fate that I did not wish to replicate. However, I have been speared, metaphorically, by the local Indigenous Liberal Party members, as was a former member for Barker, James Porter, both after serving 15 years. However, that is their right, and I have moved on and am looking forward to life after politics.
The question I have been asked the most is: what got you into politics? I am sure most of those around here have been asked that question as well. My usual response is: insanity. However, that is not the real reason. I was brought up to serve the community and I am proud that I served my communities. Being the youngest of eight children sitting around the kitchen table, I soon learnt to take an interest in what was happening around the world and soon learnt to be competitive in the debates and arguments I put forward. It stood me in good stead for this place.
I think everyone owes everything to their upbringing. I am very thankful for my parents teaching me what was right and wrong, and I try to keep to those rights and wrongs. I could not bring myself to do anything that would shame my family. Dad was also our local mayor and councillor and was a great role model for all of us, as was my mother. My mother was able to come to my first day in parliament and was with us until three weeks ago, going at the ripe old age of 95. She was a lady of wit, wisdom and warmth.
Three of my siblings are here with me today, including Helen, who I mentioned in my maiden speech 15 years ago. I got told off by my other siblings for not mentioning them! Peggy is here. She is the family organiser and a dear friend and supporter. Also here is Gerard, who I played countless test cricket and AFL football games against in the backyard and down the passage with a rolled up sock. I will never forget those games. My brother Terry is a farmer on the west coast. My sister Caroline is a teacher and volunteer teacher in African countries. Andrew, another brother, was a high-ranking public servant. So we have a pretty diverse family, but all have achieved a lot in their own lives one way or another.
I am also blessed with many friends who have travelled from South Australia and Victoria to share this special moment with me: Kim Kearne, my best friend for about 55 years—and I am only 57!—so a better friend, I could not have; Jim Koerner, who I shared a Rotary group study exchange trip to Texas with in 1986 for seven weeks—Carol, his wife, is here as well. That was a wonderful experience that only Rotary could deliver. My two stepdaughters, Carmen and Megan, are here. Many of you will remember Megan as a valued staffer. It is her birthday today. Happy birthday, Megan! My four great friends in Murray Bridge—Rob and Karen Milesi and Don and Cathy Ruggerio—have travelled here as well. I thank them for their support over a number of years and the good times we have had, with more to come, I am sure.
Being a member of parliament has its ups and downs, but there are many things that make it worth while. My advice to other MPs is that you can often achieve things that you never thought possible. I will give an example of where you can use your authority to make things happen. A constituent of mine was worried about their young child who was awaiting a serious life-saving operation which had been deferred twice because of some important craniofacial operations for overseas children. So I spoke to the CEO of the Melbourne Hospital 800 kilometres away, who I did not know from a bar of soap, and faxed a letter congratulating them on their great craniofacial work but explaining the situation and suggesting it would be a good idea to look after my constituent as a matter of urgency. Some time later, the grandfather told me that the CEO came down to the family waving my fax saying they had changed their mind and that, because of my fax, they would do the operation the next morning. That child is now a healthy young person, living life to the full.
Like all members, I have helped countless constituents with phone connections, tax office solutions, Centrelink stuff-ups and numerous other bureaucratic problems. Bureaucrats try their best and the problem usually lies in the strict guidelines that they are told to follow, which are usually pretty inflexible. I often ask a question, followed by a letter, along the lines of: 'Do the guidelines say that you can't take this action?' If they say 'no', then I suggest they do it. More often than not, we have some success.
I have enjoyed and learnt from my work on several standing committees of parliament, and I would recommend this to all of my colleagues. In my 15 years, I have worked with 48 members of this present parliament—one in three—on committees of all persuasions, and with other MPs who are no longer here. It is a great way to get to know MPs from all sides. I have made many friends along the way. It is always very difficult when you mention a few of them, because some will be omitted.
Two Tasmanian cousins, as I like to call them, Dick Adams and Sid Sidebottom, have been very good comrades from my first day in parliament, due to that committee work. I know I should not single them out, because, by omission, I am leaving so many friends on the other side out. Can I mention people like Gibbo over there, Harry Jenkins, Martin Ferguson and Joel Fitzgibbon—gee, we have had some fun together. Also I mention Chris Hayes, Rob Mitchell, Ed Husic, Anthony Byrne, Rob McClelland and, more recently, Gai Brodtmann. The other side is not evil and you must not forget it. We are all here to do a job and try to do it as best we can. I liken parliament to playing sport: you play hard when the game is on, but after the game you sit down and enjoy their company.
I also have many close friends on my side. Again, omission may be a problem. Can I point out people from my own state like Andrew Southcott and Rowan Ramsey—people I would trust my life with. I also point out Peter Dutton, Bronnie, Sophie, Don Randall, Tash and Alby, members of the Tuesday lunch club at Timmy's, and many others who have joined us. Who could forget those Western Australian colleagues who came to parliament with me: Mal Washer and Barry Haase. I apologise for any omissions, but I have always tried to be friendly to all members and all staff. I have never found a reason not to be.
Another aspect of parliamentary life is enhanced by the Parliamentary Sports Group. I pay tribute to Andy Turnbull for bringing this together. I have played a fair bit of cricket and Andy Turnbull once described my spin bowling as 'wizardry' because no two balls were the same—mainly because I could not achieve that! I have played golf, where I have found it very easy to score a century; tennis; and snooker, only to be beaten Cobby in a final—damn you, Cobby! Which brings me to Ronno again: this is a warning to never let Ronno umpire. Trigger-finger Ronno once gave me out LBW when it would have missed leg stump by a good foot, and I have never let him forget it.
My staff—Alex, Deb, Karen and Sandra—are here and I thank you for all your great work, over many years, to serve the constituents of Barker. Members can only be as good as their staff, and they continually give me reason to smile for the work that they do.
Last of all, can I thank my darling wife Sharon—my rock, my love and my support for 11 years, one month and 21 days. I proposed to Sharon two weeks after our first date and that was the best decision I ever made. Her worst decision was probably to say yes! This job is a hard one and we all know our loved ones are essential in keeping a level head, keeping us grounded and sharing our confidences. For that, I thank you, darling. I refer to Sharon as my bride, with total affection. We all know that our loved ones take the criticisms of us harder than we do, as we tend to develop a thick hide. I have often said I did not care what people said about me before I came into the parliament, so why would I care after? But I did have a safe seat, so it did not matter that much really.
Can I finally thank all those I have come across in the last 15 years. Thanks for the memories and friendships. I look forward to life after politics. Vale, my friends.
The SPEAKER: I congratulate the member for Barker and thank him for his support on the Selection Committee. It has been an interesting experience. The member for Hunter is seeking indulgence for a couple of seconds.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (18:00): Thank you, Speaker. I thought it might suit the House for me to just respond very briefly to the generous words of the member for Barker, because obviously there is going to be a period of time while he is being congratulated, and I did not want the member for Hume's contribution interrupted by the goodwill being extended to the member for Barker. But as the former Chief Government Whip and, I am sure, on behalf of the current whips—I am sure they will not mind me doing so—and, even more importantly, on a personal note, I congratulate the member for Barker on his magnificent contribution this afternoon. I too have enjoyed his friendship and the odd glass of red wine—although I have never managed to get him to admit that the Hunter wine is superior to the wine of his own region. But I will keep working on it beyond his stay in this place.
I thank him for his contribution to the international whips network. In doing so, I should acknowledge that the member for Fairfax and the former member for Chifley were the original initiators of the whips network, but I took it to a broader international sphere by seeking to have it embraced under the umbrella of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Again, my very best wishes go to the member for Barker. I think the whips make a wonderful contribution to this place. It is hard work, of course, but they play an important role. The member for Barker has certainly done a magnificent job as a whip in this place. I look forward very much to hearing from the member for Hume.
BILLS
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013
Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013
Australia Council Bill 2013
Australia Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
The SPEAKER (18:02): I call the member for Hume, on indulgence, and congratulate him on making the effort to be here.
Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (18:02): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This valedictory speech that I am going to read to you tonight is the second valedictory speech I have written over the past six or eight weeks. I wrote one, and my wife read it and she said to me, 'You're not seriously going to bring that into the chamber, are you?' She said, 'You really do have to write something a little bit softer than that, love.' So I have succumbed to that wise counsel from my wife, as I have done for many of the 51 years that we have been married, and I have written something a little bit different to what I would normally put pen to.
I am very pleased to see my family, my staff and my friends in the gallery in front of me, because they were originally up here, and they should know me well enough to know that I do not really like turning to the left to the extent that I would have had to tonight! I rise tonight in this House to bid my final farewell to colleagues, staff and friends. To say the past 15 years in this place has been a magnificent experience is an understatement, and I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the constituents of Hume, who at five elections have placed their trust in me to represent them and their concerns in the Australian parliament. I will be forever grateful to them for their trust, support and, I must say, at times justifiable tolerance.
I would not be here, of course, without the wisdom and encouragement of the Hon. Wal Fife, a former distinguished rural Liberal member of his place, and his delightful wife, Marcia, who at the suggestion of my wonderful wife, Glo, were instrumental in convincing me to enter politics 25 years ago.
I entered politics as a candidate for the Liberal Party in the state seat of Burrinjuck, which was held by father and son Terry and Billy Sheahan for 47 years—two wonderful individuals, two very good local members. I contested that seat in 1988 in a three-cornered contest with the National Party. I have to say to you that Terry Sheahan knew my family background. He knew that my grandfather was a great friend of Prime Minister Chifley. He came to me and said, 'Alby, you are a conservative? Why are you running as a Liberal candidate?' I said, 'Terry, with due respect, I am also a worker, and I wanted to work and I kept getting sent home on strikes, so that turned me off Labor politics forever.'
We went into that campaign with that man saying to me, 'How do you want it play it, Alby? Do you want to play it straight down the line or do you want to play it rough and tumble?' I said, 'I will play it any way you want to play it, Terry.' He said, 'Why don't we play it straight down the line?' To his credit and to the credit of the calibre of the man, that is exactly what he did, and I acknowledged that in my first speech in the New South Wales parliament. He and I remain friends to this day. I think that is an indication of what Patrick was just talking about in relation to the misconception out in the community that, whilst the circus goes on here during the day, we are mortal enemies outside of this chamber. We are not, and I have some very good friends on the other side of the chamber.
The friendship is unique in many instances. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which my friend Dick Adams was also a member of. It was chaired by the former member for Forde, Kay Elson, then a member of this place—a wonderful woman—who I think just left with Jo Gash's group. She decided to retire from politics, I think, leading up to the 2004 election. After the election, in the new, incoming government, the committee was left without a chair. Wilson Tuckey and I were sitting in Wilson Tuckey's room up on the second floor and a bloke came in and said, 'Wilson and Alby, good to see you here—you are both members of the agriculture, fisheries and forestry committee, aren't you?' and we said, 'Yes, we are.' He said, 'It's not official yet, but I have been appointed the new chair,' and I said, 'Oh, have you?' He said, 'I've got a problem,' and I said, 'What's the problem?' He said, 'I don't know anything about bloody agriculture.' I looked at Wilson and Wilson looked at me, and he said, 'I'll need your assistance.' I just looked at him and said, 'I'm sorry, mate, I can't give somebody that does not know anything about agriculture assistance to be the chair of a very important standing committee like that.' He moved out of the office in a huff.
Wilson said, 'You've got to do something about this,' so I rang my old mate Martin Ferguson and I said: 'Listen, Martin, I need some assistance here. I need your support to get the numbers for a vote.' What normally happens in those committees, as you know, is that there is no vote; the Prime Minister of the day appoints the chair and the secretariat that looks after the committee comes in and says, 'We've got a letter from the minister and Joe Blow is the chair.'
An honourable member: It's not how it works over here, Alby!
Mr SCHULTZ: But in this case that actually happened. I said, 'Well, you've got another nomination,' and the secretary said, 'Who?' and I said, 'Me.' To cut a long story short, it went to a vote, as it should do in a ballot. I won by one vote with the assistance of the Independent sitting there, my old mate Tony Windsor, and the Labor members of the committee. It created history in this place. If nothing else, I have left a little bit of history that may not ever occur again. It was the first time in the history of the House of Representatives that a member of a standing committee has actually been elected by the standing committee itself. What was disappointing about the outcome of that was that I was treated with silence by this side of the House for about six months. I was told that I had fraternised with the enemy. That is the nonsense that goes on from time to time about the relationships we have with each other in the chamber.
The issue of my entering politics 25 years ago was also the beginning of what has commonly been referred to within the communities that I have represented over the years as 'The Team', which Glo and I committed to in my first slogan: 'You get two for the price of one.' Little did I know that she was a bigger drawcard for my ongoing success at the ballot box than I was. That commitment was to all constituents, regardless of political persuasion, who were in genuine need of assistance from their local member. This approach was enthusiastically embraced by the rank-and-file members of the Liberal Party branches, who not only gave us encouragement but also took the opportunity to express their concerns on matters of personal interest to them, give me valuable advice and stand firm on important issues when I was being difficult. The enormous commitment and courage and the great degree of voluntary work given by members and supporters at polling booths on both sides of the parliament on bitterly cold or wet or hot days over the years is a mammoth personal effort, and I compliment and thank them for that.
It has been a pleasure also to work with those fantastic women Merrell Davies, Ann Lawson and the wonderful Trefoil Guild ladies here in Canberra, who have worked tirelessly over a 10-year period, and as recently as last Christmas with my wife, to purchase, pack and have delivered tonnes of items including clothing, food, cosmetics, school books and toys for many families in the electorate of Hume who were and still are affected by the aftermath of drought. It was a huge emotional and caring commitment over a decade of farmer hardship, continually replicated year in and year out by volunteers and other caring Aussies everywhere.
This same unselfish concern of Australians for their fellow Aussies, regardless of their ethnic or social background surfaced again during the recent floods and bushfires across our nation, when volunteers and emergency services personnel confronted nature's destructive elements in what can only be described as high-risk life-threatening circumstances. It does not stop there. I have watched with a great sense of anguish and sadness the heart-breaking sight of farmers, emotionally drained, when they have to put down badly burnt animals, bury them and take into their homes the smell of the charred countryside and what they have had to do to their suffering animals. They are the epitome of the true Australian rural spirit, which is replicated year in and year out across our sometimes harsh, unforgiving landscape. It is something which sadly is forgotten too quickly by people in this place.
Not surprisingly, that is the one constant I have been confronted with in many ways in this and another place in the past 25 years. Marginal seat politics, party-political point scoring, failure to act on serious social issues and irresponsible waste of taxpayers' resources are both frustrating and morally wrong. As an example, in 2005 I produced a booklet based on three years of hard research about the Child Support Agency and its relentless, unjustifiable anti-male culture, which culminated in the suicide of a number of my young constituents. Confronting the very serious issue of male suicide caused by the gender biased CSA was treated as a politically sensitive no-go area by many politicians, which I embraced as a challenge on behalf of 4,000 families and individuals across the country.
That culture, despite some cosmetic changes, is still endemic in the CSA today. The increase in male suicides are due in no small part to the unrelenting anti-male culture of the CSA. The Lone Fathers Association, led by Barry Williams—the man is a saint—is taking 70,000 calls per annum from depressed males, many of whom are desperately trying to deal with CSA pressure. Were it not for him, the suicide rate would be even higher.
The incoming government would be doing a great service to oppressed payers facing criminal activity, such as entrapment and denial of natural justice—which is the modus operandi of the CSA today—and to the nation as a whole, if it introduced a parliamentary inquiry which would allow people to give evidence of the covering up of male suicides caused by the Child Support Agency. More importantly, it will give those living under threat of legal action by the CSA—if they release any part of taped conversations which prove intimidation, false information, abuse of civil rights and denial of natural justice—an opportunity to expose these issues under parliamentary protection.
I must also take this opportunity to, surprisingly, raise the issue of the fraudulent distribution of renewable energy certificates—commonly referred to as RECs—to a non-compliant Victorian wind farm in breach of Commonwealth legislation, which I have referred to the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Since then, I have obtained further evidence of two more interstate wind farms also receiving benefits of Commonwealth funds in a similar way. I might add that, since the implementation of the renewable energy target in April 2001, over 195 million renewable energy certificates, at a value of approximately $8.7 billion, have been created by the Clean Energy Regulator. Wind turbines have cost the electricity consumer approximately $2.25 billion from 1 January 2011 to 30 March 2013. That is $1 billion per year—think about what that could be used for in our communities.
What is also disturbing about this release of billions of taxpayers' money by the Clean Energy Regulator, is that some of it is going to noncompliant wind farms, and the bizarre advice from the shadow energy minister is that the CER—the Clean Energy Regulator—is not in breach of Commonwealth legislation by doing so. We apparently have no accountability measures in place to stop this dreadful rort. Where are the professional investigative journalists on this issue? It really is time to clean this expensive clean energy rort and con job up. All it requires is courage at arms length from wind turbine political influence.
Whilst these two issues are important to me—and to the nation at large—and had to be aired, I must return back to the real world of my valedictory and recognise the people who have continued to give me their loyal support, despite some of them moving on to pursue their own careers. One of the tests of community respect is the ability of staff to convey and deliver professional service to constituents on a variety of issues, and to do it in a way which people spontaneously react positively to. I must say that I have been blessed with caring, loyal, efficient and delightful staff, some of whom have gone on the enter politics themselves. Josh Manuatu—who is in the gallery tonight—who originally came into my Goulburn office on work experience, now works in a senior staff position with Senator Eric Abetz.
Daniel Try, whose talent and general knowledge assisted him in winning a considerable amount of money on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire—which he did not hesitate in sharing with his mum—works for the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop.
I have great pride in Jason Costigan who also worked in my Goulburn office. This talented television and radio sports commentator is now the member for Whitsundays in the Queensland government and a good friend to Glo and I. We wish him every success in the future.
Jai Rowell, the current member for Wollondilly in the New South Wales government, worked for me for some time and was a great team leader for new staff. I have no doubt that with his skill and political ability he will be the member for a long time.
My longest serving staff member is Debbie Schultz who has been there advising, creating the Hume Bulletin, guiding staff, having babies and attempting to keep me in line for the entire period of my federal service.
A huge thankyou to you, Deb, and also to staffers Trish, Richard, Frances and Maree, who are here with me tonight. I regret retiring as my staff now face an uncertain future, but I am confident their considerable people and professional skills will be recognised by future employers. They of course can be assured of my personal support for them.
To the many staff in parliament, may I express my thanks and appreciation for the service you all provide to members in this place. I take this opportunity to especially mention Tim Stephens in the Members and Guests Dining Room. Tim, as we all know, is exceptionally obliging and ready to assist in any way he can. Many thanks to you and your staff, Tim.
Security has an important and demanding role in this place, but always have time for a cheery word and a chuckle. Bernard Wright, Clerk of the House of Representatives, carries out his role with great grace and dignity, as do his most capable staff including all of the fantastic chamber attendants.
To my chamber mate Josh Frydenberg, the member for Kooyong, I thank you for your company, laughs and, dare I say it, wise counsel and infectious friendship. I trust your considerable high intellect and the talents of other equally capable Liberal backbenchers will be recognised in the not too distant future.
God knows the Australian public are looking for a fresh, enthusiastic and different approach, which is needed to fix the current considerable woes of this great country of ours and a new era of business and community savvy ministers who can demonstrate they are indeed capable of delivering with ability, not so-called 'political experience'. We certainly do not need another round of self-opinionated egomaniacs who started the destruction of our border security and current Commonwealth net debt of some $340 billion.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, from the bottom of my heart for the generous time you gave to my grandchildren—I know the truth hurts!—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr SCHULTZ: when they visited and for cooperation when we were on the Speakers panel together. You and I are in the same boat as far as that bloke is concerned. Glo and I both thank you for the beautiful arrangement of flowers which greeted us in our home after returning from more medical tests in Sydney. They are magnificent, and I thank you once again.
Leaving aside the cumbersome poor excuse for minders of the public purse, I have had the good fortune to meet some very interesting and wonderful Australians who have, for different reasons, become very close family friends. This is going to surprise a few people here because my background is a poor working-class background.
Over 20 years ago, two women thousands of kilometres apart met one day because they were each committed to assisting women in remote areas to have access to mobile mammography breast screening units and breast cancer research. This occurred before it became a popular political issue, which politicians have milked for all it is worth. What motivated them was the death of a mother and the deaths of isolated rural women from this insidious disease. That meeting has grown into a close bond of genuine friendship built around kindness, trust and care for fellow female Australians.
One of those two women was Gina Rinehart, a wonderful and successful Australian much maligned by the chattering class, bigoted class-warfare politicians and the bottom end of left-wing journalists ensconced in and beyond the Canberra commentariat. The second woman was Glo, my beautiful wife, who has never said a bad word or done anything to hurt anybody in her life. I have had the pleasure of observing this bond between these women grow into something rare and special with a great deal of pride and satisfaction.
I take this opportunity to thank Gina for the generous care, concern, love and considerable trouble she went to in visiting me in hospital, for making our 50th wedding anniversary something special and for her personal support for Glo following Glo's difficult surgery. Your critics have much to learn from you, Gina, in relation to your love for your country and your proven track record of kindness, generosity and loyalty to many, including your inner circle of special friends such as our family. Ginia, your daughter, we have watched grow into a beautiful, capable woman in every respect. She is indeed her mother's daughter, and she will be of great support to you and an integral part of your business in the future.
I also want to place on record my family's eternal gratitude to Dr Alan 'Ace' Edwards and his lovely wife, Dr Stephanie Edwards, who have used their professional skills and considerable medical knowledge to ensure that I and Glo have received first-class medical procedures and care. They took us into their home, cared for us, embraced our family, made sure we returned home safely and extended that wonderful true Aussie friendship I so often talk about, which is so unique and sometimes taken for granted.
Friendships I enjoy with many people, who are too numerous to mention but to whom I owe enormous gratitude. Thank you in particular to Kathy and Sam McGuiness—Sam is here tonight—and Mike Inkster and Charlie Arnott. It may be of some interest to know that I have good friends on the opposite side of the chamber, as I mentioned before. I take this opportunity to recognise one in particular, the Hon. Simon Crean, who was the first person to contact me when I lost my eye—and I can assure you that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it was my left eye and not my right eye! He was again on the phone giving me support and encouragement for this latest difficult challenge, and I thank him most sincerely for his genuine concern.
I also place on record my personal thanks to all of my party colleagues, including the Hon. Tony Abbott, who, with his shadow ministers, has assisted me over the years, sometimes despite my strong views on my party's failure to recognise that I represent an extremely strong block of rural based Liberals—'the lost rural legion'—who play a huge role in agriculture across rural Australia. Thank you to all of the shadows who have visited the Hume electorate to assist and support in many ways my good friend and his wonderful, hardworking wife, Louise. I refer, of course, to that wonderful, once-in-a-lifetime candidate Angus Taylor, who is here with his wife and children tonight. Rest assured he will make his mark on Australian politics.
It goes without saying that I could not have endured the difficult and sometimes challenging periods of my life in politics without the love and support of the love of my life, Glo, who for 51 years has tried to keep me in line, and my two sons, Grant and Dean, who are more like brothers to me and who have been deprived of that close, blokey association which naturally occurs between father and sons, as a result of my commitment to my politics. They, however, have blessed me with two beautiful daughter-in-laws, Dev and Bec, and five beautiful grandchildren—Ethan, Seth, Aliza, Darcie and Maggie—all of whom I love very much, are precious to me and are here today.
I acknowledge and give my heartfelt thanks, love and appreciation to my loyal, enthusiastic and supportive in-laws, Dorothy and Bruce Whitehead, who have driven from Northcote in Victoria to man polling booths for me at every state and federal election since 1988. They are here today as part of my family to listen to my unusually timid exit speech. I once again thank them for just being there during the good and bad times. It means so much to Glo and myself and my precious family.
I apologise to the House for the delay in actually being here, but I have been confronting another personal challenge which has prevented me from attending. I would like to express my gratitude to the Chief Opposition Whip, the Hon. Warren Entsch, the Leader of the House, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, and the Hon. Christopher Pyne, Manager of Opposition Business in the House, for their indulgence and patience in working within my medical schedule so I could do this valedictory here today. It means so much to me and I am overwhelmed by their cooperative effort to make it happen and I thank them.
I stand here in this House content in the knowledge I have given my all as a privileged individual who is here because of the generosity of my fellow Australians. Obviously I have not been without fault, as many of my colleagues can attest to, and I most assuredly have made mistakes from time to time. I regret one particular incident where I shirt-fronted an individual from metropolitan Melbourne because he made a disparaging remark about rural people.
I am, however, proud and honoured to be the longest-serving member for the historical federal seat of Hume since Federation, thanks to my fellow rural based Australians. I make a prediction: the person who will follow me will certainly break that record and will certainly bring into the Hume electorate a wealth of knowledge of rural Australia and the mountain country that fringes the electorate of Hume. Why will he do that? Because he comes from a long line of cattle and sheep people. His grandfather on his mother's side was Sir William Hudson, who built the Snowy Mountains scheme. This bloke is from good stock, ladies and gentlemen, and I can tell you that he is going to be something special in this place. I look forward to it because, if you think this challenge is going to beat me, you have another think coming. I thank the House.
The SPEAKER: To the faultless member for Hume, congratulations on a magnificent valedictory. To Gloria, thank you for moderating what could have been a more fascinating speech, I am sure. We all want to wish Alby the best with what is to follow after this valedictory and we all have him in our hearts at this time.
COMMITTEES
Treaties Committee
Report
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:34): Can I start by endorsing the comments you have made, Speaker. On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report entitled Report 134: treaties tabled on 12 March and 14 May 2013.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Mr MARLES: by leave—Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 134, which contains the committees views on a series of air services agreements which were tabled on 12 March and 14 May 2013.
Air service agreements provide for the operation of commercial scheduled air services between the countries party to the agreement.
This report covers air services agreements between the Australian government and the governments of the Solomon Islands, the Philippines, Belgium and Indonesia.
The committee has considered and supports the set of agreements and recommends that binding treaty action be taken for each of the four treaties covered in Report 134. In order to facilitate the timely implementation of the agreement, the committee resolved to report its recommendations to the parliament immediately.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to House.
BILLS
Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (18:35): I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. In so doing I would like to particularly draw attention to three aspects of this bill. Firstly, I would like to raise in this House what it is that the bill intends to do and the associated consequences. Secondly, I will talk about why I believe this bill is being introduced, which I think is to appease the unions, and why it is that the government should govern for all Australians and not just a select few in the union movement. Finally, I will talk about why it is so important that we have affordable and accessible child care, not only as a social imperative but an economic imperative as well.
This legislation seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to around 30 to 40 per cent of the long day care workforce over two years. However, in order to qualify centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff meeting eligibility criteria. Given the limited pool of funds, it will be on a first in, best dressed basis, and after the two years workers will revert to their previous wage.
I want to make it abundantly clear the coalition understands the need to recognise the importance of those who work in the childcare sector. However, the answer to looking at wages of those in the childcare sector is not to introduce bad legislation that will only make the situation worse, especially in the long run. We, on this side of the House, have very serious concerns about this bill. Our concerns stem from a number of reasons. First of all, the government already has a mechanism for determining wage increases. It is called the Fair Work Commission. This legislation brought before the House this evening seeks to circumvent this process and gives the government the power to appoint whatever they believe is the appropriate wage claim. I ask: what is the point of having an industrial relations policy and the Fair Work Commission only to ignore the process and for the government to take matters into their own hands?
This process of the government simply making a determination lacks transparency and in truth demonstrates that there was no process at all. We also have serious concerns about the requirements that must be met in order to gain access to this special fund. Centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff and meet eligibility criteria. Clearly this is an overt attempt to increase union membership and has nothing whatsoever to do with their wages or the sustainability or the viability of the industry. As a result of these tactics, we have heard some very concerning comments. There have been reports that centre management are being told that 60 per cent of their workforce must join the union in order for them to receive the pay rise. The Australian Childcare Alliance submission to the House of Representatives standing committee includes a statutory declaration to this effect. This is quite wrong.
There are also reports that some workers are being told that if they do not sign up to the union, then their colleagues will not receive a pay rise. These are bullying tactics at their best. Upon signing up to the union, at more than $500 a year in membership fees, they are then being falsely led to believe that this will guarantee them a pay rise, which is simply not the case. We have seen, through these tactics, a change in union membership in this industry from what was only 10 per cent of the industry to now more than 25 per cent as a direct result of this bill. This has clearly been the motive of the United Voice union, previously the LHMU.
We are also concerned that only childcare educators in long day care centres will be eligible for this pay increase. This is despite the fact we know their roles are very similar to those at family day care, occasional care and budget based care and all of these are excluded from the fund that this government seeks to legislate. Unlike the Labor Party, we on this side of the chamber recognise that there are inherent dangers involved in picking specific winners, especially within a single industry, and the very severe and distorting effects that this has on the remaining players in the market.
Let me go to why the bill is being introduced. Make no mistake that this, along with other pieces of legislation that have passed already in this place—including those that relate to the clothing, textile and footwear industry; the trucking legislation; the reregulation of ports; the legislation that is still before this place for the contrived rorting of the 457 visa systems and the dismantling of the ABCC—are union driven pieces of legislation designed to increase their power and their influence in the Australian workplace and in Australian society. We know that the government are beholden to their union masters. It was this week three years ago that the faceless men of the union movement took down one Prime Minister and installed another. I think they can be quite satisfied in their decision, given the legislation that I have just alluded to.
It was the United Voice Union that orchestrated the Big Steps campaign. It was through this campaign that the union warned that they will not stop until every educator receives a change in their pay arrangements, irrespective of the $300 million fund already proposed and without any consideration as to the price increases and what effect this will have on the affordability or long-term sustainability of the industry. But I suppose we can expect that because this has often been the attitude taken that, no matter what the impact, it is simply all about the union, even if that means that for the workers affected there may be no job in the future. United Voice have run a very false and misleading campaign. In one of their propaganda pieces of material they have stated under the heading, 'How does my centre qualify' to:
1. Join United Voice;
2. United Voice a negotiates new EBA;
3. Owner/Operator signs agreement with government;
4. Get raise.
This misinformation is continued despite the department writing to the secretary of United Voice back on 11 April to indicate that union membership is not a prerequisite. Despite all of these demands, the union has never made a wage claim to the Fair Work Commission, the appropriate body to handle these cases. Instead they have gone direct to government to ask for the funds without any rationale or justification. That is simply an indication of how this Labor government operates. It operates to help its union mates who, in turn, help fund their campaign and help work on their campaign. Is it any wonder when we consider that this union has donated more than $7 million to the Labor Party over successive elections—quite a significant amount, I think most people would agree. This is yet another example of how the unions think that they are above the law and normal due process and think they can circumvent these due processes and operate in their own environment.
I come to my final point, why it is so important to have affordable and accessible child care. In the time remaining to me I want to talk about why it is that child care in all its forms needs to be flexible, accessible and affordable to cater to the needs of those that require its service. In Australia it is clear that we have a participation issue. Only 76 per cent of women aged 25 to 54 are in paid work compared with over 80 per cent in other developed economies such as Canada and Germany. One of the most effective ways that we can lift the participation rate is to encourage women back into the workforce after childbirth if that is indeed what they want. Clearly the coalition's paid parental leave scheme is just one mechanism to assist with this. Another way is to ensure that individual families can access child care that caters to their needs.
In this modern economy, where women can work in many and varied environments, one size does not fit all and we know that affordability is one of the key aspects to whether or not the women and families in this country can access child care. That is why I am concerned about the changes the government has made to the childcare system, including the National Quality Framework and universal access. These regulatory changes, while potentially good in intent, have not been thought through, like so much of the government's actions. At the time we were promised by the minister that the changes would only result in an increase in costs of around 57c per week, yet the reality is that costs have gone up by more than $100 per week. I recently met with a number of childcare providers and local councils to talk to them about the impact of these additional regulations on the services that they themselves provide and the impact of maintaining current levels of staffing. They have told me that it has a very direct impact as to the cost of services and one council told me that the impact of upgrading a number of their capital structures in order to comply with the new regulations was more than $1.5 million. Who will ultimately pay for that? I think the answer is clear: it will be the parents who choose to send their child to that childcare centre.
In conclusion, we on this side of the House have serious concerns about this legislation. That is why we oppose it. We also have grave concerns about the direction of this government as a whole and the direction they have taken when it comes to child care. We, should we have the privilege of forming government after 14 September, have been upfront with the Australian people that we will work hard to make sure that we meet their childcare needs and have said that we will have a Productivity Commission inquiry into how we can make the childcare sector more affordable and more accessible to all who require the services. Unlike this government, when we look at an issue we do not simply ask the question, how can we help our union mates? We ask how can we help all Australians? How can we be a responsible government, a government that governs for all and will restore hope, reward and opportunity?
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (18:50): I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. I find the comments by the minister in his introductory speech balanced against the actual effect of this bill to be an absolute farce and at odds with each other. This is a bill that seeks to provide $300 million over two years: $135 million in the first year and $165 million in the second year. It is about lifting wages for the workers in the childcare industry, but $300 million will not provide that increase for all workers in the childcare industry. I would have thought the one thing coming from a Labor Party driven by the unions, owned by the unions, would have been an equality for all workers—the same people doing the same job in the same environment getting paid the same amount of money. Isn't that what the union movement is supposed to be all about? But here we have a minister who is introducing a special fund for the benefit of a select few.
This was brought to my attention by one of my electorate's childcare directors, and I will not name her for a few reasons. She had real concerns. She came to see me with some of her workers. One of their concerns was that they were told by the union movement that to access this fund the workers in that centre needed to join the union movement. In fact, they needed seven workers to join the union before they could be eligible for this program. And that is a lie in itself because you do not need to be a member of the union to apply for this grant. However, they needed to sign up to the enterprise bargaining agreement to access this fund.
It is abundantly clear that this funding will provide a wage increase for only 30 to 40 per cent of the workers in long day care and only over two years. So here is the predicament that my long day childcare centre owner has. She has put it to her workers and they have decided: 'We might as well, so, yes, we have to join the union and we'll pay $500 a year each for the pleasure of joining the union. We'll enter into this enterprise bargaining agreement, we'll put our name down for this fund and if we get the funds for two years, what happens at the end of the two years?' Guess what? The fund goes, but how easy will it be to reduce the wages by that amount? That ain't going to happen, so parents are going to get slugged for an increase in childcare costs. And there is no guarantee on the funding coming through to that centre, so if the workers enter into the enterprise bargaining agreement and do not get the funding the costs of child care will have to go up from 1 July. How smart is that?
People in the industry, who actually understand the childcare industry and who interact with parents on a daily basis, want stability and affordable child care. And one thing that really disappoints and annoys those people is that this program seeks to drive division in the industry—division because some workers will get compensatoryfunding, others will not; division because this only applies to those workers in long day care, not those in preschools or in other forms of childcare provision.
One thing that the coalition did, and did well, was bring all of the workers involved in the childcare industry together. This bill is a farce. Do I think that childcare workers are worth more money? Absolutely. I am married to a person employed in the childcare industry and I see what they go through on a daily basis. I see the care and love that they provide to children who are not their own but who are put into their care. They are fantastic people and they work incredibly hard. I think this legislation is dangling a carrot at the end of a stick, which will only to be snatched away from them after two years—after they have made that commitment to pay $500 a year in union membership; after their employers have been locked into an EBA—and it will drive up the costs of child care.
Some queries came in from centre operators, particularly not-for-profit centre operators, in my electorate. One read:
The government has pledged funding for some educators for two years. Conditions apply such as signed workplace agreements. We're a small community centre in a very needy area.
Another one said:
Pay increases for some childcare workers and educators have already been contracted. The New South Wales branch of the union, Big Step, said only educators that signed the contracts would be getting the increases. This makes us worried. We're a small centre in—
a certain area—
Not many of us out here look after the real interests of the children. Thank you for reading my email.
The final one that came through read:
The Federal government funding pledge for some childcare workers have told and have read we need to sign contracts, work agreements for funding for two years only. Can you please spare the time to help our little community centre with only 39 children—cannot come up with this funding like the commercially owned. Thank you. I don't know what to do.
I met with them in my office. Their paramount concern was for the future of their workers and the care being provided to the children under their arrangements. If you have a condition where one centre is paying more, you are going to see a drain from one centre to another. What will happen at the end of the two years? Deputy Speaker, I am sure in your position and in my position as local members, if we got a pay increase for two years—if we signed up to an agreement and we entered into that as part of our workplace agreement—and then after two years that funding was pulled, are we going to happily sit back and say: 'That's great. It was great that it was there for two years and now, all of a sudden, we're expected to take a pay cut?' We know that will not happen. The cost of child care under this government will go up. That is an undisputed fact. For some parents it will go up immediately; for others, where it is being subsidised, the cost will go up in two years.
There is no doubt that childcare workers are some of the lowest paid people in this country and they deserve more. I found the second paragraph of the introductory speech by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, on 30 May, when this bill was introduced, rather offensive. He said:
Core to our values is giving every child an opportunity to succeed …
That is somewhat hypocritical because, if you are providing different funding for different child care, it means you will get different outcomes. So that is not giving every child an equal opportunity. Further, he said:
At the heart of this bill is this government's commitment to quality early childhood education, a commitment to early childhood education that is accessible and affordable and a commitment to having a highly qualified early childhood workforce.
That sounds wonderful, an absolute dream and something that should be achieved. But how do you achieve that if you are only providing a limited amount of money to cover a small percentage of the workforce for only two years? It cannot be done. So it is built on a false premise.
Finally, in the same speech, under the title 'Affordability and Accessibility', he said,
This government has been working hard to ensure that quality early childhood education and care remains affordable and accessible for all Australian families.
He kept repeating himself. This legislation is not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. Further, in his speech, when he got into the targeted area of this Early Years Quality Fund, he said:
The fund, which will operate for two years, will enable grants to be paid services to supplement wage increases of all educators and staff assisting in the provision of quality early childhood education and care.
He used the word 'all' there. The fund does not cover all providers. So I am very disappointed but, in particular, people in my constituency are very disappointed. The people who work hard in a very low pay environment committed to the provision of quality child care are disappointed that, as they see it, they are being driven to join a union movement against their will to be able to access funds. What about freedom of choice in this country? It does not seem to exist.
What this bill is about is the government spending $300 million of taxpayers' funds to do nothing more than build union membership, under the Big Steps campaign, to give themselves sustainability and increased numbers in the trade union movement. So I oppose this bill. I want people to have higher wages—absolutely—but I want them based on productivity and affordability, and if the government is going to shell out taxpayers' funds they should be shelled out for all of the workers providing the same service, not for a select few—a select few that have been forced to join a union movement against their will. That is why this government and this bill need to be condemned.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (19:01): I would like to commend the member for Paterson and the member for Higgins for their speeches because I think they have summed up exactly what this bill, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, is all about. Sadly, it is this government giving another sop to the union movement. It is remarkable that we are debating it on this day, this third anniversary of Julia Gillard becoming the Prime Minister of our great nation, because that event was all about the union movement regaining control of the Labor Party—and, boy, are we seeing the Prime Minister repay the unions' faith in her in spades and that is what this bill is all about.
We have seen that with another bill we have been debating in this chamber in the last two weeks, the bill about 457 visas with the union movement looking for the government to crack down on the so-called rorting there—a union inspired campaign which the government decided to get behind. There is quite an irony as to that bill because it seems it is the media communications guru in the Prime Minister's office, on a 457 visa himself, who thought: 'Oh, there's a great convergence here. We've got the 457 visa issue which the unions want us to push and we can use that to try and disguise the issues that we have with our borders.' So they brought those two issues together in that bill, and now we are also seeing it here, because United Voice have run a very strong campaign to get action in this area. But it is not to get action on behalf of all childcare workers and it is not to get action to see wages rise across the sector in a fair way. It is a call to arms by United Voice to get the Gillard government to act on behalf of them. That is what is so shameful about this piece of legislation because, as the member for Paterson identified, what it does is divide worker against worker and it divides various segments of the childcare sector against each other. What we on this side cannot understand about this Prime Minister is why she continually wants to divide Australian against Australian. Why is it? Leadership is not about division; leadership is about uniting. Yet this Prime Minister seems hell-bent on just making one Australian be pitted against another Australian be pitted against another Australian. It is not the way to govern a nation.
Let us go to the specifics of the bill. What is it about? It is about providing a commitment of $300 million over two years to various members of this sector—and I say various members of this sector, not all. How do you see whether you can qualify for some of this $300 million? The government have set up a seven-member panel which has responsibility for deciding the criteria that centres will need to meet in order to be eligible for the funding. How have they gone about establishing who should be on that committee? Have we got a wide range of voices? Have we made sure that we have got the sector as a whole well represented on that seven-member panel? No, we have not. But what have we made sure of? Who have we made sure are represented on that seven-member panel? It should come as no surprise. United Voice, of course, are on that panel. But do we have private sector engagement on that panel? No, of course not. Heaven forbid that we could have broad representation on it, but, my word, have we insisted that United Voice get one seat? Yes, we have.
What then are the guidelines that are going to lead how this funding is allocated? They are still yet to be determined, meaning we are unable to consider whether they are even fair and reasonable. So here we are debating this legislation, which is going to dish out $300 million over two years, and we have a seven-member panel set up—and we know that United Voice are on that—but what are the criteria? No criteria! But we have seen, through United Voice's campaign—and can I say it is a fairly deceitful campaign—the type of guidelines that they would like to see. They would like to make sure that the union is front and centre when it comes to allocating these funds. They would like to see, whether a centre has an EBA or not, the level of union membership that a centre has within its workforce. That is the key criterion that they would like to see. We will wait and see whether or not the government actually puts that in the criteria, but there is no doubt that, by giving United Voice representation on that seven-member panel, those are the things they will want to bring to the table.
And what does it mean for the other types of child care? What does it mean, for instance, for family day care? What does it mean for occasional care? What does it mean for budget based care? They are excluded entirely from this funding. I have already had an approach from an occasional care provider in my electorate in Warrnambool. They are incredibly fearful of what this means for their ongoing viability. It is worth mentioning because occasional care is sometimes frowned upon by the other side for being there for those who can afford it. I tell you: when you go and sit down and talk to the parents, grandparents or carers who use occasional care, it is often the most needy and vulnerable who use it, yet, through what the government is doing here, it is going to make it harder for them to continue to employ people. It is going to threaten the ongoing viability of this sector. That means that the poor and the needy who use occasional care—those parents, grandparents and carers—are going to be left with little alternative. Often it is the single parents who have to use it the most, yet, through this piece of legislation, the government is going to make it harder for those occasional care providers to operate. I ask anyone on the other side, if they query this, to come down to Warrnambool. I would love to take them to the occasional care centre there and to get them to talk to the parents, grandparents and carers so that they can hear firsthand what this piece of legislation has the potential to do.
So there are serious problems with this bill. They come on the back of other pieces of legislation which have been introduced to this House and which have also caused considerable concern to the sector. I will say about these two other initiatives the government has put in—the national quality framework and the universal access—that they at least have the right intent, whereas this bill before us today does not have the right intent. It has been singly about making sure that United Voice has got the policies that they were seeking, in many ways, it is worth reminding the House, rewarding them for their support for the Labor government. Let us not forget that, as the member for Higgins put on the record, $7 million has been donated over the last two election campaigns by United Voice to the Labor Party. That is what is driving this piece of legislation.
What drove the national quality framework and universal access was good intent, and we on this side recognise that. Of course, the implementation has, sadly, been lacking and has caused a lot of concern within the sector. So why, having caused that concern and still trying to bed down the disruption which has been caused by the national quality framework, including the increased amount of staff necessary to implement the national quality framework—and, of course, with universal access there are the difficulties in getting the staff needed to implement it—has the government come and sought to divide the sector by presenting this piece of legislation, which we know and the government has admitted cannot cover the whole workforce in the childcare sector? As a matter of fact, it is expected that it will only cover between 30 and 40 per cent. So you bring in two pieces of legislation, which caused concern through their poor implementation, and then you bring in this piece of legislation, which will divide the industry. It will only cover 30 to 40 per cent of the workforce. As I have said before, that is going to pit centre against centre, but it is also going to pit against each other the types of child care provided.
So what does the coalition want to offer in this space? In the first instance, it wants to offer good governance. It wants to say to United Voice: 'Do this properly. Don't go to the government and say you want a cosy deal. Use the system. Put in an application through the proper channels to get a pay rise for the childcare sector workforce as a whole. Let's work so that the whole sector can get the type of remuneration that the sector deserves and that we on this side recognise that it deserves. Don't go and do a cosy deal which shows that, once again, it is the union movement that has the strings to pull to get this Prime Minister in particular to do what it wants done. Use the proper process.'
What else do we want to do? We want to make sure child care is affordable and accessible for all, whether it be in metropolitan areas or in regional and rural areas. We will embark on that process. We will look at ways to make sure everyone in the sector can make sure they continue to provide services which are affordable and accessible. It will not just be long day care centres; it will also be family day care, occasional care, budget based care and others excluded entirely despite their roles being very similar.
There is one thing that the Leader of the Opposition has made clear—that is, we want to get away from this politics of division. We want to get away from this politics of representing part of the community and then pitting that part of the community against another part of the community. We want to get back to where the national interest comes first, where the community comes first and where all Australians come first—not a government which seems hell-bent and a Prime Minister who seems hell-bent on making sure that the only way government occurs is by dividing the nation.
On this side, we are opposed to this bill. We can see it transparently for all it is—that is, repaying United Voice for everything they have done in getting rid of a Prime Minister three years ago and putting in a new Prime Minister to be at the beck and call of the union movement. It is a shameless piece of legislation. It covers only 30 to 40 per cent of the workforce. It covers only one sector of child care. It is not about improving the sector as a whole; it is about rewarding the union movement and that is why we oppose it.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (19:16): When they want to oppose something, what do they default to? Good old union bashing is what we are seeing from the other side. It is extraordinary. They are straight into it. They talk about the national interest. The national interest is educating the future of this nation and caring for the welfare of the future of this nation which is children, and ensuring that they get a quality education. Members will be aware of my passion for education. In my first speech in parliament, I spoke about how I was proof of the transformative powers of education and it is a sentiment I have repeated again and again. Through education, I escaped the cycle of disadvantage. There are thousands and thousands more like me.
Often when I speak of education, I focus on primary schools, high schools or even universities. These are the years of education we remember, so they feel the most formative to us. However, countless studies, countless pieces of research and countless experts tell us that it is the early years of education that make the biggest difference—and the Jesuits tell us that as well. There is a compelling body of evidence showing that 90 per cent of a child's brain development happens in these critical early years. These are the formative years. These are the years we need to get right if we are to give our children all the opportunities they deserve.
I am very pleased, therefore, to be talking tonight about the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which seeks to improve quality outcomes for children in early childhood education and care services by enhancing the professionalism of the sector and improving the attraction and retention of a skilled and professional workforce. I am very proud of this Labor government's record of achievement in early childhood education and care. This government have been working hard to ensure that quality early childhood education and care remains affordable and accessible for all Australian families in the national interest.
We are investing a record $25 billion over the next four years in early childhood education and care, of which $22.1 billion will be in direct childcare assistance to parents. We have also delivered nearly $970 million between 2008 and 2013 to provide all Australian children in the year before they start primary school with access to a quality preschool education, delivered by a quality, qualified early childhood teacher.
These investments are already paying off. Recent data shows that because of this investment preschool enrolments have increased. In 2012, 266 four- and five-year-old children were enrolled in a program in the year before full-time school. This was 60,000 more children enrolled in 2012 than in 2008. So we have seen a dramatic increase in preschool enrolments.
In this year's budget, the government announced a further $666 million to extend the universal access commitment to quality early childhood education in the year before school to the end of 2014. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth has also announced that this year the early childhood education and care Closing the Gap target will be met—a significant development. In 2008, the Labor government pledged to deliver access to early childhood education to all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities within five years, and we have achieved that. These are significant achievements for this sector and I am particularly proud to be part of a government that has delivered them.
The bill we are debating tonight supports a very particular aspect of early years education—that is, supporting the employment retention and better pay of more highly qualified staff. Specifically, this bill establishes a special account to administer the Early Years Quality Fund. The fund will provide $300 million over two years to assist long day care services to offset the costs of employing higher qualified staff, who are required as part of the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care from 1 January next year. Funding will be provided directly to eligible services to improve quality outcomes for children by supplementing wage increases of $3 per hour for cert III qualified educators. There will be proportionately higher wage increases for diploma and degree qualified educators.
Australian and international research shows that having educators with higher qualifications is closely associated with improved outcomes for children. More highly qualified staff have a better understanding of early childhood development and this results in better and more targeted education and care for our children to help them learn and develop.
Funding for wage increases will be assessed and approved based on a defined set of criteria and these are: a demonstrated commitment at the service to quality outcomes for children under the National Quality Framework, including a detailed plan to meet NQF qualification requirements; an agreement to use grant funds exclusively for wage increases, including detailed acquittal of funds to improve transparency; a commitment to affordability for families through fee restraint limited to actual operating cost increases, and no increases as a result of wages arising from the operation of the fund; increased fee transparency requirements for services, including explaining to parents the level of financial assistance provided by the government through childcare benefit and childcare rebates; meeting specific reporting requirements for the government's online childcare portal MyChild; and wage increases being included in an enterprise bargaining agreement.
In my electorate of Canberra I have visited many early childhood centres and met wonderful staff, gorgeous kids and wonderful parents. I know that the staff in these centres—who are mostly women because early childhood workers are still predominantly women—are incredibly committed to the children they care for. Earlier this year I spent one morning and one afternoon at a childcare centre at Isaacs in my electorate, walking in the shoes of a childcare worker as part of the Big Steps campaign. In the morning, I spent time with babies, changed nappies and cleaned lots of little bottoms, entertained these children, put them to bed, and through each half-day I spent a lot of time with kids in every age group. It was an absolutely delightful experience—but absolutely exhausting.
Looking after all these children on such a scale with all their different needs, and particularly with little ones going down at different times—so putting them down and getting the others up at the same time; taking them outside to play; keeping an eye on them and keeping them entertained, because at that stage you really do need to spend a lot of time entertaining them; as well as having them en masse trying to keep them all happy—it was exhausting on both of those half-days. I told the staff that I saluted them. I take my hat off to them for the work they do, caring for these children but also keeping them stimulated and educated.
I particularly admired the real rigour around the whole process for the day. If the children were playing with a toy, then the educator would observe what they were doing and repeat the experience of what they learned from playing with that toy. Or, if they were playing with other little children, then the educator would assess what the child was learning from that experience—the use of words, colours, sharing activity and team-building activity. There was not just a lot of play there but also a lot of education happening. There was a lot of assessment going on about the education of these children.
What particularly impressed me was that the educators could pick up on those kids who were quite often a bit shy—those who were not as socially advanced as the others in the same peer group or the same age group. They could pick up on that child and spend some time with them trying to encourage them to interact more closely with their peers or just spend some one-on-one time trying to draw out their strengths and the specific qualities of these children. So it was not just a case of an en masse approach to these small children. They were there as educators but they were also doing assessments throughout the time that I was with them, and throughout their day, on the advances that each child was making, and also attempting to fill those gaps, which I think was particularly important. Again, they were applying a rigour to it in doing an assessment in writing of that child. I understand that assessment goes into a system so that you can see the development of the child over the period of that child is in child care.
As I said, what would appear to be just playing with building blocks, looking at colours and reading books actually had this underpinning of learning and education throughout the day. I was incredibly impressed and absolutely exhausted after those two half-days.
This bill acknowledges the commitment of those workers by securing higher wages in recognition of their professionalism and qualifications. It is important to note that the establishment of this fund is intended only as a first step in a process that will, in time, see an overhaul of the remuneration of the entire early childhood workforce. This government has also announced the establishment of a pay equity unit in the Fair Work Commission. The primary role of the unit will be to assist the Fair Work Commission with data and research collection and specialist pay equity information. Of particular importance, it will assist in a long-term overhaul of pay equity in feminised workforces. The pay inequity at the moment not only causes day-to-day pay inequity but also means that women are going into superannuation with less money. They get less superannuation and so go into retirement with less money. I have said many a time in this House that I have had these women presenting at my electorate office every week.
It is also important to note that these wage increases are designed not to put upward pressure on fees. In fact, one of the conditions of receiving this funding is that there are no fee increases as a result of the wage increase that will occur from the fund. We know that parents and carers cannot afford to pay higher fees. That is why this government is taking action to increase wages while ensuring that fees do not increase. According to research by United Voice, childcare fees have risen on average by 11.2 per cent in the last 12 months—from $63.21 to $70.29 per day. Both the early childhood sector and families are under pressure in this regard and this bill has a requirement to contain childcare fee increases, meaning staff will get an increase in wages without fees going up.
This Early Years Quality Fund builds on steps this government has already taken to ensure we have a better qualified, better paid workforce in the early childhood sector. These initiatives include: the TAFE fee waiver that enables students to obtain a diploma or an advanced diploma in children's services without paying fees; the recognition of prior learning initiative, which provides grants of up to $3,500 to enable educators to have the skills they have acquired through working in the sector recognised and enables them to obtain or upgrade their qualifications; the HECS-HELP initiative, which provides funding to reduce the Higher Education Loans Program debts of early childhood education teachers who work in areas of high need such as remote areas of Australia; and the Inclusion and Professional Support Program, through which the educators and services receive professional development and support to enhance the provision of quality education and care services.
As I have mentioned, the early childhood workforce is a feminised workforce—it is predominantly women. As is too often the case in workforces dominated by women, early childcare workers are amongst the lowest paid skilled workers in this country. Workers have been fighting long and hard to receive professional wages in the early childhood sector. In particular, as I mentioned over the past year or so, the Big Steps campaign has united workers, parents, families and employers to support wage increases for early childhood educators. I have spoken to these parents in the afternoons. I have been there in these childhood centres talking to the staff and meeting the kids. I have spoken to the parents and they have all pushed for an increase in wages for the workers, the educators who are educating their children.
To the hundreds of people who contacted me in my electorate of Canberra, I say to them: firstly, thank you for sharing your concerns with me on this important issue and, secondly, we listened. This government is taking action. Higher wages are deserved by these skilled and qualified workers. Higher wages will help keep workers in the sector and higher wages will help attract more and better staff. As we know, we have a chronic lack of qualified staff in this sector at the moment, which is dramatically affecting childcare availability. This fund puts us on track to reform wages in this sector and it puts us on track well into the future. Qualified and skilled early childhood workers deserve this bill. Most importantly, our kids, our future and our nation deserve this bill. I commend it to the House.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:31): I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. Before I get to the specifics of the bill I would like to say what a wonderful job that the many childcare centres in the electorate of Hughes actually do. As a member, I have had the great pleasure to visit many of these childcare centres and participate in the activities with the staff: reading books to the kids, playing with them and enjoying their ice-creams at lunchtime. It was a truly wonderful experience. There is no doubt that we would like to see the staff at these centres earn more money, like we would many employees right across the economy.
However, the childcare centres I have been to say their biggest problem is with government regulation and red tape putting additional cost on those childcare centres. In fact, over the last few years under this government we have seen a 26 per cent increase in the cost in childcare in this nation, mainly because of the red tape this government has put in. When those costs increase and the costs to a childcare operator increase because of the red tape, that simply takes away their ability to pay their staff more wages. So the ability to pay the staff more wages, to get higher wages in the childcare centre, has been taken away by a lot of the red tape and new regulations we have seen this government introduce.
The legislation actually seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases, which are estimated to go to only 30 or 40 per cent of long day care workers and only over two years. Also, centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff and meet the eligible criteria. Given this limited pool of funds, they will be allocated on a first-in basis and then after two years the workers will simply revert to their previous wage.
The coalition oppose this bill, regrettably. We would like to see childcare workers earn more money, take home more pay, but there are several reasons for opposing this bill. The first reason is this is $300 million worth of spending this government simply does not have. This is simply more spending that will be added to our nation's debt. In the first four years of this government we have seen the largest deficits in our nation's history, a cumulative $172 billion. Then we had promise after promise after promise of this year the budget being returned to surplus. Of course, we know that that $1 billion surplus is now, at last estimate, a $19.8 billion deficit. This $300 million for childcare workers simply goes onto that deficit. It is more money that we have to borrow. Ultimately, it is money that has to be paid back. In fact, it is actually the children at these childcare centres who will be burdened with this debt and who will be paying off this debt when they eventually get through school and get through university and start to earn dollars. Their taxes will be higher because of this government.
The other reason the coalition oppose this bill is that we looked at what industry has said. The Australian Industry Group, a group that represents 440,000 businesses and employs over 2.4 million people, said of this legislation:
… Ai Group expresses a strong view on the proposal to make funding conditional upon day care centres having an enterprise agreement. This proposal is unfair and inappropriate.
How can this government sit here and want to pass this legislation through the parliament when we have the Australian Industry Group saying categorically that this proposal is unfair and inappropriate? That alone is reason not to pass this legislation.
It will set two types of childcare centres: those that are unionised and those that are not unionised. The real concern is this funding is actually over only two years. The question is: what happens when those two years are up and this funding runs out? We are going to see a massive distortion in the childcare market with staff going from one centre to another hoping to get their hands on some of this money, which in two years is going to run out.
Another real concern is what has been told to some of the staff in the childcare industry, which makes it very clear that this money is more a taxpayer funded union recruitment drive. Workers have been told that if they do not sign up to the union they will not get a pay rise. We have seen employees signing up and then having to pay the union fees. They are committing to pay more than $500 a year to the union to sign up to get their hands on this taxpayer money, which the government does not have and is borrowing. We have seen some centres' managers being told that 60 per cent of their workforce must join the union in order for them to receive the pay rise. We have also seen in the Australian Childcare Alliance's submission to the House of Reps standing committee a statutory declaration to this effect. This is not something that the coalition is saying; this is something that the Australian Childcare Alliance has put in a statutory declaration to the committee.
Of course, we have seen a great deal of union propaganda about this, again a recruitment drive. We have seen under the heading 'How does my centre qualify?' the statement: '(1) join your union United Voice; (2) United Voice negotiates a new EBA; (3) the owner-operator signs the agreement with the government; (4) get a raise.' Of course, it does not say that you must pay the union fees along the way. It does not say that this money is borrowed money. And it does not say this money will run out after two years. This is typical of this government: bad legislation done to support their mates in the union rather than doing what is in the best interests, the long-term interests, of the nation.
The Australian Industry Group have also put forward 10 separate points about their objections to this legislation. I would like to go through each one of those. The first is that this requirement will simply remove the ability of a childcare centre to freely choose whether an enterprise agreement suits its business. We should be giving the childcare centres the ability to choose which way they want to operate, but this forces them down the track of going into an enterprise agreement. The second reason given is that a childcare centre could feel coerced to make an enterprise agreement, regardless of whether the business is happy with its pay-setting arrangements. Again, it reduces the individual ability of a childcare centre to determine what is best. The third reason given is that employees of a childcare centre could feel coerced to make enterprise agreements, regardless of whether the majority of employees of that centre support the negotiation of a collective agreement.
The fourth reason given is the requirement may lead to a childcare centre breaching section 344 of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits an employer from exerting undue influence or pressure on an employee to make an enterprise agreement. In fact, the Fair Work Act 2009 outlaws the taking of an adverse action against a person simply because that person has or has not exercised a workplace right. Sections 340 and 341 include the right to make or not to make an enterprise agreement. The act also outlaws action taken against another person with the intent to coerce the other person to exercise or not to exercise that right. It is clear that what is going to happen is there will be coercion in this industry because of this money, the $300 million thrown in, to force and coerce workers to sign up to enterprise agreements to try and get their hands on these funds for two years whether they like it or not.
The fifth reason the Australian Industry Group have given is that enterprise agreements typically reduce the ability of an employer to pay employees different salaries based on individual performance, a pay-setting system which many employees strongly support. I am sure there are many childcare centres around our nation today that have different salaries based on different individual performance. That encourages greater participation, higher levels of productivity and greater work ethic. But this legislation threatens to take away that ability. The sixth reason given is that, if a childcare centre decides not to have an enterprise agreement, it is going to experience greater difficulties in attracting and retaining staff, because the centres with enterprise agreements would be able to pay higher rates of pay due to the funding. We are looking at having a two-tiered system. We are going to have the potential of good staff at one centre being attracted to another centre for no other reason than the one centre has been handed out government money and the other has not. This is not good policy.
The seventh reason is that, if employees in a childcare centre are not willing to enter into an enterprise agreement, say because they prefer the existing pay-setting arrangements, the employer would experience greater difficulties in attracting and retaining staff. Again, this is likely to damage many of our childcare centres. Yes, it will be good for the 30 per cent to 40 per cent that get their hands on this pot of borrowed money that runs out in two years, but the other centres, the 60 per cent that will miss out on this pot of money, will be put at a competitive disadvantage and they will have difficulty retaining and hiring staff. That has the potential to cause damage to our childcare centres, not improve them.
The eighth reason given is that if a childcare centre decides not to have an enterprise agreement it may need to raise its prices to attract and retain staff, given the higher pay rates offered by centres which receive funding, creating hardship for parents. That is exactly right. If we have two centres in one suburb and one is unionised, so they get their hands on this pot of money, and the other centre is not, how will that centre retain its staff? It might have to lift its wages. Deputy Speaker Georganas, you might say that could be good, but we must think of the hardship for parents. If we raise our childcare fees, it would be wonderful if we could pay them. Someone has to pay for this at the end of the day. If we lift the cost of child care in this nation then what happens? It is the parents from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and the people from the lowest socioeconomic areas of our nation who have difficulty in paying, and they miss out on getting child care altogether. What looks on the surface like a great, wonderful and generous idea, if it leads to this happening, will price many parents out of child care.
Parents across our nation today are really struggling with the cost of living. Next week they are going to be slugged with an increase in the carbon tax of five per cent. They are going to see their electricity prices hit again. The last thing they need is a government policy that is going to further lift the cost of child care and make it difficult. How will that help any of the kids in our nation?
The ninth reason that they give—a very good reason—is:
Concerns have been expressed to Ai Group by employers in the child care industry about the complications which are likely to arise when the funding is exhausted. Childcare centres may not be able to afford to continue to pay the higher wage rates without increasing prices.
Again, there are two things that could happen: we are building in a price increase in the childcare industry or we are going to create a situation where people go into the childcare industry, take some of this pot of money and when that pot of money runs out in two years they are likely to leave the childcare industry and look for jobs with equivalent wages. This is a bad bill. The coalition rightly opposes it.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (19:46): I also rise this evening to speak against the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. While the objectives of the bill may be sound, it has some deleterious consequences. The member for Hughes, who spoke very eloquently before me, outlined many of them here this evening.
Before I go into my concerns—and I have four to outline this evening—let me say a couple of things about the objectives of the bill and also the process for getting to where we are here. First of all, the objective. Ostensibly, the objective of this bill is to support the wage increases of workers in the childcare sector. We have no problem with this objective; it is an admirable objective because, as you would probably be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, childcare workers are not paid high salaries. They are paid ordinary salaries, like many other workers in the Australian community, so we have no problem with the objectives as such.
What we have difficulties with is that there is a process within the community and a legal framework that is already established for seeking legitimate wage increases. That process is through the Fair Work Commission. One can lodge claims there and people have the right to do so. We support those people with that right to lodge a claim. We submit that this would be the right process to go through in order to receive a salary increase, rather than coming into the parliament and having the parliament legislate a salary increase through a two-year special compensation package.
It is interesting to note that the union which is primarily behind this push has not lodged any formal request to the Fair Work Commission for a salary increase. Rather, the union is going to its puppet masters here in the Labor government and is getting a $300 million gift by going through this process rather than going through the process which every other Australian has to go through.
Let me also say about the process to get to where we are with this bill that I, along with the member for Grey, who will be speaking subsequent to me, sat in on a very brief inquiry which looked into this bill. One of the difficulties we had with this is that this bill was rushed into the parliament, rushed into an inquiry—we had one week at the most to look into this and to try to make some sensible findings—and then pushed through this parliament in the dying days of this government. This government has known that the election will be on 14 September since the beginning of the year. If this bill were so important, the government could have scheduled it properly so that it had a proper chance to be debated and considered, for a parliamentary inquiry to properly undertake an investigation and to improve the bill should that parliamentary inquiry find ways to improve it. But the government has not done that. To the contrary: it has rushed it through in the last couple of weeks along with many other pro-union bills in order to try to get them through in the dying days of this government. That is no way to run a country. This bill is illustrative of the very poor processes which this government undertakes.
Let me go to the substance of the bill. As I said at the outset, I have four concerns in relation to this bill and the effects it will have, despite having no objection to the objectives of the bill. My first concern is in relation to equity. The particular provisions will be of benefit to only about 40 per cent of childcare workers, while 60 per cent or more of childcare workers will miss out on this benefit. If we think that childcare workers are underpaid then surely all childcare workers should receive the salary increase rather than just 40 per cent of them. Many submissions to the public inquiry and other publicly made submissions make this exact point: that there is great inequity here that such a small section of the sector will be beneficiaries of this $300 million fund but the vast majority will not receive any of that funding.
My second concern relates to the fact that the bill, despite it going to have the effect of putting up salaries for at least 40 per cent of the childcare sector, has provision in it for only two years of funding. So years one and two are covered and provide that additional salary boost for 40 per cent of childcare workers, but after that there is no funding.
Ordinarily, if we have a program that is going to be ongoing it would be legislated for in the forward estimates for four years. That is how things are ordinarily done if you are serious about making a particular measure an ongoing one. But it seems that this government's only purpose for this bill is to get them through the election. It is to be sop to the unions to show that they care, to give them two years of funding and then to say, 'You will look after yourself after that.' But salaries will not come down after two years and someone else will then have to pay for those salaries—and that someone else, as the member for Herbert outlined, will be the parents. It will be the parents who have to pay for that.
So we have before us a structural fee increase in the childcare sector through this provision which will come into play in two years time if this bill goes through. That is what we have before us. It will be a further 10 per cent increase on childcare fees per day—a $10 per day increase—that parents will have to pay in two years time because the funding is only for that short period of time. Again, this government are not serious about this. If this government were honestly concerned with childcare workers' salaries and putting them on a sustainable ongoing footing, this would be for a four-year period and it would be an ongoing program—but it is not.
My third concern—and this is perhaps my greatest concern with the bill—is that it is basically just a sop to the unions. The bill does not specify precisely that one must be a union member to be a beneficiary of the $300 million fund, but that is how it is being interpreted across the sector—and, in practice, that is what is occurring. That is understood; it is known. It was the intent of this government to do so from the get-go, and that is the primary purpose of this bill. The primary purpose of this bill—make no bones about it—is for the Prime Minister to shore up the support of another union. The Prime Minister's leadership is under significant threat in the dying days of this government. She needs to get herself through these couple of weeks so that she can be Prime Minister leading up to the election, and she thinks that she can buy off an additional union through this particular measure. It is a $300 million purchase.
And it is not just this side of the parliament who is saying this, who is using such strident language. The Australian Childcare Alliance, who represent about 60 per cent of the childcare sector in this country, have written to all members of parliament with the following words:
The Federal Government's recent release by the Prime Minister of a Grant funded program with $300 million to be paid over a two year period to lift the wages of early childhood educators, is nothing more than a gift by the government to the United Voice Union.
That is the Australian Childcare Alliance. They are the peak body for the childcare sector in this country. They themselves are saying that this is nothing more than gift by the government to the United Voice Union—a $300 million gift.
They also outline in their letter that each new member the United Voice union will recruit as a result of this process will pay about $572 per annum. And we know that that money will then be used at election time to support the re-election of the Gillard government—or the Rudd government or the Shorten government, whichever it may be come 14 September. That is how this is working. It is taxpayers' funds going to the union and then from the union being used to try to get the Gillard-Rudd-Shorten governments re-elected. It is an outrage—and it is such an outrage because it is not the first time this has been done.
We have in fact seen a similar pattern in the aged-care sector, where a very similar arrangement is being made to try to reunionise the aged-care sector in the dying days of this government. We have seen similar sweetheart deals in relation to the right of entry provisions which have been introduced by this government in recent weeks, which mean that any workplace in the country is in danger of a union official rocking up and entering into the lunchroom and trying to recruit members. No lunchroom is safe after the introduction of those provisions.
We have also seen it in relation to the aggressive attacks on the 457 visas which the immigration minister has unleashed over the last couple of weeks—attacking all of those terrific workers that we have in this country. Why are they doing that? They are doing it because the unions do not like the 457 visas and they are delivering for their paymasters in terms of cracking down on them. This bill is in the same vain as all of that. It is just a sop to the unions, as the Australian Childcare Alliance has said, and as we have seen elsewhere over the last few weeks in terms of delivering for their unions in the dying days of this government purely to shore up support for Julia Gillard personally to stay in the job for another couple of weeks.
Finally, my fourth concern is in relation to the centres that are not eligible for this funding. As I said at the get-go, only about 40 per cent of centres will be eligible to receive some of this $300 million in funding and 60 per cent of centres will receive no such funding but they will be negatively impacted by this bill. Why is that? It occurs because, if the salaries go up in 40 per cent of the childcare centres, naturally there will be additional claims made by the workers in the 60 per cent who are not beneficiaries of this bill. Those childcare centres will then have two choices. They can try to keep salaries at a lower rate compared to the 40 per cent—in which case they are likely to lose workers. They will find it difficult to retain staff and they will find it difficult to attract staff, particularly at a time when there is an acute shortage. That is one choice that they have, but they will have difficulties retaining and attracting staff.
The other option they have is to put up salaries, but knowing that that would have to be immediately passed on to the parents who use their childcare centre. It is estimated by the Australian Childcare Alliance that fees would have to go up by about $10 per day. This government has already passed a myriad of regulations in relation to the childcare sector, which is putting fees up by 10 to 15 per cent and pricing people out of the market. This bill will have the effect of putting up fees by an additional $10 per day. That will just mean that the people who are already struggling to make ends meet, already suffering from the increases in the carbon tax, already suffering from all the other prices that are going up as a result of this government's mismanagement and over-regulatory zeal, will then have to pay higher childcare fees on top of all of that.
The government was forewarned in relation to its regulations by the Productivity Commission that fees would have to go up 15 per cent if it went through with them. It went ahead with its regulations. We are forewarning the government here, as has the Australian Childcare Alliance, that if it goes ahead with this now, then fees will go up an additional $10 on top of that. That is what is at stake here. It is actually the affordability of child care centres. We think they need to be made more affordable, not less.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (20:01): What fine words from the member for Aston, who sums up very well what this move by the government is about. As he said, I was the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment that did a very rushed inquiry into this bill, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. I did speak on that report when it was tabled in the House, but I thought I would take this opportunity to further tease out some of the issues that I raised at that time.
I was very disappointed that we were not able to give this bill the consideration that I believe it needed. We had one short hearing from the department and a number of submissions—in fact, quite a number; 99, if I remember rightly—to the House of Representatives committee—largely expressing some distress with the legislation it must be said. Yet we had no time at all to call any of those contributors to come before the committee and express their concerns.
Earlier today the member for Barker spoke in his valedictory speech about the opportunity within this parliament for the House of Representatives committees to change their role somewhat. But unfortunately, under these kinds of timelines, there is an inability to appropriately consider legislation, as I think was intended originally under the new paradigm. It is unfortunate that in many cases much has been left wanting with these bill inquiries.
To the legislation itself, there is no doubt in my mind that this is really a fit-up. It is all about politics and not all that much about early years child care. It is difficult to rise and speak against a wage rise for people who are not highly paid, but when you realise, as I do, that the wage rise is only for a certain percentage of those in the industry—the government claims 40 per cent; in fact, others suggest it will only go so far as 27 per cent—and that the other 60 to 73 per cent will miss out, it is in itself very divisive.
Perhaps that is not that surprising because this government, this Prime Minister in particular, has chosen to be very divisive over a number of issues. There was the singling-out of wealthy miners. There is a case of dog whistling going on with the xenophobic calls around the 457s at the moment. There is certainly a tilt at men with blue ties. I would consider that the one I am wearing at the moment is a blue tie, but I do not think that that puts me in a box of unmentionable people. It is divisive within the industry. In fact, in the submissions made to the inquiry, Childcare Queensland, for instance, said:
The 27% - 40% of services that are successful in gaining the grant will only receive the funding for a period of two years as there is no provision for this grant funding to be continued past 30/06/2015. It will be extremely difficult for these services to reduce the wages at this time so they will all be forced to increase their fees by $10+ per child per day.
Kinda Kapers at Mount Hutton in New South Wales said:
This will create a two tiered wage system with centres who are not successful in attracting the grant money either dramatically increasing fees to enable them to match the wage increase or being unable to attract the very few trained staff who available for employment. Regional and rural centres will be most negatively affected as they are the centres currently most negatively impacted by the industry skill shortage.
I am sure you would understand that, Deputy Speaker Adams, as you do represent a large part of Tasmania that is regional.
That is a two-tiered system—there is no way of dressing that up. The big question is: what is to happen after the two years when the funding ceases? It is highly unlikely that these childcare centres will be able to encourage their staff to take a wage cut, and probably no-one would want to do that. So inevitably it will almost certainly lead to higher costs for those using the services. The other question, of course, is what happens to the 60 per cent to 73 per cent of childcare centres that do not get the extra funding in any case? I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, from the broad number of submissions that came in that a lot of people were very excited in the industry about the fact they may be getting a wage increase, only to be highly disillusioned when they found out that in fact it may not be coming their way. In fact, for the majority, it certainly will not be coming their way.
In particular, this divisiveness within the industry has caused widespread unhappiness. The Australian Childcare Alliance, for instance, noted that the announcement has already caused outrage and division amongst educators in the early education and childcare sector. Educators are understandably angry as their colleagues in the long day care centre across the road may receive the grant while they receive nothing. This is hardly a way to govern for all of Australia and I am very disappointed that the government should bring this legislation into the House dressed up as something which is benefiting the industry when in fact it is going to cause division and unhappiness throughout.
One of the things that particularly concerned the coalition members of the committee was the evidence we received about the campaign by the United Voice union with their Big Steps campaign which certainly preceded the government's announcement. It was commonly reported that the union was claiming centres could not qualify for the funding unless they had a 60 per cent unionised workforce. I am aware that the department wrote to one of the union officials and informed them what the correct state of play was, but we are given to understand that the campaign still continued and that, quite disturbingly, there was a sense of menace in the workplace. The Australian Childcare Alliance said:
During the last two years there has been considerable union activity at services Australia wide increasing substantially since the announcement of the EYQF grant by the Prime Minister. Many of our members have reported that this union activity has been intimidating to both themselves and their staff.
Our members around Australia have been advising us of the strong arm tactics that United Voice Union organisers who have been telling members that they must have 60 per cent plus membership to engage with them to submit the Enterprise Agreement.
Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you would be very well aware that the minister for workplace relations only two weeks ago introduced legislation into this House around workplace bullying, which came after an inquiry that I was also the deputy chair of. While I did not agree with all of the recommendations that the government put forward on workplace bullying, we on the coalition were disappointed at the time the inquiry was formed that there was no provision to look at union bullying in the workplace. It would appear that it is alive and well. Certainly those quotes from the Australian Childcare Alliance say it all.
If that is the case and the union is using this government legislation to build membership, and they have lifted membership substantially around the campaign, it is worth noting that United Voice is a major contributor to the ALP. That synergy and those relationships that are behind the scenes are not clearly transparent on this legislation. It is one of the reasons that I will be voting against it. I think that the days of tip-offs and pay-offs for mates should be behind us. I believe the government will pay a heavy price for some of those links to the union movement in the very near future when the electors of Australia, perhaps on 14 September, come to have their judgment on this government.
All of us would like to see low-paid childcare workers adequately compensated in the workplace, but there is a course of action that workers and unions, if they wish, can take to achieve those wage outcomes. It was this government that established the Fair Work Commission, and there is a correct path for industry-wide wage increases should they choose to take that path. Up to this stage they have not chosen to do that. Instead they have done a deal with the government which will see, in effect, their members get the rewards and get the extra wage increase, and those who choose not to be members of the union will probably miss out. While I know that is not strictly the wording of the legislation, it is certainly the message that is out there in the workplace, and we should not allow that to happen.
I understand $300 million is about one-third of what is needed to give this $7 to $10 an hour increase that has been claimed as an outcome of this legislation and two years clearly is not adequate. It is just about a short-term time frame. In fact, I believe overall it creates more problems for the industry, more problems for the workers, than it solves. What it does do is try to push a political problem and a political kickback just a little further down the track and to push greater problems onto a government in two years time when this finding will cease. Whoever is in government at that time will be faced with a very loud call from those people who have been receiving the higher wages for government to continue what is, in effect, a subsidy. That will be at a time when childcare subsidies, the assistance for parents to purchase child care, will have been frozen. It is unbalanced; it is not good legislation.
It is divisive, to come back to my original point. It is pitting Australians against Australians. It will be pitting those who receive the money against those who miss out. It will be pitting long-term day care up against short-term day care and these are not good outcomes. What we need is fairness right across every industry in the way that we deal with people, not selectivity and not picking out favourites and giving kickbacks and support for those that support us. When either side of parliament forms a government, it should be for all Australians, not for selected Australians, and I will be opposing the legislation.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (20:14): I rise to speak on and oppose the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, particularly from the perspective of the regional and rural centres. Those that I know in my electorate are going to be so badly affected by this. I know it because they have told me so. For those who are watching this debate tonight, I am sure this will lead to yet another sleepless night for them and I know they have had plenty of those since they first saw this legislation. We do know that this is just another rushed bill into this parliament. There has been no time for an appropriate parliamentary inquiry, as we heard from the two previous speakers.
Critically, this is just another piece of divisive legislation from this government and one that is really going to impact most on rural and regional day care centres. It is going to impact on the childcare centres in my electorate of Forrest because the legislation is basically going to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to just around 30 or 40 per cent of just the long day care workforce, and only for two years. To achieve this the centres will have to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with their staff and meet the eligibility criteria. As we know, given that limited pool of funds, it will be on, what, a first-in first-served basis or preferential? How will it actually work? What we do know is that there is only funding for two years and it is all being done on borrowed money by the government. We do know this was part of the union United Voice's Big Steps campaign. We do know that childcare workers and educators are low paid and any wage increase should come about through the ruling of the Fair Work Commission. This is the body that this government itself established and it has the responsibility for determining what are appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. But we do know that United Voice, the union, has refused to lodge a wage claim with the Fair Work Commission, preferring instead for the government to just hand over the money but only to the favoured few. It is, as we know, just an appeasement to the unions and is really divisive.
This is picking winners and losers again with two types of child care: the educators in long day care centres that are eligible for the pay increase and those that are not, which will see family day care, occasional day care, budget based care excluded—there are so many of those in my electorate—in spite of the roles they perform being very similar. Two types of childcare workers: those who are union members of United Voice, who will receive this funding increase, and those who are not. Sixty per cent of childcare workers are going to miss out. The majority will miss out. So it is unfair and it is inequitable.
We know that the Australian Childcare Alliance represents approximately 70 per cent of Australia's long day care centres and they have grave concerns, as do their members. They have had a lot of representations from their members about what is contained in this bill. We know that there are still a lot of uncertainties around these actual grants, around the guidelines. We do not know what the guidelines are. We do not know how many workers will actually be eligible for the pay rise, but we do know how many will not: nearly 60 per cent of them will not in actual fact. And we do know that this will create a two-tiered system of those who receive this money and those who do not; those who are United Voice union members and those who are not.
I have met a number of those who work in long day care and those who work in other sorts of child care in my community. They are all very concerned that their very good staff will be poached by the centres that can afford to offer the higher rate. I do know that there are managers and owners of centres in my electorate who are not sleeping, as I said, as a result of this. This threatens the very viability of their childcare and day care centres. They know that they are probably going to have to offer that higher rate of pay regardless, just to keep their staff. As I said, this will have a disproportionate impact in rural and regional areas like my own. They will have to do that to adhere to the National Quality Framework staffing requirements.
There were thousands of submissions to the Senate inquiry, but the government allowed only a few days for reporting, so the process has been flawed. Not only is the legislation flawed and the intent of the legislation flawed, so has been the process. But it is something that is quite common with this government. I keep coming back to the fact that the government is proposing legislation where 60 per cent of centres will miss out and they will be likely forced to increase wages just to keep their staff. That is what will happen. That means that the parents are going to pay more.
Long day care KU Children's Services stated in a submission to the inquiry that the introduction of this fund to a portion of the sector will result in a division within the organisation. That is guaranteed, it is there now. The government has created this. KU Children's Services pointed out that since the 1980s many have worked tirelessly to remove the divide between preschool and long day care, yet the government has reignited that, driven a wedge down the middle and said, 'Here you are: 60 per cent this side, 30 to 40 per cent the other.'
As the Child Care Association of WA pointed out in their submission, the bill does not consider the outcome of the fund on the sector as a whole. The government is also failing to allow time for the grants guidelines to be published before proceeding with the bill—process flawed again. Many of the submissions to both the House and Senate inquiries from centres have been extensively noting a campaign of union misinformation and quite seriously, as we heard, in some cases bullying of centre owners and childcare workers.
I also heard that, as part of the Big Steps, United Voice's campaign, evidence or information was given to the effect that someone posted a photograph on Facebook of the home of the president of the Australian Childcare Alliance. With the work that I do in cyberbullying I find that just extraordinary. What form of bullying is that? Is that what we have come to in this place? That is exactly what this legislation has provoked. Some workers have been told that if they do not sign up to their union, their colleagues will not receive a pay rise. Claims were made throughout those inquiries. One union stated, under the heading 'How does my centre qualify?':
1. Join United Voice.
2. United Voice negotiates a new EBA.
3. Sign agreement. Owner-operator signs agreements with government.
4. Get the raise.
Despite the department claiming that the actual amount of wage increase was to be determined by a seven-member panel, United Voice provided a handy chart for members, telling them exactly what they would get. So, clearly, United Voice knows more than the panel itself. Of course, this is a poorly designed and inequitable proposal, but it certainly will have far-reaching negative impacts, particularly on regional and rural areas, on regional and rural centres and, more importantly, on the families that rely on those great services provided.
I want to acknowledge the wonderful job that centres in my electorate of Forrest do for families, who trust them to provide quality day care for their children. The service they provide allows parents to return to workplaces as needed, knowing that their children are safe and sound in a supportive, nurturing, caring and learning environment. In the two regional cities of Bunbury and Busselton in my electorate hundreds of families rely on this service, yet the government is putting that at risk. There are 43 childcare centres in the greater Bunbury area and another 17 based in Busselton and Dunsborough, not to mention another dozen or so in the wonderful little country towns throughout the Forrest electorate. The structural changes that the government has made will have a particular impact on these regional centres where there is already an ongoing need and a shortage of qualified staff. I heard about this from the childcare centres.
There is a major financial cost. Established centres are now fearful of their future. That is what this proposal has done. They are fearful of their future and their capacity to provide this great service to families in my electorate. By offering that government funded wage rise to perhaps one-third of the centres just so that centres are able to keep their staff and attract new ones, the Labor government has created division, inequity and a wage war between centres. For a medium-sized private childcare centre the costs are in the extreme. To match the wage rise of $3 to $4, the owner of one Bunbury childcare centre, with 20 staff, told me that it will cost her business $200,000 a year in extra wages and associated payments. A medium-sized centre like this one has about 150 to 200 families, which rely on the centre to provide quality child care, which they trust, and they do it at an affordable price for these families. So to absorb a wage blow-out of $200,000, centres will be forced—they have no choice; they cannot absorb this cost—to raise their fees, possibly by $10 a day per child.
So, for the working families in my electorate, this is about another $200 a month on top of their current fees. This is what is happening right now. I have spoken with childcare centres. The owners and managers of these centres are not sleeping, worrying about the impact on the families and how many children they will lose and whether their centres will be viable. Unfortunately, this will make the unionised government-funded centres more attractive for families because of cheaper rates, which they can afford.
When a child in care costs about the same as a mortgage payment, this has huge impacts on families making decisions about whether they can afford another child or whether one parent has no choice but to drop out of the workplace. I have seen firsthand the anguish and the fear of the childcare centre owner. I referred to her earlier. It is palpable and I know that she is not sleeping. Her feelings are shared by about a dozen others who attended childcare forums I put on two weeks ago with the shadow minister for childcare, Sussan Ley. They realise that they will be forced to pay the extra wages. It is a blatant exercise by the government to impose a political allegiance to and ideology on its union masters in a sector whose primary goal should really be that of being there for the benefit of these great kids and their families by providing great child care.
Of course, this proposal is divisive and unfair. It is an issue of equity and fairness. The government is proposing only two years of funding. Parents will have to pay even more beyond that two years. Sixty per cent of parents in my electorate who will not be funded under this legislation will have to pay now. Of course, the other 40 per cent will pay the extra beyond the two years, because the government has only funded this for two years. So it is a false promise. Centres are forced to pay more just to retain their staff. They are great staff, who do a fantastic job with our young people.
As I have said, only union members will receive this benefit. So many of them right now around Australia must believe that they are actually going to receive this pay rise—that is, after they have paid their union fees. But I wonder how many, in reality, will actually receive it. I wonder how much they will receive over and above the union fees for what they do. I am profoundly concerned for the childcare centres in my electorate. I have met their staff. As I said, their concern and fear about their viability is palpable and the impact on the 60 per cent of families who will miss out will be direct, and then it will be compounded after the two years when the funding runs out. I oppose this measure.
Debate adjourned.
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments —
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 14), after item 3, insert:
3A Subsection 4(1)
Insert:
Commonwealth ‑funded aged care means:
(a) aged care, within the meaning of the Aged Care Act 1997:
(i) that is provided by an approved provider, within the meaning of that Act; and
(ii) in relation to which the approved provider has responsibilities under that Act; or
(b) care or services in relation to which a grant has been paid under Chapter 5 of the Aged Care Act 1997; or
(c) care or services of a class prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this paragraph.
(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 20), after item 39, insert:
39A After subsection 23(3)
Insert:
(3A) Paragraph (3)(b) does not apply to accommodation provided by a religious body in connection with the provision, by the body, of Commonwealth‑funded aged care.
(3) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 23), after item 49, insert:
49A Section 37
Before "Nothing", insert "(1)".
49B At the end of section 37
Add:
(2) Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of a body established for religious purposes if:
(a) the act or practice is connected with the provision, by the body, of Commonwealth‑funded aged care; and
(b) the act or practice is not connected with the employment of persons to provide that aged care.
(4) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 1), after the heading to Part 2 of Schedule 1, insert:
Division 1—Amendments of references to marital status
(5) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 13 (after line 6), at the end of the Part, add:
Division 2—Amendments of references to sexual preference
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
63A Paragraph 123(3)(e)
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
63B Paragraph 28(3)(e) of Schedule 6
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
Fair Work Act 2009
63C Subsection 153(1)
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
63D Subsection 195(1)
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
63E Subsection 351(1)
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
63F Paragraph 578(c)
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
63G Paragraph 772(1)(f)
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
63H Paragraph 142(1)(d)
Omit "sexual preference", substitute "sexual orientation".
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (20:30): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (20:31): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (20:32): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (20:33): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (20:34): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Asylum Seekers
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Cabinet Secretary) (20:31): by leave—I wish to add to an answer I gave to a question without notice. In question time today I referred to 12 new Cape class patrol vessels. That number should have been eight.
BILLS
Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (20:35): I wish to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which I oppose in its entirety. This legislation seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to around 30 to 40 per cent, although this figure is not clear, of the long day care workforce and it only lasts for two years. As for what happens after two years, we guess it reverts back to where it is today. The centres will need to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements with staff and meet eligibility criteria. Given the limited pool of funds, it could be on a 'first in' basis, yet this is not even clear. After the two years workers will revert back to their previous wage. This would be history-making if this were the case. This bill is unbalanced. It is divisive, it is unfair and it will create a wage war.
The bill has come around as a result of the union involved waging the Big Steps campaign, seeking to increase wages and conditions in the early childhood sector. The United Voice union—previously the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, or the LHMU—have been campaigning for an increase in childcare sector wages since 2008, with their requests for increases ranging between $7 and $10 an hour. They proposed that the government fund this increase, and they were actually originally looking for $1.4 billion a year—and indexed.
The coalition have a number of serious concerns with this bill. We do not dispute that childcare educators are low paid. We know these workers are skilled and work long and hard hours. Any wage increase should come through the Fair Work Commission, the body that the government has established with the responsibility of determining appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. Yet the United Voice union has refused to lodge a wage claim with the Fair Work Commission. Can you believe this? They rely instead on a Labor government to just hand over money hand over fist. It is unheard of.
This $300 million is nothing more than an act of appeasement to the unions, which will use it to enable them to go on a recruitment drive within the sector. In my seat of Flynn union delegates have been around the child-minding centres, telling the workers and management that, if the staff do not join the unions, which will cost around $500 a year, they will not be eligible for this pay rise. When they are confronted with this, they say they do not know anything about it, but I can tell the House that I have numerous people saying they have gone to just about every agency that I know of. They have been there. They have even got the contracts to join the union. This $300 million is nothing more than an act of appeasement to the unions and has to be stopped.
How is the increase in salaries going to be distributed to roughly one-third of the staff? How does this work in practice? It does not. It is going to send a wedge through the workforce. Thirty per cent are going to get a wage rise; the other 70 per cent will miss out. This is going to cause bedlam in the industry. You will have staff jumping ship and going to where they can gain $7 to $10 an hour extra in their pay. Why wouldn't you jump the fence if it meant getting an extra $400 a week in your pay packet? Think of the carnage it is going to cause. The operators, if they want to stop the staff from jumping the fence, will have to increase their wages, and where does this money come from? They will have to put their fees up, and it is going to have to come from the public themselves. It is a very unfair system. How can anyone rule that one-third of the workforce gets it and two-thirds miss out? It is totally incredible that anyone could devise a bill that would say that to the staff. Imagine if one-third of your staff had the wage increase and two-thirds did not have it. What would you tell them as an employer? You would be ducking for cover.
We are still unsure how many workers will be eligible for the pay rise. There is even an argument going on between Minister Garrett, who says 68,000 people are involved, and the media, who say there are 78,000. There is a difference of 10,000 staff.
Mr McCormack: They were never good at figures!
Mr O'DOWD: You are right. But this is just a debacle. How anyone can vote yes on this has got me.
Thirty to forty per cent is a pretty rough guide too. The government have established, to their credit, a seven-member panel that has the responsibility for deciding the criteria centres will need to meet in order to be eligible for the funding. I would like to sit in on that meeting and see how that works! Yet these guidelines are not yet determined, meaning they are unable to consider whether they are fair or unreasonable.
This bit of legislation is being rushed through at a hundred miles an hour so that no-one really knows the facts or how this bill is going to work. It sounds to me a bit like the grabbing of funds from bank accounts and superannuation funds. They can take it all right, but they have no idea how they are going to return the funds once the public realise the funds have gone out of their account and they squeal. They do not know how they are going to give it back. This sort of legislation has been rushed through this House time and time again. The public is getting pretty sick of it.
Membership of the panel seems deliberately slanted away from the private sector, though the unions secured a seat around the table. The coalition has extensive correspondence with childcare providers regarding this bill. The childcare sector as a whole expresses concern that the $300 million fund will create a two-tier system, driving a wedge in the system. You are going to have two classes of workers. Is this fair? They are gravely concerned that the centres that are not successful in securing funding will have their staff poached by the other centres. The staff will be very hard to retain if there is a difference of $400 a week in their pay packets. How are they going to hold onto those staff? A number of centre owners have indicated they will have to offer a higher wage rate in order to keep the staff and adhere to the national quality framework staffing requirements.
The coalition referred the bill to the House standing committee, and the bill was automatically referred to the Senate committee for an inquiry; however, at the end of the day, this bill is being rushed through without proper consideration. I have a letter here from a child-minding centre in my area. It says:
It distresses me greatly to have the uncertainty that this bill focusses on our profession. The problems that I see with this Bill are as follows:
There is simply not enough money for the process to be effective. First not all services will be able to access the grant. The big question is how will it be decided who will miss out …
It goes on:
There seems to be absolutely no link between who gets the grant and the quality of the service.
… … …
Even if the grant is obtained there is no guide to who is able to receive it within the service.
… … …
Ability to plan for the future is compromised due to the grant dropping back in 2 years. It would not be sustainable to keep fees reduced and maintain approx an extra $85,000 to the bottom line.
Another letter says:
In regards to the current talks of a pay rise to the Child Care industry I am totally confused and dumbfounded. After hearing about a pay rise to the industry we had a visit from United Voice in April who informed us they would be responsible for deciding which Child Care Centres would be receiving the pay rise and that it would go first to the centres with the highest Union membership.
That is a quote from a union delegate. It says further:
None of our employees were happy about this, including our Director. The Union rep when later talking to the employees told them that most people had signed up and that … our Director, was fully on-board.
This was not the case. The letter goes on:
… had earlier had strong words with the rep but like the rest of us had felt strong pressure to join up, believing this was our only way to be in the running to receive the raise. The Union told us the only other way to be in the running was to privately organise as an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement which would cost of tens of thousands of dollars.
If that is not bullying, I do not know what is. It further says:
I have personally tried to find out information regarding the how, where's, why's, and whose of this whole thing and the only information I have been able to find is very vague and left me more and more confused.
'Can you please help me with this important legislation and please oppose it at every opportunity.' That was from two childminding centres in my area. Some workers have been told they do not get it if they do not sign up and their colleagues will not receive a pay rise. Employees signing up and committing to pay more than $500 a year in union fees are falsely being led to believe that they will be guaranteed a pay rise. There is much confusion out in the workplace. It is divisive. It is unbalanced. It is not fair and that is why I totally oppose this bill. I think it is the worst bill that I have come across in my three years in parliament.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (20:48): Quality childcare services and facilities are an integral component to modern Australian families. As the requirement of more families grows to have a dual income stream in order to keep pace with the cost of living, so too does the need for childcare centres. The cost of child care is high and it is increasing. Many families have to make savings in other areas of the household budget in order to afford care for their children. With the cost of living rising and quality child care becoming more and more unaffordable for families, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013 is set to pass yet another cost on to families.
This bill is seeking to establish the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account. This account will provide wage increases to long day care workers, costing some $300 million over two years. It is important that our childcare centres, particularly those in rural and regional areas, remain well staffed with highly trained and skilled professionals and have the resources they need to carry out their work. But, in typical Labor style, this bill is seeking to achieve that by caving in to the demands of unions and adding caveats to funding which require childcare centres to increase their levels of union membership.
There is nothing wrong with being in a union. I was a member of the Australian Journalists Association and later the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance for more than 20 years.
Ms Plibersek: Did they kick you out?
Mr McCORMACK: No, they certainly did not kick me out, Minister. In fact, they were very pleased to take my union membership fees, and I know that they put them to good use. Unfortunately, I note some other unions' fees have not been put to good use. We have certainly heard that in this federal parliament in so many other ways and means and forms. But, thanks for the interjection, Minister. I do hope you stay at the table because I want to give you in particular a mention a little later on and it is going to be a nice mention, so stay tuned.
As a former business owner and as a former member of a union, I know how important it is to ensure that unions do not have unfettered power within a workplace. This is exactly what the Labor Party are seeking to do. We know this bill will provide a $300 million fund over two years to provide pay increases to childcare workers. What those opposite may not mention, however, is the fact that the genesis of this bill came from the Big Steps campaign mounted by United Voice.
In order to comply with the United Voice's demands, this bill will require childcare centres to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement in order to qualify for the funding. In addition to this, a seven-member panel consisting of community and strong union representation will make determinations as to a childcare centre's eligibility. Childcare centres across the country are very, very concerned about this legislation. We have just heard the member for Flynn read some letters from his electorate of the concerns expressed by good people in his electorate about this legislation. We have heard other members on this side express similar suspicions and concerns about this bill.
Childcare centres are worried that if their application for funding is unsuccessful then they will have to pay the pay increases themselves. Imagine where that additional funding is going to come from—straight out of the hip pockets of families whose children are in the centre. This is a particular concern in regional areas.
Recently, I visited the Billylids Early Learning Child Care Centre at Hillston and the minister at the table, the Minister for Health, might be interested to know—Minister, I hope you are listening.
Ms Plibersek: Intently.
Mr McCORMACK: As you should be. The people of Hillston were very appreciative of the $6 million that was part of the Health and Hospitals Fund that they received in the 2012 budget for a multipurpose service redevelopment. I acknowledge that. The people of Hillston are remote. They deserve the very best medical services that they can receive and they, like anybody else in regional Australia, deserve to have as good a medical service and facilities as anyone living in a metropolitan centre. I know the minister knows that. I know the member for Bowman, who has a shadow portfolio area in that respect, knows it as well.
At Hillston, I visited the Billylids childcare centre, which is having difficulty meeting costs since the establishment of a second centre in the town. Hillston Billylids is a not-for-profit community-owned organisation that is licensed to operate as a 33-place long day care centre in Hillston. It has done so since 2000. Indeed, it was opened by my predecessor Kay Hull, and I know the minister would acknowledge the work that she did on behalf of the Riverina and especially on behalf of healthcare services in rural, regional and remote Australia. She is still doing it. The minister knows that she is still doing it as an executive member of Can Assist as well as in palliative care, to services for Wagga Wagga, and in an effort—and I know the minister knows this because I am on that committee as well—to get a rural medical school at Wagga Wagga where one is very much needed.
Let me go back to Billylids, which has been receiving funding through Long Day Care Sustainability Assistance from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The centre has relied heavily on this funding to support the vital community service it has provided to the Hillston community and surrounding region. Hillston Billylids provides the bulk of care to the community as it is licensed to have 33 children on one day. Currently, this is restricted to 29 as they do not have, and could not afford, an early childhood teacher. Currently, utilisation of the centre is 52 per cent and, unfortunately, with changes to fees which need to occur within the centre it is anticipated that the utilisation rate will drop even further, and that is a great shame.
The only way Hillston Billylids can see itself to be financially viable is to increase the fees by about $20. If fees are to be increased by this amount, a large proportion of families will not be able to afford the child care offered by this organisation and that will inevitably result in the closure of the community-owned centre. That is a great shame, particularly for a town the size of Hillston in a locality as remote as Hillston. The alternatives are few. With children split between the two centres, Hillston Billylids in April lost the support it had through the Community Support Program.
The President of the Hillston Billylids Management Committee, Shaina Peters, wrote to me and asked me to approach the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare to request an extension of the funding arrangement, given the realities of alternative employment for workers who would lose their jobs after this funding was taken away. But the minister has deemed that the Hillston Billylids childcare centre is ineligible for sustainability assistance under the Community Support Program. Now, as if to rub salt into the wounds of the employees at the Hillston Billylids childcare centre, whose future is in jeopardy thanks to the removal of support funding from the federal government, Labor is trying to demand at the behest of the unions that childcare workers enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement.
I will read a little from a letter of 2 April from the General Manager of the Carrathool Shire Council, Ken Croskell, in relation to the Hillston Billylids Early Learning Child Care Centre. The letter states:
The Centre, which is solely operated as a community owned venture, is currently under threat to its long term sustainability …
… … …
The loss of funding equates to $47,000 annually and the Hillston Billylids will need to seek options to remain viable in the future. The most likely option is an increase in fees which may well drive many of their patrons to the privately operated centre and which may ultimately result in the closure of the community based centre which would be disastrous for Hillston and its ability to provide adequate long day care and child care (33 places down to 16).
The Mayor of Carrathool Shire, Peter Laird, was here in Parliament House only last week. He is a good man; he runs a good council. The Hillston community deserves the very best it can receive.
Let us be clear about this bill before us. This is not an attempt to ensure more families can access quality child care with skilled and highly qualified carers. This is an attempt to put the unions' stamp back on this sector. Why else would United Voice be approaching centres requesting they enter into a memorandum of understanding requiring paid staff meetings and an ongoing commitment to the Big Steps program? Why indeed? Why else would United Voice have also been going around childcare centres informing owners they require 60 per cent union membership if the owners want their enterprise agreement given priority treatment? Because this is not about the cost of living and it is not about families. This is about restoring the power of the unions, which brought most of those opposite to this place. We can hear them backwards and forwards about this because this bill is important, and Labor is very insistent on getting to the forefront its union power in these last few remaining days of parliament.
This is a plan from the same party that espouses the virtues of governing in the interests of working families. There is no argument from this side of the House: working families are very important. They keep small business running and small business is the engine room of the economy. But we cannot keep hitting working families again and again and again. Doesn't Labor think those working families would want child care to be affordable? Of course they do. Doesn't Labor think that community-owned not-for-profit facilities such as Hillston Billylids should be able to access funding from the government to ensure it can continue to provide such a vital community service to such a good community? Hillston certainly is a good community.
On 12 July last year I was very pleased to have the shadow minister for childcare, Sussan Ley, who is the member for Farrer—a neighbouring electorate to mine—visit Wagga Wagga. The member for Farrer knows the demands which are placed on rural and regional families. When it comes to childcare needs, and particularly how the rising cost of living is placing additional stresses on families who need to access affordable care for their children, the member for Farrer gets it. She understands regional areas and she certainly understands how difficult it is for families to access childcare. She knows the strains that people are under, let alone when people are hit again and again with higher and higher costs, which is what is going to result from this legislation.
Forcing childcare providers to fund additional spending on wages when government support is cordoned for those who ensure their staffroom is filled with union members is not addressing the rising cost of living, nor is forcing childcare providers who do not receive this funding to pass on the same pay rise to families of the facilities. This is the Labor Party giving in to the bullying tactics of the unions. This is the Labor Party giving in to these bullying tactics. We have seen it all too often. We have seen it time and again—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I hear the member for Kooyong cry out, he knows of the folly of having unions running the government. He knows the folly of having unions running policy and legislation. This sort of behaviour should not be condoned. This is why I join my coalition colleagues in opposing this bill. It does need to be opposed. It is bad legislation and, like so many other things in these last sitting days of this 43rd Parliament, it is being rushed through. We have heard the Senate bells going again and again tonight as senators are scurrying about trying to get through legislation. We have got so many pieces of legislation that still need to be passed and speakers are being gagged. So many pieces of legislation are being guillotined.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: It is a shame and, as I heard the member for Flynn say, the public deserve better. They expect better. They demand better. I certainly do hope that after 14 September they do receive better government because we need better governance.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I am surprised that the minister is calling out because I know she knows how important families are. They do not need to be hit with higher and higher costs. They certainly do not need to be hit with more costs at the behest of union members. As I said previously, I was a member of a union. There is nothing wrong with being a member of a union. But union fees need to be used wisely. Certainly union members need to know that their fees are going to go where they are intended.
The coalition have serious concerns with this bill. We do not dispute that childcare workers, childcare educators, are low paid. Any wage increase should come about through the ruling of the Fair Work Commission, the body that this government established. It set it up with the responsibility for determining appropriate levels of remuneration. This is not good legislation. It needs to be rejected. Certainly the people of Hillston think that, certainly the people of the Riverina think that and I hope this parliament thinks the same.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (21:03): I would like to provide some summing up comments for this Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013 by noting that the government has a proud record of supporting early childhood development and this bill is another example of that support. Over the next four years the government will invest a record $25 billion in early childhood education and care, of which $22.1 billion will be in direct childcare assistance to parents. That is more than triple the investment in the four years prior to 2007, making direct improvements to the lives of children and families. To the members opposite, all I would say is: this government has truly recognised how absolutely crucial it is to provide the appropriate commensurate level of investment into the early years, into childhood care and education so that we can get young Australians on a solid foundation for the rest of their learning journey.
The Early Years Quality Fund is another demonstration of the government's commitment to the sector and this time to the dedicated educators who work with children every day. I stress that these people are educators, not babysitters. This bill provides a wage of recognition of the important work they do and the critical education and care service they provide for Australian families. That is about ensuring that children have access to high-quality early childhood education and care experiences and the enormous benefits that that provides for children themselves, for their families and for the country as a whole.
I think it is fair to say that the enormous growth in the use of early childhood education and care services means that the need to ensure that there is a qualified and professional workforce is now more important than ever. The Early Years Quality Fund provides $300 million over two years in grants directly to long day care centres to supplement wage increases for educators. Funding will be provided directly to approved services to improve quality outcomes for children by supplementing wage increases. The Early Years Quality Fund will help early childhood education and care services attract and retain qualified professionals and assist in raising the professional status of the sector. The Early Years Quality Fund will further support the effective implementation of the National Quality Framework, including the educator qualification requirements commencing in 2014.
To provide these high-quality services we now need to attract, retain and upskill qualified and committed educators to manage the ever-increasing demand in the sector. We certainly understand that support is needed for the early childhood education and care sector to meet these increased requirements embedded in the National Quality Framework and of course meet increasing growth in demand. Increased wages through the Early Years Quality Fund will provide some of that support.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised within the early childhood education and care sector through the committee inquiries relating to the bill. There have been concerns raised regarding the requirement for an enterprise agreement. It is important to understand that the requirement for an enterprise agreement will ensure there is a legal framework in place for the funding to flow on to workers' wages. For individual educators, having an enterprise agreement in place ensures they have a statutory enforceable right to receive the pay increases granted under the fund.
Some in the sector have also raised concerns that the quantum of funding does not provide an increase for all educators, and some have called for a smaller increase that can be distributed to all educators in the sector. I acknowledge these concerns and I know that there is more to be done within this sector to ensure that we attract and retain qualified, respected educators who are being remunerated in a way that shows their value to the Australian society and the future of Australian children.
In a challenging fiscal environment this government has made record investments in early childhood education and care, and by committing a further $300 million to support a quality early childhood workforce the government has acted to keep qualified and professional educators in the sector, maintaining the relationship with children and families that we know are so important to outcomes for children. We are laying the foundation for longer term sustainable professionalism of the early childhood sector.
I can say that a new Pay Equity Unit will be established in the Fair Work Commission, with a focus on conducting research and additionally collecting data and specialist pay equity information to inform matters related to pay equity under the Fair Work Act, modern award reviews and annual minimum wage decisions. While the Early Years Quality Fund will initially help the sector retain qualified workers, the Pay Equity Unit will examine gender and pay equity issues, particularly in female dominated areas such as child care.
I conclude by saying that I have been privileged to have the opportunity to visit many early childhood education and care centres. I have listened to the staff and the parents who say how important it is that these educators are recognised for the work they do. The government agrees with them, and the Early Years Quality Fund is a step towards achieving that recognition. I encourage the House to also agree and to vote to provide these committed and critical yet low-paid workers with the opportunity to gain the pay increase that they so surely deserve. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Oakeshott ): The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
The House divided. [21:13]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (21:17): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment 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
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie—Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation) (21:21): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013
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:
“consideration of the Bill not be concluded by the House until a:
(1) full research report is completed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the true incidence and nature of abuses and non-compliance within the 457 visas program in comparison to other programs to substantiate the requirement for the measures proposed in the bill;
(2) full consultation program with industry and other stakeholders has been conducted by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the impacts of the measures contained in the bill; and
(3) regulatory impact statement has been completed by the Government in relation to Schedule 2 of the bill relating to the proposed labour market testing regime as required by the Office of Best Practice Regulation and the statement be submitted to the Parliament.”
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (21:22): May I thank my colleagues on the other side of the chamber for their endearing support, and I am sure they are here to stay for the duration of the debate. No, they are not—the member for Braddon has abandoned me already, along with the member for Scullin and the member for Chifley. I do rise to speak in relation to the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gippsland has the call and the right to be heard in silence.
Mr CHESTER: With great assistance from my esteemed leader, the member for Wide Bay and the member for Calare. I thank them for their support as I rise to speak in relation to the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Instead of reasoned debate on this issue, we have seen vilification and, I would argue, irresponsible behaviour on behalf of the minister. The coalition has serious concerns about this bill and the government's handling of the entire issue for its own base political motives. Not least of our concerns is the fact that this bill has not been subjected to a regulatory impact statement, despite the fact that it will have significant impacts on small- and medium-sized enterprise and, in fact, big business across Australia.
There has been a lack of proper consultation with the Australian business community. And this bill contains a bizarre back-to-the-future attempt to reintroduce labour market testing, which operated from 1996 to 2001 and was found at that time to be ineffective, costly and a significant delay to employer recruitment action. But most concerning of all is that the bill is based on a false premise. The government has made up the numbers to suggest widespread abuse of the 457 scheme and the minister should be ashamed of the way that he has sought to divide Australians on this very important issue.
Labor's attack on the skilled migration issue has been a desperate distraction from their own failures in relation to the broader issue of border protection policies. The Australian people are not mugs; they understand what is going on in this debate. This is a diversionary tactic which undermines a valid system in our community. The Prime Minister and the previous minister for immigration spent years telling Australians and also telling international markets that they had the balance right in relation to the 457 skilled migration visas; yet now we have the Prime Minister and her senior cabinet colleagues campaigning in Western Sydney telling people that this whole 457 system is out of control.
To illustrate my concerns in relation to this issue I want to refer directly to an incident involving the 457 visa holders employed by a firm in my electorate, Briagolong Engineering. By way of background, Briagolong Engineering has been incorporated since 1986 and its managing director, Chris Lupton, has 35 years experience in construction, offshore resources and power generation industries. As a selling point, the company proudly and openly advertises that it can readily expand its work crew to support larger projects utilising both Australian and internationally sourced workers through the 457 program. So there is no secret there at all. The company openly advertises that it will hire international workers on demand if the situation warrants such employment contracts.
It is a legal and well-recognised part of commercial activity in Australia hiring overseas workers on these 457 visas. The 457 visa is a dominant component of Australia's temporary skilled migration program. In the case of the firm that is based in Stratford, Briagolong Engineering, it has helped the firm secure large jobs at comparatively short notice. Particularly during the high-demand phase of the mining boom, accessing skilled workers for small regional companies like Briagolong Engineering has not been that easy. But it is a well-regarded local company which also hires apprentices and trains its own skilled workforce. So you can imagine the anger, the frustration and the disappointment that the owners of this company must feel when they are targeted by this government and when they are singled out for union activity on a work site in Werribee, near Melbourne.
As Victorian members would be aware, the unions want to force all contracts in Victoria to abide by conditions set on the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant. The employment conditions on that job were so generous that local tradesmen working on that project started calling it Treasure Island. If that were to become the precedent, the basis upon which all large-scale construction projects and infrastructure projects were to be built in Victoria, it would be very difficult for any government to build anything at all in Victoria in the future. Apart from being a hideously expensive white elephant in itself, the project was an industrial relations nightmare, and the union wants it to be used as a benchmark for all further projects.
It is against that backdrop that the unions picketed the project in Werribee where Briagolong Engineering had a contract to construct two steel water storage containers. It got to the stage—and it was well publicised at the time—that workers were actually flown into the site on a helicopter. It is hard to imagine anything much more bizarre in Australia—where workers legally employed to be in Australia, undertaking a project with a company that has more than 25 years history as a successful business, are forced to fly over a picket line just to continue their work. It is disappointing that senior members of the Labor Party in Victoria actually supported the picket line.
Since that event, Briagolong Engineering has been the subject of intense scrutiny from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, culminating in an on-site audit of the company on Friday in Stratford. Is that just a coincidence? I fear not. I have some questions for the minister for immigration, in particular, in relation to that issue. I have been informed that the order to visit Stratford and audit this company came directly from the minister's office. So I will be inviting the minister to come into this place and confirm or deny this allegation. Did the minister or someone in the minister's office order the department to visit Stratford and audit Briagolong Engineering? If that is the case, can the minister explain why such action was taken? Why send a departmental officer three hours from Melbourne when previous desktop audits had not indicated any wrongdoing?
It is my understanding that Briagolong Engineering has been compliant in relation to its use of 457 visa holders and has never been accused of any major breaches. This looks and sounds a lot like a ministerial office being used to do the bidding of the union movement. I fear that Briagolong Engineering has been targeted, because that is the way the Labor government is forced to do business, the way it has been forced to operate, to stay in the good books with the union movement in order to secure funding for its own election campaigns.
The union movement owns this government. We have seen countless examples of Labor ministers doing the bidding of their union bosses, from the flawed Safe Rates legislation demanded by the TWU to this scurrilous attempt to win union approval by vilifying 457 visa holders. Let me say to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on behalf of small- and medium-sized businesses owners across Australia: call off the union heavies—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:30): Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Mr IRONS (Swan) (21:30): I rise tonight to talk about an issue that not only affects me but also affects a lot of people of Australia, and probably a lot of members in this place as well. Hearing the member for Hume speak this afternoon so honestly about issues that are dear to him has inspired me to be a little bit more honest and not hold back as much as I would normally.
I want to talk about a particular type of cancer called a neurofibrosarcoma, a rare type of tumour. It is also sometimes called a peripheral nerve sheath tumour. This type of growth only develops in areas around the peripheral nerves, which are parts of the nervous system that do not include the brain and the spinal cord. Just remember the brain bit there. Examples include the nerves that run along the arms and legs. Soft tissue sarcomas are one per cent of all cancers diagnosed each year. The neurofibrosarcoma makes up six per cent of that one per cent, so it is very rare. My wife Cheryl's daughter died at the age of 10 of a neurofibrosarcoma in her brain. It was extremely rare. It very rarely goes in the brain.
That segues into a particular issue that one of my constituents has contacted me about. He wrote to me:
Steve,
Thanks for the opportunity to bring your attention to some very major concerns about the unavailability of Zelboraf on the PBS.
I see the shadow minister for health in here and I will make sure I send this speech to him to have a look at and fight the fight for us. The letter continued:
The subject of Metastatic Melanoma treatment for those that are diagnosed with it, is highly emotional, because we are dealing with peoples life or death choices. Melanoma can be quite complex in terms of what treatment, (if any), can be administered & in Dianne's case, she was tested to see if she had a particular mutant gene BRAF V600, which meant she did, she could be included in the GSK drug trial that they were recruiting for at the time. The possibility of her having that gene for treatment with Zelboraf, (Vemurafenib—Roche product), or the combination of BRAF Inhibitor, Dabrafenib and the MEK Inhibitor, Trametinib, (GSK product) was a 50/50 chance. Luckily for her, she had it present in her Melanoma's. IF she hadn't, she probably had 3-6 months life expectancy. As it is, after 7 weeks of treatment with Zelboraf, her Melanoma tumours have reduced in size by 70%, which is fantastic news, so far!
My concerns are this:-
1. Under the terms & conditions of the Patient Information & Consent document, dated 1st May, 2013, it states, "GSK, (the study sponsor),the regulatory authority, or the study doctor, may choose to stop the study at any time. We will give you the reason at that time. If this happens, the reason will be explained to you". My Question: if that happens, how does Dianne continue her treatment? The ONLY answer I'm aware of if this occurs, is she has to purchase Zelboraf from Roche, through a pharmacy account, at $2385 per week +. Is this a fair & just outcome for ordinary citizens of this country? The other consideration is, GSK recruitment for this trial, will cease in 2 months' time. What would have happened to Dianne, if she was diagnosed in 3 months' time? Indeed, what will happen to those that do get diagnosed within this time? Death or $2385+ per week!
2. Roche have twice had their submission to the PBAC, rejected, for inclusion on the PBS. They have now stated that they will never submit the product again & that they have taken 370 patients off the Free Scheme. I believe that the major reason for this rejection, was that the product was far too expensive to have included on the PBS. I believe it is included on national health schemes in some countries around the world. As we are dealing with people's lives here, is it fair & reasonable to reject this drug from inclusion on the PBS, when it clearly has & is, contributing to much longer living for many patients. There is a guy in WA who has survived so far, on Zelboraf, for 38 months.
I will finish off by going to the end of his letter:
Steve, this is a very emotional subject & through Melanoma WA, we are going to up the ante on this subject & try to get some national sentiment aroused & some action by politicians to have these drugs & particularly in my case—Zelboraf, placed on the PBS. It may sound cynical, but if you were to get really involved in this area of Government, your standing within Australian politics would go sky high. I know you alone can't deliver on any promises or requests but we need politicians to find a way with this! Maybe you can lead it.
There was also an article by Sue Dunlevy titled 'Re-mortgage to live' about people having to remortgage their houses to pay for drugs that were not on the PBS. In a situation where we see so much bureaucratic waste, we should be looking after people in Australia. I urge that we run a trial on these drugs.
Air Safety
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (21:35): Today I rise to speak about a very important issue that was brought to my attention, and I rise to show my support for Taiwan becoming a meaningful participant in the International Civil Aviation Organisation by gaining observer status at that particular aviation body's meetings, mechanisms, committees and activities. This would allow Taiwan to better contribute to the safeguarding of regional and global aviation safety.
The reason I am raising this issue is I believe aviation safety is incredibly important. Having an electorate in Hindmarsh, which has an airport smack bang in the middle of it, I know how important are issues surrounding the safety of airports and ensuring that not only passengers on the planes are safe but also people on the ground under flight paths. We should not allow any barriers to stand in the way of ensuring that all international travellers, including the many, many thousands of Australians who travel to Taiwan and Asia, are kept safe. This is very important.
The Convention on International Civil Aviation, which was signed in Chicago, Illinois, on 7 December 1944, established the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a specialised United Nations agency that covers all issues relating to aviation and aviation safety, ensuring that not only passengers are safe but also anyone who is involved in aviation, including, as I said, people on the ground. The aims of the International Civil Aviation Organisation are to develop the principles and the techniques of international air navigation and to foster the planning and development of international air transport so as to meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and economical air transport. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has expanded to govern the procedures and the processes relating to flight inspection, air navigation, civil aviation infrastructure, prevention of unlawful interference, unified border crossing protocols and most recently, as we have seen with climate change, environmental standards. All of these are extremely important to the safety of aviation and to the environment.
Every travelling person in the world has an absolute vested interest in ensuring that aviation transport is safe and secure. Of course, safe skies are ensured through the uniform aviation standards, the harmonisation of security protocols and the fast dissemination of information regarding new regulations and all other relevant matters that affect aviation safety and aviation around the world. The Taipei flight information region under the jurisdiction of Taiwan covers air space of 180,000 square miles. In 2012 alone it serviced nearly 1.3 million flights carrying 40 million travellers. Despite this, Taiwan has had to resort to indirect methods to obtain that very crucial information on safety and procedural information and has had to make additional efforts to achieve the same level of standards and quality in aviation safety in Taipei as you would find anywhere else in the world.
The European Parliament, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the United States Congress have passed resolutions supporting Taiwan's bid to become an observer at the International Civil Aviation Organisation. These motions in the US Senate and the US Congress specifically mentioned that in a post 9/11 world we cannot have a situation where a gap in procedures undermines confidence in commercial aviation. Meaningful participation by Taiwan as an observer in the meetings and activities of the ICAO will be of benefit to success. (Time expired)
Petition: Fruit Imports
Dr STONE (Murray) (21:40): I rise to present a petition which has been through the Standing Committee on Petitions. There are 1,129 signatures which are a real cry from the heart from the mothers, fathers and children of my electorate. These people are pleading for recognition of the crisis that now engulfs our preserved fruit industry. The people around Cobram in the Murray Valley and also in the Goulburn Valley around Shepparton East, right throughout our magnificent fruit growing region, have had an enormous shock because imported fruits from China and South Africa and tomatoes from Italy have been so cheap they have been snapped up readily by the big two supermarkets in particular, Coles and Woolworths. They have been used in their generic or home brands so comprehensively that now you find this imported fruit being sold in Australia at or below the cost of production of magnificent fruit in our country. So a tragic decision was made by SPC Ardmona very recently—they are owned by Coca-Cola Amatil—to cancel entirely the contracts for supply of fruit to their factory next year from half of their growers. The other half have had their contracts halved. In either case, you are looking at a farm business which is no longer viable.
These 1,129 or so signatures are from the ordinary men, women and families—the workers from my electorate—who say this affects us all. This is not just about several hundred fruit growers or the 600 or so people who work in the SPC Ardmona factories. This is to do with the sporting teams and the schools. This is to do with the churches and the community centres, Agriculture is the foundation of the economy and provides the first step into jobs—whether it is picking, pruning, packing or in the transport sector. It is no wonder that there were 32 separate commercial outlets who had these petitions on their counters as the signatures were collected. It included places like the Europa Deli, the Shepparton Optical, all of the local hotels, Damian White Real Estate and the RSL. These businesses understood that the crisis and tragedy of our cannery fruit industry was also the community's crisis. There are another 3,500 signatures already collected on additional petitions and I will be presenting those out of parliamentary time as they are aggregated.
I have to say that I am very pleased that this government has now passed on the application for a safeguard WTO sanctioned action which could give us 200 days of duties imposed on these imported fruits to give some breathing space to SPC Ardmona while they do different things with their technology and hopefully give us breathing space where Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and the other supermarkets stop buying this super cheap imported product—product that often is not sufficiently checked at the borders for biosecurity safety because we all know about the slashing of quarantine services in this country, particularly inspection services. We want this safeguard action to be put in place urgently. I have to say I was alarmed when the minister said the inquiry into whether a safeguard action is warranted should be done urgently but it could be three months. Three months is a very long time to continue to have damage done to this industry through dirt cheap imports. And I emphasise the words 'dirt cheap'.
Let me also say that there is a need for an anti-dumping action to be considered. The product coming into this country is the same as that which has been coming into New Zealand for quite some time, and they have had anti-dumping actions against these same countries for the same products. This has given their fruit growing industry a chance to compete by levelling the price at the border through anti-dumping duties. Australia needs to use the totally lawful WTO sanctioned measures that are put in place when there is unconscionable behaviour from an importer
We have not brought in these sorts of actions like safeguards or anti-dumping in nearly the same number of episodes as our competitors, countries like China, have invoked. We rarely invoke an anti-dumping action in Australia or safeguard measure. I am pleased this government is now doing that but I am certainly concerned that it is a matter of timing and I want to emphasise that these signatures are placed on these petitions with the real hope that other people are listening to the plight of our Australian orchardists and manufacturers because, quite frankly, once these trees are bulldozed, which is now happening, you are not going to see again a fruit-growing industry like we have had in northern Victoria.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia
Draws to the attention of the House to the fact that SPC Ardmona can no longer compete with very low cost imported preserved fruit and tomatoes. This is forcing growers and the industry to abandon orchards and retrench workers.
We therefore ask the House to ensure the relevant ministers impose a World Trade Organisation consistent Emergency Safeguard Measure which will make imported preserved fruit and tomatoes compete on a more level playing field.
We also urgently request support of an industry survival package to give the growers and related workers a future.
from 1,129 citizens
Petition received.
Fowler Electorate: Multiculturalism
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (21:45): I rise this evening to speak about Australia's great achievement in developing a truly diverse and multicultural community, one that allows opportunity for all. Today multiculturalism in Australia is about a shared sense of nationhood forged through mutual respect, common values and a commitment to fairness. I have the honour of representing the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia, which stands as an example to the nation of all the benefits that come from true diversity in culture, traditions and indeed religions. More than half my electorate were born overseas and in fact one-third of my community come from an Indochinese background. I represent one of the largest Asian communities outside Asia itself. As a result I have been able to witness the great contribution that the Chinese-based organisations in Western Sydney make to our local community and Australia at large.
Because I have such a large Indochinese community I have decided to look a little more closely at the history of their migration to Australia. Looking at the history, it is clear that, although today we have much to be proud of in terms of diversity and multiculturalism, there are certain parts of our history that we cannot be proud of. A large number of Chinese immigrated to Australia in the 1850s during the period of the gold rush. Coinciding with this migration various discriminatory laws were introduced specifically targeting the Indochinese. For instance, in 1855 the poll tax of Victoria was enacted, which imposed a £10 tax on the entry of Indochinese immigrants to the state as well as levying on them a residential tax of £12 per year. This gave disproportionate advantage to Australian-born miners in particular, resulting in great tensions on the goldfields and explosive riots in Victoria and New South Wales in the 1860s.
While celebrating Federation in 1901, Australia also introduced a number of exclusionary laws to be included in the Immigration Restriction Act, known as the White Australia policy. Again targeting the Indochinese community, it resulted in hardship and division within families and effectively prevented them from being able to reunite. It was not until the Labor government under Gough Whitlam in 1973 that this highly discriminatory policy was repealed.
I am aware that a large number of other nations similarly had regrettable policies but have taken steps to at least acknowledge these past injustices. For instance, in 2002 the then New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, made a formal apology to the Chinese population and their descendants in relation to the levying of the poll tax because it imposed a discriminatory imposition on Indochinese. She acknowledged the hardship that it imposed and also the damaging impact it had on families. She stated:
We believe an act of reconciliation is required to ensure that full closure can be reached on this chapter in our nation's history.
Subsequent to that, in 2006 the Canadian Prime Minister apologised for the Chinese tax that had been levied during the late 1800s. In 2011 and 2012 the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed resolutions expressing their regret for the passage of discriminatory laws against the Chinese in America, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.
In Australia we are yet to properly recognise our regrettable treatment of the Chinese people who contributed so much to the building of our nation. The Chinese have made and continue to make a tremendous contribution to Australia's economy and our community, but the scars of the past certainly remain. I recently met with Kingsley Liu and Erin Chew from Project 1855, an online Chinese-Australian group seeking a formal statement of regret. Acknowledging past injustice is an important step for a mature community as it moves to realise the full potential of its people. When I see the colour, vibrancy and diversity of the community that I represent, I know full well that multiculturalism is something that we truly can be proud of in this country.
Herbert Electorate: Cyclones
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (21:50): When Cyclone Yasi bore down on the North Queensland coast it was the biggest storm ever seen in Australia. The cyclone front stretched the full 400 kilometres between Townsville and Cairns. It is well documented that Cardwell and Tully took a bullet for Townsville and Cairns that night and we thank them so very much for their resilience. As the threat grew the northern beaches had to be evacuated. I went out there on the morning of its arrival to see the suburbs of Toolakea, Saunders and Bushland Beach all but empty. What struck me was that there was nowhere to go if you do not already know someone. If you were a tourist staying at a caravan park, you had very little chance to bunker down with a friend.
Cyclone evacuation centres had been promised by the Beattie state government but none were delivered. It is not a federal government function to deliver cyclone evacuation centres, but I was talking to Senator Gary Humphries, who did such a great job for me during this natural disaster. He noted that the federal government played no part in disaster readiness but could expend billions in response.
I had also been to the new Townsville suburb of North Shore. They are now developing a village green style community centre and clubhouse, which would play host to cricket and AFL. I asked what it would take to bring that to a cyclone evacuation centre standard for around 1,000 people. They said it could probably be done for around $3 million, keeping in mind that a cyclone evacuation centre, in its entirety, costs around $8 million. So why not use a little serendipity to our best advantage? Serendipity is an aptitude for making desirable discoveries purely by accident. Here we have the perfect scenario. Here we have a community centre being developed and the federal government could add to that facility and create an entirely new purpose for a great community facility.
In my northern beaches suburbs, there is a complete dichotomy of the city of Townsville. There are millionaires' mansions on the hill, rural acreage blocks, working farms, suburban blocks, new homes and old homes. At a recent listening post at Bluewater State School, a lady came up to me and said that she had lived there for 38 years. Her needs were not all that great but she did appreciate that the northern beaches were at last getting some attention. Just up the road, there is Bluewater Caravan Park. Some people live there all summer and longer. All these people need a place to go in times of trouble. If we are to reduce taxpayers' exposure and reduce waste, surely this exercise is worthwhile. This centre would never take over from the Deeragun Community Centre, which facilitates meetings of a multitude of groups from all over the northern beaches. It is, however, very small by comparison and landlocked for any real expansion. The housing development to Townsville's north is exponential. What they need is a government that will look after their taxable dollars and get them the best result. It will be my aim to ensure that the northern beaches' requirements are fought for by a committed member of parliament.
On the other side of town lies Brolga Park, home to Townsville football—or soccer to people of my generation. Each and every weekend some 4,500 families attend this major Townsville sporting facility to play football across 15 different clubs, from the under sixes to seniors. It is used all year round for carnivals and school competitions. Built mainly by volunteer labour, the facilities badly need an upgrade. There are no suitable changing rooms for visiting teams or home teams. While it certainly does not worry the children who play the game, it is not the best look for a city which boasts sporting excellence. To be able to play and train on a weatherproof field is so very important to North Queensland's sporting teams. When we do get a big wet season, playing fields in Townsville can be out of action for a number of months, not weeks or days. To be a professional facility we need to update amenities. Parents and mothers need more than a shady tree and a wooden seat. They need an inviting, comfortable community space where families want to spend much of their weekend. This, in turn, would encourage participation in sport. In an age where sport is such an important part of a child's development, we must foster and encourage them to not only try a team sport but also stick at it. Again, this is about developing my community; it is about working for what Townsville needs, not just wants. This is about the development of the north's people and the north's people are our greatest resource.
National Broadband Network
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (21:55): On 23 May the Mayor of Tea Tree Gully, Miriam Smith, and I launched the Modbury Digital Hub at the City of Tea Tree Gully Library. The hub was funded by a $375,870 federal government grant to Tea Tree Gully Council and is one of around 40 similar hubs around Australia. Its purpose is to provide free digital literacy training for all skill levels, to help communities gain the skills needed to maximise the benefits provided by the National Broadband Network.
For young people born and raised in a cyberworld, the use of cybertechnology comes as second nature. For many older people, however, it is a different story. The limitless and rapidly changing technology can be overwhelming and initially confusing, yet we know that cybertechnology, if used correctly, can be of equal benefit to all people regardless of age. The new hub at Modbury will enable people to understand and familiarise themselves with many cybertechnology applications, in readiness for the National Broadband Network connection. I encourage residents who are not familiar with cybertechnology to visit the Modbury Digital Hub, to see for themselves the range of applications available and to learn how to make the most of the NBN connection when it becomes available. I have no doubt that the high-speed National Broadband Network will change our lives even more than internet use already has.
Australians have patiently waited for the existing old copper wire technology to be replaced, because they understand the multitude of applications that are possible with a high-speed, reliable service. Rolling out a new national infrastructure project of the NBN's scale has not been without problems but, contrary to the utterances of the critics and the knockers, led by the leader of the coalition, Tony Abbott, the NBN rollout is well underway across Australia, including here in Makin where, as at 14 May 2013, construction work to connect 16,600 homes has already begun. The government's fibre-to-the-home proposal has withstood the scrutiny of industry experts and IT commentators and, clearly, remains the best way to take Australia into the future with cybertechnology.
The alternative proposal, which has been put forward by the Tony Abbott coalition, is best described as a second-rate scheme, using outdated infrastructure, that will leave many households no better served than they presently are. My concern is that with an election in September, if there were to be a change of government, homeowners and businesses for whom NBN connection is now within sight and who have been waiting patiently for their connections will be left stranded because the coalition plan will simply not deliver the modern infrastructure that enables consumers to maximise and fully benefit from the technology available and the applications that are possible.
Why is Labor's fibre-to-the-home NBN so much better than the coalition's copper plan? Fibre lasts much longer than copper and allows much faster speeds. The speed can be upgraded far more simply and cheaply by replacing the technology at each end of the cable, rather than digging up the cable itself. Unlike a fibre network, the coalition's plan will require an electrical supply, cooling system and so on to each node. Surely, this will only add to the complexity and maintenance costs, not to mention that our streets will be littered with around 60,000 refrigerator like cabinets at close intervals to extend the reach of ADSL on copper. Copper bandwidth drops sharply with distance and only lasts around 30 years, adding considerably to future maintenance costs. Fibre, on the other hand, lasts 60 to 100 years, operates at higher speeds and offers much more bandwidth.
Furthermore, no electrical components are required in between the exchange and the premises and the fibre is unaffected by water, which is a common problem with copper. The coalition's copper network will not have the same capacity and will, very likely, be obsolete by the time it is completed. It is already an eight-year-old proposal. Under the coalition's plan, if users want to upgrade and replace an inadequate copper connection with a superior fibre-to-the-home connection they will have to pay for it themselves. Some estimates put this cost at up to $5,000. It seems far more sensible and efficient to build a network that will support the speeds people need now, and into the future, in one go.
The coalition's plan will cost a similar amount to the NBN, yet deliver an inferior service. Adding to delays, construction plans will have to be redeveloped and contracts with Telstra will need to be renegotiated. Contrasted with a roll-out plan which is well underway and ramping up, it would be foolishly optimistic to expect the alternative coalition service to even be rolled out and completed any faster than the government's NBN roll-out timetable. As Minister Albanese said in question time today, the government's fibre network is bringing 21st century technology right to people's homes where it is needed. The coalition would rather take us back to the past.
Repatriation of Pemulwuy's Skull
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (22:00): I have spoken in the House before about my efforts to have the skull of Pemulwuy repatriated to Australia from the United Kingdom. For those members who are not aware of Pemulwuy's story, Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal warrior from the Eora people around Sydney who resisted early British settlement in New South Wales. Pemulwuy was eventually caught and executed by the Colony of New South Wales in 1802, but not before he had invested Parramatta and successfully fought battles against the British. His head was transported back to Britain, where it now lies in storage at the Natural History Museum. He is regarded as a hero to thousands of modern Indigenous Australians and to many members of the public at large, who see Pemulwuy as a figure of Aboriginal defiance, and his legacy remains an important part of Indigenous culture in Australia.
As some of you are aware, this campaign began when Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, pledged to help return Pemulwuy's skull and cooperate with Eric Willmot, a former Director-General of Education in South Australia, who is also the author of a 1987 book about Pemulwuy's life which has been reprinted in recent years, and Alex Hartman of Matilda Media, whom some will remember as a Young Australian of the Year, and with the support of Michael Mundine. They are all committed to helping return Pemulwuy's skull to Australia.
When I first spoke in this place about this issue in September 2011, I encouraged the current government to support my efforts to repatriate Pemulwuy's remains and I informed the House that I would be making representations to the Director of the Natural History Museum and to the United Kingdom government. Unfortunately, to date they have refused to look into the matter as they say they cannot identify Pemulwuy's skull from their human remains collection and they have refused to instigate a search to try and identify his skull. This inaction on the museum's part is unfortunate, particularly given that Pemulwuy was related to Bennelong and therefore the remains of Pemulwuy could be easily found and easily identifiable, through DNA testing, against the remains of Bennelong.
I wrote to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in October last year, seeking her support and assistance and, disappointingly, I did not receive a response from her, but I did receive a response from the member for Hotham, who is a good member of this House. It is unfortunate, given Minister Macklin's past statements about the importance of Aboriginal history in Australia, that she, as the representative of the government, did not seem to be taking this very sensitive issue seriously. I say to members of the government here tonight that if they are unwilling to assist in returning a very important piece of Australia's history, then I can assure them that, should the coalition be fortunate to win the election due on 14 September, we will make every endeavour to expedite this matter and return Pemulwuy's remains to the Eora people.
Next week I will be meeting with several academics from the University of Adelaide who are working with the Australian heritage project, which is building a genetic map of Aboriginal Australian groups that is designed to identify Aboriginal remains using DNA. I strongly encourage members of this House to support their efforts and render them any assistance that they might need. I look forward to reporting back to the House in future months about what further progress we have made and I hope that with the assistance of Adelaide university and the Australian Aboriginal heritage project we will be able to identify Pemulwuy's remains and return them to Australia, where they belong.
Speaker, I have asked the minister on duty at the table if I can table the letters that I have sent and the responses that I have had from the Australian High Commissioner at that time, John Dauth, from the Natural History Museum, from St James's Palace on behalf of the Duke of Cambridge and also from Simon Crean, the member for Hotham, when he was the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and the Minister for the Arts, so I seek leave to table the correspondence.
Leave granted.
Religious Freedom
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (22:04): I have risen in this place three times now to raise the issue of religious freedom. The first time it was in response to some rather absurd calls from opposition members to ban the hijab, the second was in response to an attack on my local Jewish synagogue, and this time it is in response to concerns in our Islamic community that incidents of abuse and discrimination on religious grounds appear to be on the rise.
I believe that most Australians would assume that freedom of religion is a given in this country. It runs deep in our culture and is featured in our Constitution. It includes the right to have or not have a religion, to manifest religious belief individually or with others, in public or in private, and to do so without fear of reprisal, abuse or discrimination. I realised a few months ago that I had started smiling at women in the street who were wearing the hijab, which is the headscarf worn by many women of Islamic faith. The reason was quite simple and also shocking: it is that I knew at some level Muslim women and girls who wore religious garments were suffering rudeness, abuse and even various forms of touching in the street. Unlike the men, they are more easily identified as Muslims and are therefore more vulnerable to abuse. My smile was my attempt to show them support and from conversations I have had with Muslim friends, both male and female, and the stories they have told me of their experiences on the street I know that my view was accurate.
Even if just some women and girls cannot walk down the street wearing a hijab, even with their children, without being abused or fearing abuse—so if they feel afraid, or even a little uneasy—then I fear we are not the open, welcoming country of the fair go that we think we are. If we see overt demonstrations of rudeness and abuse towards women and girls, we can reasonably assume that there is also hidden discrimination in other aspects of life including getting a job and earning a promotion and our workplaces must also be rife with discrimination for both Muslim men and women. We in this place are both leaders and servants of our community. As leaders we lead by our character and we look to the horizon and support those who can see further than we can. As servants we support those who strive to find a good path through their life and aid those who are lost or have fallen behind. We who have been given the extraordinary privilege of representing our constituents have a role to play as leaders and servants in ensuring that our communities of all backgrounds and abilities grow secure and strong, confident and empowered to make the decisions needed to build good lives. A sense of belonging, of being welcomed and accepted is fundamental, and that is why Labor has a Minister for Social Inclusion. When we see a community feeling excluded, it is our job to act to counter that.
My Muslim community is a good one. I know them as children going to school, students, young adults falling in love, parents, grandparents, engineers, doctors and religious scholars, as people who have chosen a good path through life which provides a sense of community and guides them in finding answers to the difficult questions of life. I also know them as people who despair about the actions and behaviours of those people in the world who do terrible things in the name of Islam. I know they seek to protect this country of theirs, where they raise their children, work and plan to retire, from any infiltration of those distorted, violent beliefs. We should all be with them and beside them on that. I know them as people whose paths through life will be a little more difficult if they do not feel welcome and safe in a country that is their home and, more and more these days, the country of their birth.
The Islamic community has begun to ask that the human rights and antidiscrimination laws be strengthened to cover religious vilification and discrimination. On the Labor side of the House we released an exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012, which strengthened many protections and extended antidiscrimination laws on the grounds of religion to the workplace. That is a major step forward. However, there were several submissions that echoed the views of my Islamic community and argued for stronger antivilification laws on the grounds of religion. The Attorney-General, as part of the review, has asked his department to thoroughly assess submissions made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, including those that argued that we take a step forward in protecting the community from religious vilification and discrimination.
In contrast, on the other side of politics the coalition has indicated that it would throw us into reverse by repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. That is the section that makes it unlawful to publish material which offends or insults a person or group because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person. The removal of such protections would be a major step backward. I urge the parliament to uphold protections against racial vilification that are already in place under section 18C and to look to ways to safeguard the protection of religious freedom in Australia for all religions. (Time expired)
Aston Electorate
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (22:09): This is the last week of the 43rd Parliament and possibly the last time that I will have the opportunity to speak in this House before the election. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Aston for the honour they bestowed upon me in 2010 to be their representative. It has been a tremendous honour and great responsibility to be their representative. I have done my best to represent the people of Knox as well as I can.
I am particularly proud of our community campaign to get a headspace centre into Knox. Without our campaign, which involved dozens of local residents, the headspace centre would not be there today. It is already helping hundreds of young people. I am also proud of our campaign to save some of the three-year-old kinders in Knox. Our advocacy nationally and our work locally helped those kinders stay open and allowed one—Templeton—to reopen. The Stud Road bus lane between Ferntree Gully Road and Kellets Road was eliminated in large part because of our public efforts to put it on the agenda. Along with some other colleagues, we were successful in forcing the federal government to reinstate $8.4 million in health funding to Knox. I have also worked closely with our schools and local businesses over the last three years to support them with funding and other issues.
None of these efforts could be done alone. I can spearhead many of these local campaigns, but they only have weight because community members have done the work and got behind them also. Perhaps the most satisfying part of the last three years has been working with individuals who have come to my office seeking assistance. I cannot always make a difference, but sometimes I can by virtue of my office. Some constituent matters become nationally prominent—for example, Henry Zhang, who came to see me about a gambling problem he had with Sportsbet. From that we placed some of the online gambling issues onto the national agenda.
As an election approaches I will again be seeking the support of the people of Aston to have the honour of representing them for a further term. I am a proud Liberal Party member and so will be campaigning for the end of this dreadful Labor government and the election of a coalition government. I am proudly supporting our core commitments of again getting control of our borders, addressing cost-of-living concerns, getting control of our finances and building a stronger economy through less regulation.
Locally, there are a number of priorities I would work on should I be re-elected. I would work on building a safer Knox through increased community safety measures such as CCTV cameras and better lighting at local shopping strips and train stations. One in 10 Knox residents do not feel safe in our community, according to my local survey. It is not good enough, and we can do better. Some of our roads need improving, and I would continue to fight to ease congestion, including by supporting the East-West link to take pressure off the Monash and by maintaining the pressure on Rowville rail so that it stays on the agenda. The section of the Stud Road bus lane between Burwood Highway and Boronia Road must be fixed.
Our community can be made stronger through supporting key local institutions such as our schools and large sporting clubs. Everyone is a beneficiary of better sporting facilities because it keeps young people active and off the street and allows mentoring to occur.
I would like to continue with our efforts to install a Knox honour roll to acknowledge those locals who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. Our plans are well advanced, but I would be determined to see this installed in time for the centenary of ANZAC.
Our small businesses and manufacturers need support. We have one of the highest concentrations of manufacturing in the nation, but many are struggling. To support them we must have policies including abolishing the carbon tax, getting rid of red tape and building economic infrastructure. When our local businesses do well, we all do well because there are jobs and wage increases for everyone.
Finally, I would like to focus on doing everything possible to reduce cost-of-living pressures. People in Knox are hurting, particularly due to skyrocketing electricity prices. We must get costs under control, and it starts with getting rid of the carbon tax to provide immediate relief but also means getting rid of regulations which just make services more expensive.
My family and I live in a great community. I represent a great community. Together we have achieved a lot, but there is more to be done. It would be an honour to represent the people of Aston again, and over the weeks ahead I will be seeking their support to do so.
Chifley Electorate: Pensioners
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (22:14): I rise tonight to voice the deep concerns of people on low incomes in my electorate who have been affected by harsh decisions made by both Liberal state and Liberal local governments. I am specifically referring to pensioners in the Chifley electorate. Pensioners have been affected by the hard-hearted decisions of these two levels of government, decisions made with scant, almost dismissive, regard as to the impact that they will have. While we often see on show the hand-wringing of Liberals about cost-of-living pressures, we rarely see that their actions or decisions match their pretend concerns.
I am proud to say that, under federal Labor, pensioners are in a significantly stronger position. For example, 3.5 million pensioners are up to $207 better off if they are a single pensioner and up to $236 better off if they are a couple of pensioners combined, each fortnight. That is a result of Labor's pension changes. We have also helped low-income Australians on allowance payments with a new $210 supplementary allowance for single pensioners and $350 for couples to help with essential living costs, to be paid in two instalments.
Contrast this with the actions of the New South Wales Liberal government and the Blacktown council in our local area. There are 4,000 pensioners in Chifley who live in public housing provided by Housing NSW. Just as we provided a lift to their incomes via a pension increase, what did the New South Wales Liberal government do? It lifted the rents it charges these 4,000 pensioners. There was no warning and no campaigning to say that this was what they were going to do. They just hit the purses and wallets of these pensioners, and there was a massive outcry from them.
When it comes to public housing, federal Labor provided a massive boost by increased spending directed to help with the backlog of maintenance. We also built extra accommodation with approximately 200 additional social housing projects completed in the Chifley electorate. Despite this assistance, the New South Wales Liberal government still went ahead with its rent increases for no other reason than to take money off the people on the lowest incomes in our community and use that money to line its own budget.
At the time, pensioners were rightly outraged and they outlined the impact of this decision on them. How did the Liberal government respond? They just increased rents again. This was in spite of the fact that the New South Wales Auditor-General discovered the New South Wales government had overlooked a lazy $1 billion in its budget. Did that stop the New South Wales government from slugging pensioners with an extra public housing rent increase? No, they just did it. Then, as if this was not enough, the Liberal controlled Blacktown council decided it would also have a go at taking money off pensioners. Out of the blue, it decided it would stop extending a $46 pension rebate on council rates. It was finished, gone without notice and no warning.
At two levels of government, the Liberal Party have made pensioners an easy target to grab money from. The Liberal councils have never campaigned on the removal of the rebate in their election brochures displaying their multipoint plans. They never told pensioners this would occur. They never gave pensioners the time to plan ahead for the increase in their rates from the scrapping of this rebate. The way they justified the increase was stunning. When people wrote to councils to express their dismay, some Liberal councillors were just dismissive. According to Liberal Councillor Isabelle White, a person who is running as a candidate for the Liberal Party in the upcoming federal election, Blacktown council has:
… a very generous system with the pensioners of Blacktown City Council. A modest loss of 93 cents per week for pensioners will go to improving services where money is urgently needed.
I do not believe Councillor White has had to manage on a pensioner's budget, but I think it would sound odd to pensioners living in Chifley that pensioner incomes are now being used to subsidise the work Blacktown council normally would have budgeted for. I go back to the quote:
A modest loss of 93 cents per week for pensioners will go to improving services where money is urgently needed.
Let me contrast that with some examples of recent council decisions. The Liberal council sought to rezone nearly 800 residents' homes into recreation areas while looking to sell off parks. They are looking to privatise council-run child care. In the Chifley electorate, council-run centres provide affordable, quality care to low- and middle-income families who are juggling jobs to make ends meet. After operating for decades, the local Mt Druitt swimming pool was shut down by the Liberal controlled council with literally no notice whatsoever. Even man's best friend has fallen foul of the council with a local animal-holding facility slated to be sold off as well. Community festivals that help bring people together and neighbourhoods across the electorate are rumoured to be rationalised. That means fewer community events not more. Yet pensioners are told to tighten their belts to pay for improving services.
After both the New South Wales Liberal government and the Liberal controlled Blacktown council brought in these terrible decisions without warning, one thing is clear: the federal Liberal Party need to spell out exactly what they intend to do should they win government on 14 September.
Chronic Disease Dental Scheme
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (22:19): I rise to speak about the Gillard government's ill-conceived closure of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. This is a matter that concerns me greatly and an issue that affects many of my constituents in the electorate of Canning. It is no exaggeration to say that this is one of the cruellest moves by this government to date. Let us imagine for a moment the discomfort that would result from enduring a painful toothache not for months but for years. This is the reality of Labor's decision to close a very successful program that provided the most basic dental care for those in need of treatment. The Howard government introduced the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme in 2007. It provided up to $4,250 over two calendar years in Medicare benefits for dental services for people with a chronic medical condition and complex care needs, and whose oral health was impacting their general health.
In a move that is typical of this government, this highly successful and compassionate scheme was dumped and yet again class-war rhetoric was employed in an attempt to justify its closure. The government rolled out one of its now tired lines and on 29 August 2012 Minister Plibersek said:
… if you're a millionaire you can have $4250 worth of work done at the taxpayer's expense—
Such statements aim to divide Australians, a hallmark of this government that the people of this country are heartily sick and tired of. Importantly, statements such as this are a distraction from the fact that so many low-income Australians are now missing out on vital dental health care because of the closure of this scheme.
For example, this week it has been reported that up to 400,000 people are waiting up to five years to see a public dentist and the problem is getting worse. A recent report on the inquiry into adult dental health services by the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing entitled Bridging the dental gap found that there are numerous cases across Australia where those in need are not getting adequate dental care. Labor members would be well advised to consider the effects of their actions on Australians before closing the effective schemes simply because they were the product of a coalition government.
As of 12 November, the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was scrapped and Minister Plibersek announced that the money would be redirected to dental care for schoolkids.
As a parent and a former teacher, I completely understand and support improved dental care for our kids. However, the scrapping of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme to pay for it is reminiscent of the higher education cuts to fund the proposed Gonski reforms. In other words, robbing Peter to pay Pauline. This is Labor's problem and explains much of their woes over the past six years. They are absolutely obsessed with spin and announcements that are surrounded by advisers who prioritise fanfare over ensuring that policy settings are correct.
Little consideration is given to the consequences—intended or otherwise—of their brain snaps on issues such as this as long as they believe the initial sugar hit of their announcements will be well received by the public. For example, take some of the submissions received by the committee. Anya, a former CDDS patient, expressed her dismay at the scheme's closure in the following terms:
I am a young person suffering chronic illness and on a disability pension. I must see the dentist every four months but without the CDDS I can't afford to see my family dentist. I am currently on a minimum two-year waiting list at my local public dentist but I cannot wait that long. Please can you help me get the CDDS back? So many people desperately need this.
Mr Peter Muller, a dental prosthetist, provided a practitioner's point of view when observing:
When the CDDS closed a big problem was left with many patients not having treatment completed and many left on the waiting list. This has resulted in patients losing trust and faith in the system and also the profession.
We know that lower income and Indigenous Australians face a range of barriers to accessing dental health care. In the electorate of Canning there are many residents who have been adversely affected by this Labor government's decision to scrap the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. My heart goes out to those currently in pain. A resident of Preston Beach, in the electorate of Canning, recently met with me to say that she had waited months to get to the top of the waiting list only to be advised that the scheme had been scrapped and she had to join yet another waiting list. This heartless approach to those in urgent need of medical or dental attention is completely unacceptable. Again, I implore this government to think belatedly of those who will be impacted by their ill-considered policy decisions before scrapping a scheme that helped so many needy Australians with their dental care.
CyclePower Fiji
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (22:24): I rise tonight to speak briefly about a recent event that I was involved in, being CyclePower Fiji. CyclePower Fiji was a test of cycling skill or, in my case, a lack thereof, which was sponsored by Disability Sport and Recreation Victoria. Disability Sport and Recreation Victoria is the health promotion peak organisation of the disability, sport and recreation sector in Victoria. Their mission is to provide and promote positive health outcomes for Victorians with a disability through participation in sport and recreation.
CyclePower was initiated by DSR. CyclePower aims to raise funds to improve and increase opportunities for people with disability to participate in sport and recreation. It also seeks to demonstrate the abilities of people with a disability, particularly in developing nations: previously, in Vietnam and Cambodia but on this occasion, in 2013, in Fiji. CyclePower on this occasion involved a 500-plus kilometre ride around the main island of Fiji. It was recently completed by eight able-bodied participants and nine participants with disability.
CyclePower Fiji aimed to use sport and recreation as a means to reduce the stigma associated with disability in Fiji. It also aims to promote the health benefits of sport and recreation for people with disability. This year CyclePower saw its largest contingency of handcyclists. On the way around, CyclePower Fiji donated sports equipment to Nadi Special Development School. A wheelchair basketball chair was also donated to the Fijian Paralympic Committee. CyclePower Fiji also raised funds to support Victorians with disability to participate in sport and recreation.
There were some great people participating—people like Gary Connor. This was Gary's third trip for CyclePower. He is the CyclePower ambassador. Gary, who has been a paraplegic for over 18 years, takes on a mentor role for those with disability and he would go out of his way to assist other riders. The 47-year-old father of two took up cycling to ride with his children. Gary shows people what can be achieved when you really have a go. Ray Losionek, in his third year with CyclePower, is a double amputee. Unsure whether he could ride in CyclePower this year due to major bowel cancer surgery in December, Ray proved the doctors wrong and rode the whole distance. A 66-year-old father and grandfather, Ray was the oldest participant. This did not stop him from challenging a Paralympian on the ride to a race with Ray coming out on top—not something that I could say!
CyclePower Fiji was the second ride for Sam Bramhan OAM. The athlete missed out last year due to training for the Paralympic team. This young Rotarian of the year uses humour to educate people on disability and is an amputee from birth. Peter Hyden acquired his disability in an accident 18 months ago. Now a paraplegic, Peter saw CyclePower as an opportunity to learn from other handcyclists not only about sport but also the everyday challenges he now faces. Peter was supported by his wife, Meran, who had not cycled for over 30 years but completed the whole ride. It was a gutsy performance from both of them.
Shelley Chaplin and Leanne Del Toso, or 'Dory', are former members of the 'Gliders' Australian women's wheelchair basketball team and will be again. Medallists at the Paralympics, these women have trained together for years. CyclePower was the goal they set for themselves after the Paralympics and they did it with style. Belinda Curro has just completed her third year with CyclePower—not even a move to Darwin could stop her. In 2008, at 28 weeks pregnant, Belinda was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Requiring emergency surgery, Belinda was told by doctors she would not be able to walk, talk or even eat. Belinda is now the mother of three children under 10 years old, works and recently represented the Northern Territory in handcycling at the National Handcycling Championships. She is a legend.
Troy Hawkins is 23-years-old, born with spina bifida, has been a member of DSR for years. As a personal trainer he understands the importance of maintaining fitness. He worked hard on this trip and, while it was a difficult time for him, he did his best. Alex Gale-Grime is a 20-year-old with fight. Born with spina bifida, Alex motivated her father, Warrick, to participate in CyclePower two years ago. On this ride, Alex completed it with her father. They worked together and it was great to see. Other people, such as Karla Wignall and Rob Anderson from DSR, Kirsty Smith, Gabrielle Williams and Anne Jenes, all took part in the ride. It was a great experience—something I was very pleased to be part of.
I would also like to thank the people from Raw Travel: Dave Reynolds, Craig and Geoff Hilder—they did a great job in difficult circumstances. Well done; it was not easy. I also have to mention on behalf of all participants those 'bloody undulating hills'. Never let it be said that Fiji is flat. Congrats to all. It was a real achievement. I am very proud to have been part of it. I have been very proud to be there and see the gutsy work of those who were involved. It was inspiring, not only amongst themselves but also to all Australians to see what can be done when you have got a disability.
House adjourned at 22:29
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Mr Bradbury to move:
That this House approve the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) made on 1 March 2013, and presented to the House on 12 March 2013.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr BC Scott ) took the chair at 16:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Casey Electorate: Disability Services
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:00): On Tuesday morning, 11 June, I was pleased to visit Monkami in Croydon in the electorate of Casey. Monkami is an adult disability service provider that was established back in 1958, originally as a special school. The organisation has grown and developed to cater for a variety of needs of people with a disability. Their day service is located in Croydon, providing a variety of programs focusing on community inclusion. About 140 adults attend these programs, and Monkami also provides supported accommodation services for nearly 30 adults, with properties located throughout the local area. Monkami is very well known throughout our local community and is held in very high regard.
I had the pleasure of visiting with our shadow minister for disability, Senator Mitch Fifield, to have a briefing and see the great work being done and also to help reopen their nursery, which will provide wonderful services to the public in Croydon. I want to pay tribute to the CEO, Jill Christie, and the hardworking management committee.
Later in the morning, the shadow minister and I travelled out to Mount Evelyn to Eastern Outsource, which is an Australian disability enterprise. Monkami is the parent company of that enterprise. It enables 25 supported employees to engage with the community as part of their daily attendance and conducts a range of services for the community. We got to see the variety of work firsthand there in Mount Evelyn.
Some of the work they do includes secure document-shredding for businesses, two garden and maintenance crews, production and preparation of kindling and the preparation of industrial rags for sale. Many of the employees have been part of the Monkami family for 20 years and have made lifelong friendships and are active members of the community. I want to pay tribute to the manager, Max Heuston, and to all of the staff and all of those who make Monkami and Eastern Outsource the great successes that they are.
Throsby Electorate: Regional Investment
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (16:03): The Labor government is working hard to assist people in businesses in the Illawarra to modernise, to protect current jobs and to prepare the region for the jobs of the future. Initiatives such as the Steel Transformation Plan, which provides $300 million worth of assistance to the steel industry nationally, particularly BlueScope, which is headquartered in Port Kembla; initiatives such as the $100 million plus worth of funding that the Labor government has invested in Wollongong university in capital works and projects, which will assist the university to be a real leader on growth and development of technology in the future; and the Regional Development Australia fund, which has over $12 million worth of projects including the $2 million worth of funds to local councils recently announced by the minister. We have put $25 million into the Maldon-Dombarton line to bring that important piece of infrastructure one step closer to completion. The Illawarra Region Innovation and Investment Fund is a $30 million fund to attract and develop local businesses and create job opportunities. Over $136 million has been invested into capital works programs in local schools. Add to this the fact that we are rolling out more fibre optic cable through the NBN to more suburbs in the Illawarra than any other region in the country and we are doing our fair share to assist the local economy, which is going through a very difficult transition.
Against this backdrop, people in the Illawarra are quite rightly feeling a bit ripped off by recent decisions of the New South Wales state Liberal government. The privatisation of Port Kembla Harbour is a case in point. I argued against this, saying that I thought it was a dud deal for the Illawarra, and not because I had some sort of ideological opposition to it but because I thought the returns on the sale were nowhere near what the region needed. It reaped $760 million worth of funds for the state government; however, for the Illawarra it was $100 million. More insultingly, nearly half the proceeds, $340 million, are going to be spent in another region to develop the CBD of Newcastle. I am sure that is a worthwhile project, but if you are privatising Port Kembla Harbour it makes sense that you send a greater amount of the proceeds to the local area.
I am not surprised that over the last 48 hours the Wollongong City Council councillors have voted to condemn the New South Wales government for their decision. I will be very surprised if Shellharbour council, led by Mayor Marianne Saliba, do not act to do the same sort of thing. The message to the New South Wales government is: 'Come to the table. Match what the federal government is doing in the interests of the Illawarra.'
Capricornia Electorate
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (16:06): I thought my valedictory yesterday might be my last speech to the House but, in fact, the good news keeps coming from my electorate and so I could not resist getting up today and telling members about the announcement that the Medicare Local in my electorate, CQ Medicare Local, has been announced as the successful bidder to be the lead agency to run the headspace service in Rockhampton. It was last year that Mark Butler, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, announced that Rockhampton would be one of the sites for a headspace facility. Yesterday was the icing on the cake with the announcement that we will be moving forward with the CQ Medicare Local taking charge of the development of that centre and delivering those services.
This was a terrific project to be involved in right from the outset. I remember when I was writing to the minister and lobbying for this facility in Rockhampton, not wanting to be outdone by my colleague the member for Dawson who was successfully able to get a similar facility up in Mackay. I made mention of and emphasised the very collaborative nature of the effort. This brought in agencies and stakeholders from across Rockhampton and across Central Queensland, all identifying this as a serious issue in our community and identifying the great need that exists for a dedicated service dealing with mental health issues in young people. That is what headspace is all about. It is a very innovative model. It is a very holistic model. Young people come into a headspace facility and they might need assistance with drug and alcohol or other substance abuse issues, mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, problems to do with youth suicide or vocational issues. Right across the board, headspace is there to deal with all of those many facets of youth mental health.
As I said, it has been a very collaborative effort right across the youth and health sector in Rockhampton. The Medicare Local, as I said, is now the lead agency that will take this forward. But it has been assisted along the way by organisations such as Centacare, community solutions, the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, CQ Mental Health Service, Central Queensland University, Capricornia Training Company, Fitzroy Basin Elders Committee, Relationships Australia and Roseberry down in Gladstone. I am really looking forward to taking the next step with these organisations as we bring headspace services to Rockhampton.
Ryan Electorate
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:09): Sport plays such an important role in the lives of our young people. Whether it is swimming at the local pool or participating in a community netball or football team, sport helps our young people stay fit and healthy as well as developing vital social skills in leadership and cooperation. This afternoon, I rise to speak about five exceptional young sport stars from the Ryan electorate who have been named as some of the region's latest local sporting champions.
Genevieve West from Fig Tree Pocket recently attended the under 13 Queensland state hockey championships. Genevieve said it was a fantastic opportunity to represent not only Brisbane but her community hockey club, South West United. Genevieve has played hockey since she was six years old and wants to show other players that they too can achieve when they work hard and believe in themselves. Genevieve says she is the smallest in her representative team and I think that shows to all the other young hockey players that size does not matter; it is the spirit that counts.
Giverny Kenman from Karana Downs attended the 12 years and under girls football state championships. Giverny has been playing club soccer since she was six years old and has since made the school, district and regional teams. She travelled to Mackay for the state championships and said the opportunity to play with and against the other girls and learn more from some great coaches has helped improve her own game.
Harrison Maynard from Moggill is an up-and-coming track and field star and recently attended the Queensland school sport track and field championships. After finishing ninth in the Queensland state cross country championships, Harrison increased his training and won the regional 800 metres before qualifying for the track and field championships in Cairns. At the championships, Harrison had the opportunity to test himself against the best in the state for the first time.
Laura Bell from Pullenvale recently competed in the interschool Queensland state equestrian championships. Laura previously qualified to ride at the state level, but sadly her horse went lame. Although juggling a tough study workload in her final year of school, Laura was successful in qualifying for the state championships held in Maryborough. Laura hopes that her recent success will help her reach her ultimate goal of representing Queensland.
Will Prest from Kenmore has just attended the under 13 men's hockey national championships. Will is an exceptional hockey player and was the youngest member of the team. He said that competing in the championships gave him the opportunity to develop his skills and improve his chances of one day playing for the Kookaburras.
I am extremely proud to have these outstanding young sporting champions in the Ryan electorate. I congratulate them all for their outstanding achievements in their chosen sports and wish them well for their future sporting endeavours.
Health
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (16:12): Anyone in this chamber who thought that the Commonwealth funding crisis in our public hospitals had been averted needs to think again. Once again, we stand on the precipice of another funding crisis. Once again, we see the federal Labor government playing with the lives and wellbeing of patients right across the country but most particularly in my home state of Victoria. Like the endless merry-go-round, the federal Minister for Health is once again threatening the funding to public hospitals in my home state of Victoria.
Let me just remind this chamber that this is not the first time that the minister has tried to cut funding to the Victorian health budget and to our state hospital system. Last year, the minister tried to cut it by more than $107 million, only to be met with a public outcry, only to be met with the concerns of many hundreds and thousands of Australians about the fact that it would result in $7.8 million being cut to the Alfred Hospital and the closure of up to 350 beds. It would also affect the children's hospital.
I am sad to say that, despite the community campaign overturning this decision and the minister being forced to restore this $107 million, she is at it again. On 1 July this year, the federal government will be cutting $368 million from Victorian public hospitals over the coming three years. This has a direct impact on services, emergency care and elective surgery. It will have an impact on the number of beds that can be kept open. This cut is based on a dodgy and completely astounding assumption that Victoria's population is somehow decreasing by up to 11,000 people, which of course is not sustained by the facts. We know it is not the truth, because the Commonwealth's own Statistician produced figures to confirm that Victoria's population grew—it did not decrease; it grew—by 75,400 people in 2011. This was corroborated also by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
I suppose it should not really surprise us that this government would make up figures. We have seen that happen each and every year this Treasurer has delivered a budget. We have also seen it when the minister for immigration provides numbers regarding the 457 visa issue. But I do think we need to take this current cut that the minister will impose on Victoria, and on our public hospital system, very seriously. It will have a direct impact on my constituents in Higgins, and right across Victoria, and she must reverse that decision immediately.
Lyster, Mr Bill
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (16:15): I rise today in the House to acknowledge the passing of a good friend and Labor stalwart. Bill Lyster was a man whom I have known since my early 20s and whom I am pleased to have been able to call a mentor and a friend over many years. Bill and his wife, Maureen—who was a former health minister in the Victorian government under Joan Kirner—were people who, in my early formative years in politics, I often sought advice and counsel from, and I learned an awful lot from them.
Bill himself was a Labor man of the old school. He was a union man of great pride, a man who always looked for solutions to problems and always did what he could to try and be part of the answer to the questions that we faced. He is also a man that many people in the labour movement these days would not know, but in his time—in the seventies and eighties—he played a very central role in the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. He was a key member of the Independents group within the Victorian branch, and he was a close confidant of the late Senator John Button and the late Jim Kennan. He was a close friend of John Cain and former Senator Barney Cooney, amongst others. In the Independents, he played a very constructive role with respect to ensuring that the Victorian Labor Party came back from what it once was to become an effective electoral force—an electoral force that it has maintained to this day.
The advice that Bill gave me in my earlier years, as I have said, was integral to my being able to have what I think has been a relatively successful career in politics, and he certainly helped me to understand my craft and the need to see what you can do to help people. He leaves behind Maureen, his wife of many years, and he was only 70 when he passed away. That has been a source of great sadness to her and to the rest of his family, particularly to their son Simon. Their other son, Ben, unfortunately, passed away some years ago, but I know from my early years with him that he was a devoted father to both of them.
Bill, I will miss you, mate. You were all that was best about the labour movement. You always gave me the advice I needed, not necessarily the advice I wanted. You always told me when you thought I had been stupid, and we both know that, more than once, that was the case. You were a sort of man I call a comrade, and I was a very proud comrade and a very proud friend. I know that to Maureen this has been a great loss—to you, comrade, I say, remember he was a great man, a great Australian and someone that you can be very proud of, as I know you are, and I know you will always be.
Road Safety
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:18): I rise to speak about something which is close to all of our hearts, and that is road safety. In 1982, on 17 December, the first random breath test was conducted in New South Wales. About 4.5 million random breath tests are carried out on New South Wales motorists every year, and there are only 5.5 million licence holders in the state. In 1982, the state's road toll stood at 1,253 deaths. Last year, it was 364, despite there now being 1.5 million more motorists.
Whilst alcohol is still a problem on our roads, I would suggest that perhaps mobile phone usage is an even greater danger. I commend TheSunday Telegraph's and The Daily Telegraph's iPromise campaign, which is asking readers to pledge not to speed, drive drunk or use mobile phones whilst driving. Last year more than 42,000 drivers were fined for using their mobile phones. Since the laws were toughened, making it illegal to touch a phone except when it is in a fixed cradle, only 20,000 fines have been issued, which is 20 fewer per day. Drivers face a $298 fine, which rises to $397 in school zones, and the loss of three demerit points or four in a school zone. They are commendable penalties because if you use your mobile phone you are going to be distracted. I drive a lot of kilometres around my electorate each year, as I am sure all the regional members, in particular, do. Quite honestly, in recent times I have noticed the number of drivers who veer when I am following them. Sometimes they even veer onto the incorrect side of the road when they are coming towards you. Quite often at night you can see blue flashes on their windscreens, which shows that they are using their mobile phones.
Another campaign was started by Vicki Richardson, a woman in Victoria whose daughter, Brooke, tragically died using a mobile phone. She was texting: 'Are you still going to make it today?' Brooke died after hitting a tree while travelling at 100 kilometres an hour on a Victorian highway near Cobram, which has left that family absolutely devastated. I would urge people who may be reading this in the Hansardto make sure they tell their loved ones not to use mobile phones while they are driving—and indeed not to use them themselves. It is a dreadful crime. It could take your life or it could take the life of somebody else. I commend the police for doing all they can to crack down on this absolute scourge of society. It is not necessary. As you drive up Northbourne Avenue there is a sign warning people not to text. It is a dreadful thing to do, and people should cease doing it for their own sake as well as for the safety of others.
Filipino Community
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:21): On Saturday, 22 June I attended the unveiling of the wall of appreciation at the Filipino Community Centre in Brahma Lodge, just outside the Makin electorate. Also in attendance were the Honorary Consul-General of the Philippines, Mr Reynaldo Dante Galura Juanta, who also performed the official unveiling, and local councillor and longtime friend, Betty Gill. The centre is run by the Bayanihan sa Bahay Kubo Foundation, a non-profit organisation which was founded to establish the first Filipino community centre in South Australia. The community centre serves the Filipino community as a venue for activities, provides a one-stop shop for information services and supports the delivery of volunteer services. With many of the Filipino people who have settled in South Australian living in the north-eastern and northern suburbs of Adelaide, the new community centre will be an important and invaluable resource for them.
Over the years I have had a longstanding and close association with the Filipino community in Adelaide and have participated in many of their events, with one of my most honoured occasions being when I was asked to be the bride's sponsor at a Filipino wedding ceremony. Today there are over 170,000 people in Australia who were born in the Philippines and over 220,000 of Filipino ancestry, with most arriving after 1975. Most came to Australia either as skilled workers or as the spouses of Australian citizens. Of those, around 11,000 live in South Australia.
Australia has a strong relationship with the Philippines and is the 17th largest trading partner of the Philippines. The total trade between Australia and the Philippines is valued at US$1.47 billion. Australia exports considerable amounts of wheat, copper and meat to the Philippines. Whilst trade between the two countries is important, we also share a strong social connection. In recent years there has been strong growth in Australian tourism to the Philippines, with around 170,000 Australians visiting the Philippines in 2011. Australians are ranked sixth for tourist arrivals in the Philippines.
As with many other new settlers in Australia, the Filipino people have made a strong contribution to our nation. Hardworking and resourceful, their labour force participation rate of 77 per cent is well above the national average of around 65 per cent. Today Australians with Filipino heritage can be found across a range of professions, including accountancy, software programming, nursing, engineering, mining, construction work, welding, mechanics and performance, with singer Kate Ceberano and golfer Jason Day two of the better known.
I commend chairperson Rudy Bautista and his board of directors for their initiative in establishing the Filipino Community Centre. I thank them for what they do to assist each other and I thank them for the friendship and the warm hospitality they have always extended to me.
Insight Education Centre for the Blind and Vision Impaired
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (16:24): I want to pay tribute to the work of the Insight Education Centre for the Blind and Vision Impaired in Melbourne. In 2010 one of the tasks that I set for myself at the beginning of this term of parliament was to do all that I could to help establish a school for vision impaired children in Melbourne. The genesis of this task came from the work of Alan and Maria Lachman. They live in my electorate at Pearcedale and have a beautiful young daughter, Francesca. She is blind, but she is an amazing young woman. The parents made the point to me that, despite the fact that there were more than 80 specialist schools in Victoria, there were no schools providing specialist education for vision impaired children. It is almost inconceivable that, of all the different ailments and impairments which have given rise to special needs education, there was nothing to give parents the option of a dedicated school for the vision impaired or the blind. So I was delighted, after working with the family and spending an enormous amount of time with them and, much more importantly, supporting the literarily thousands of hours that Alan and Maria and all of their board and supporters have put in, that the Insight Education Centre for the Blind and Vision Impaired was officially opened in February this year.
The centre began on 4 February and is currently hosted by Beaconhills College in Pakenham. Construction of stage 1 of what will be a state-of-the-art primary school is currently underway at Monash University's Berwick campus, and Monash University has been exceptionally generous in providing the land and that opportunity for the centre. The curriculum, which will be extended further, currently focuses on academic, sensory, social, Braille and literacy, assistive and adaptive technology, orientation and mobility, especially with the support of Guide Dogs Victoria, and sporting and artistic opportunities as well as other complementary skills. These are all aimed at providing an independent and self-directed lifestyle for blind or vision impaired students. The new centre of excellence will go still further. It will give curriculum coaching for secondary students, a life management program, an early learning program for nought to six-year-olds, and parent support.
The whole Insight project is a testament to what parents with vision and communities with cooperation can achieve. So to Alan and Maria: you are commended on the floor of the parliament of Australia for an extraordinary dedication to Francesca and you have made an even bigger commitment and gift to children and parents who face the great challenges of a vision impairment.
Family Counselling
Ms HALL (Shortland) (16:27): On 15 March this year I attended a unique event. It was a book launch and an art show. The book that was launched was Who Runs Your House: The Kids Or You? It was written by Karen Phillip. The art show was a collection of artworks by her husband, Wayne Phillip. I have to say that I left that event with a book in hand and a painting under my arm, because it was a wonderful display by a creative couple.
Karen's book, which is her first, is about who runs a house—the parents or the kids? It was written for parents who desire or need no-nonsense advice on how to raise their children. Karen is a registered family disputes practitioner. She has a master's as a counsellor, with a major in family therapy, and has been a family therapist for nearly two decades. She is the mother of three children and the stepmother of another three. Her book is based on her knowledge as a counsellor of the problems that people come to her with about their children and about putting in place boundaries and practices that give some control to the parents as opposed to the children. She emphasises how important it is to put in place correct boundaries and rules. The book also has a lot of good advice on how to speak to children in a way that is going to lead to the resolution of a problem rather than conflict and how to better direct children towards making the right choice, giving them direction and leadership.
It was a very special evening. There were a lot of people present and Karen was able to share with those present her thoughts based on her experience as a counsellor and a parent. It was good advice and it is certainly worth a read. So if anyone sees the book in the bookshop, Who Runs Your House: the Kids or You, I recommend that you pick it up and, if you can see a Wayne Phillip painting, it is certainly worth buying.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (16:31): I do rise to speak on the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013. These three bills amend the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980, the Wine Australia Act, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1997 to implement the merger of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and the Wine Australia Corporation to create a new wine statutory authority, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority.
The authority will commence on 1 July 2014. It will undertake the functions of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and Wine Australia without a change in the structure or the amounts of the levies that currently fund both authorities. The assets, staff and functions of GWRDC and Wine Australia will transfer to the authority.
The wine industry is a fantastic example of a progressive Australian agricultural industry. It has progressive farmers, sophisticated wine manufacturers and innovative exporters. The wine industry, like most industries, has had its issues with periods of drought, low prices, restructuring and consolidation, and has had problems with high input costs like the carbon tax, overregulation and a high Australian dollar. But the future is bright. I believe that after years of what could be called 'overproduction', it is consolidating and I do believe that the future really is bright. The industry is proactive and has shown a great ability to change with the times and tackle issues head on.
This legislation is a natural progression by the industry in continuing reform to meet future challenges. The GWRDC was established in 1991 under the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1981. The PIERD Act plans and invests in research, development and extension programs and facilitates the dissemination, adoption and commercialisation of the results throughout the industry.
Wine Australia was established in 1981 originally as the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation under its own legislation as a statutory marketing corporation. In August 2012 the Winemakers Federation of Australia and Wine Grape Growers Australia lodged a formal submission requesting that the government agree to merge GWRDC and Wine Australia. WFA and WGGA are the peak wine industry bodies for winemaking and grape growing respectively, and obviously quite a few are in both camps. WFA and WGGA proposed creating a single new authority to undertake the existing functions of the current authorities without a change in the structure or amount of levies that fund each authority. WFA and WGGA proposed that a merged authority would enable important links between the investment initiatives and functions of the GWRDC and Wine Australia to be realised under a unified whole-of-industry strategy. WFA and WGGA argued that the major benefits would allow the industry to better align its strategy, give better service delivery, provide a single pathway for industry in communicating with the statutory authorities, and provide for administrative efficiencies. In 2012, both bodies undertook a consultative process that included providing information on the merger to levy payers and a series of public meetings. They received letters of support from the state and territory regional associations and major wine companies representing the majority of the industry.
The GWRDC and Wine Australia are both corporations established under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The authority will continue to operate under the CAC Act. The amendments to the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 ensure the new amendments operate as intended in respect of the imposition and collection of the levies.
The main bill, which creates the authority, is divided into two schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Wine Australia Corporation Act to create the authority. Schedule 2 covers matters arising from the transition to the authority such as the transfer of assets and liabilities from the GWRDC and Wine Australia to the authority and will commence on 1 July 2014.
The changes in the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 are straightforward. This amendment bill replaces references to the Wine Australia Corporation with references to the authority. The change will allow for levies collected to be paid to the authority. The bill also repeals clauses that provided for Wine Australia, following an annual general meeting, to make recommendations to the minister about the levy rate.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 makes amendments to the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999. These amendments involve replacing references to the Wine Australia Corporation with references to the authority. The change will allow for levies collected to be paid to the authority as previously. The bill also repeals clauses that provided for Wine Australia, following an annual general meeting, to make recommendations to the minister about the levy rate.
The main issue is again the short time frame to check the mechanics of these bill, to check that they do what they say they do and to conduct consultation to properly gauge industry support. However, in the main these bills are straightforward and industry does clearly support the amalgamation. Any concerns are with the mechanics of the amalgamation, such as the make-up of the board, and not with the amalgamation itself. So on balance the coalition has decided to support industry by supporting this bill.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (16:38): Of course, I have a strong interest in the wine industry. It is a vital employer in many of the regions that overlap my electorate, particularly the Barossa Valley and the Clare Valley. It also spills over into manufacturing in the bottom part of my electorate: there is a labelling plant in Elizabeth and a bottling plant just outside Gawler, between Roseworthy and Freeling. So it is a big employer in my area. It is a big exporter and it is a vital part of the state economy. South Australia in particular has a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the wine industry. This is very important legislation for the wine industry. Only on the weekend, I was at Seppeltsfield with Nicole Hodgson, the tourism manager there, and the Minister Assisting for Tourism, Don Farrell, talking about some tourism grants that will transform Seppeltsfield Winery—a very famous winery in South Australia and a great place to visit. If the Deputy Speaker ever wishes to come to South Australia, I am sure we will put on a good show for him. There are, of course, many other good wineries around the place. I have, on occasion, gone and talked to Mitchell Taylor of Taylors Wines; my friend, Simon Pringle of Mitchell Wines; and Peter Barry of Jim Barry Wines about the wine industry. They have all been voices in my ears about this very important industry.
This legislative package contains three bills that provide the mechanism to implement the merger of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and the Wine Australia Corporation to create a new statutory authority, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. Those three bills are the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013. These bills as a package wind up the GWRDC and Wine Australia, and transfer their assets, staff and functions to the authority. The authority will commence on 1 July 2014 and will undertake the functions of the two aforementioned bodies without a change in structure to the amounts of the levies that currently fund both bodies.
This whole process was set off in August 2012 when the Winemakers' Federation of Australia and Wine Grape Growers Australia lodged a formal submission requesting the government agree to merge the GWRDC and Wine Australia. They are the peak bodies for the industry, in winemaking and grape growing respectively. They are important bodies. They are bodies that are listened to by government and they are representative of industry and, certainly, of the regions I represent. So, obviously, the government took their wishes to heart. Their proposal to create a single new authority to undertake the existing functions of the current authorities without a change to the structure of levies is an important one. The industry argued that a merged authority would enable important links between investment initiatives and enable the functions of those two bodies to be better realised under a whole-of-industry strategy.
Those major benefits, principally, are the alignment of strategy, better service delivery and administrative efficiency gains. They are important things for any industry. It is not a secret that the wine industry is confronting the same struggles that the manufacturing industry across Australia is struggling with—that is, the very high cost of the Australian dollar, which is a penalty for exporters; and the emergence of our currency as something of a safeguard currency in the current world economic situation, with some 19 central banks now holding our currency. That has made the dollar persistently high, despite commodity prices coming off, and that is a very serious issue. Obviously, the only way to combat that is through high-skill, high-value exports. That is the only way you can deal with a sticky dollar, a high dollar. This single, new authority will help the industry to combat those sorts of challenges, and it is reflects the realisation that the interests of grape growers and winemakers are inextricably linked.
Both industry associations undertook a consultation process, provided information on the merger to levy payers, had a series of public meetings and got letters of support from the state and territory regional associations and the major wine companies who are representing this industry. The government has noted in its Rural Research and Development Policy Statement that combining the R&D and marketing functions in one organisation can lead to some synergies, helping research programs and the like.
This is a good bill. It does what it sets out to do: it helps the wine industry, it creates some synergies and efficiencies and a better alignment of strategy for the industry and it creates a recognition that we are all in this struggle against the high dollar together. There is a mission to, if you like, reinvent the wine industry as a higher value industry than it has been. It is still a high exporter, and I am always encouraged when I talk to people like Peter Barry up at Clare. He is a winemaker who saw this coming a long time ago, changed his strategy and is now providing jobs and export income for his company but also for this nation. I know that the minister for education, Peter Garrett, is a big fan of Jim Barry Wines. A great friendship has been spurned between the minister for education and Peter Barry, and that is no bad thing.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: Created, I should say, not spurned. That is right. Thank you to the member for Chifley for helping me! It is a real friendship. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (16:46): I rise to support the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013. These bills will give effect to the merger of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation, the GWRDC, and Wine Australia. This legislation will create a new wine statutory authority, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. The authority will commence on 1 July 2014 and will undertake the functions of the GWRDC and Wine Australia without a change in the structure or amounts of levies that currently fund both authorities. The assets, staff and functions of the GWRDC and Wine Australia will transfer into the authority.
I will address a range of issues pertinent to these bills that I have been closely following as a member representing an electorate in the Hunter Valley region, which, without doubt, is the premium wine-producing area in Australia, and as the shadow minister for regional development and the shadow minister for tourism, because wine is critically important to both those portfolio areas.
The merger of these two existing statutory bodies would see the following benefits: an ability to identify and deliver aligned industry strategic imperatives and RD&E goals; management efficiency of program delivery and associated cost savings to government and the industry; streamlined functional relationships between industry and government; genuine accountability to industry at the same time as meeting the government's requirements; and improved communication and strategic alignment between the national associations and the merged entity.
Australia is consistently ranked as one of the world's top 10 wine producers, and the finest Australian wines are amongst the best in the world. Australia is the No. 4 wine-exporting country in the world and the No. 16 wine-drinking country in the world. For Chinese tourists, Australia is the world's No. 2 food and wine tourism destination after France. The United Kingdom imports more wine from Australia than it does from France, and that is thanks, in no small part, to Robert Oatley AM, whose 1980 gold medal in London for his Rosemount Chardonnay really started the UK's obsession with our wines. Australian wines have won medals at almost every major international wine competition and have set records for prices for a single bottle. Around 78 per cent of wineries have cellar doors—no surprise in that. Twenty-nine per cent of those cellar doors have on-site dining, 11 per cent have accommodation and some offer adventure further afield into opera, theatre, musical events and festivals. Without doubt, the wine industry is a critical part of our national tourism fabric.
Recently, when I was in Tasmania, I accompanied the candidate for Bass, Mr Andrew Nikolic AM, who took me to meet another lion of the Australian wine industry, Josef Chromy AM, in Relbia, Tasmania. Joe Chromy Vineyard hosts concerts, runs an excellent restaurant and is even progressing plans to part fund a resumption of the Relbia Wine Train—helping a range of other tourist attractions in the region. Joe Chromy also showed me a mechanical invention of his own design: an improved grape-crushing machine in operation at his winery.
The inventiveness and can-do business thinking of our winegrowers is underpinned by the GWRDC, which has established a plan to invest in research, development and extension programs. It facilitates the dissemination, adoption and commercialisation of the results throughout the industry. This is similar to ABARES, who produced an excellent report in 2010 on Agri-tourism, two years before the UN World Tourism Organisation published their major report on culinary tourism. I received these through the Regional Australia Institute.
Our future wine production and wine tourism success depends on high-quality primary and secondary scientific, economic and consumer preference research. This will be centrally reliant on: the new Australian Grape and Wine Authority, created by this bill; the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO; Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES; Australian Trade Commission Service, Austrade; Regional Australia Institute; and Tourism Research Australia.
A coalition government, if elected, will also rely on industry groups like Restaurant Catering Australia. Their research into food and wine tourism supported their recommendations to the NSW Visitor Economy Taskforce last year. Tourism Australia also commission useful, actionable research to inform their marketing activities, such as the GFK Blue Moon Development Plan research; and the Euromonitor food and wine tourism research, which is currently underway.
Last year's UNWTO report on culinary tourism stressed the importance of cooperation:
It is necessary for the actors operating in the destination (producers, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, chefs, restaurateurs, public administration, hoteliers etc) to be involved in the definition and management of food tourism offerings …
Last week the coalition outlined our vision to develop Northern Australia, which will do much to reinvigorate debate, interest and research into agriculture nationwide. As my colleague the shadow minister for innovation and science noted on in her 5 September media release, a World Economic Forum global competitiveness report has revealed that Australia is continuing to fall further behind its global competitors in innovation. Since the last global competitiveness report was released one year earlier, Australia has declined further in a number of key indicators, in particular capacity for innovation, where we have dropped from 27th to 32nd globally; and company spending on research and development, where we have dropped from 27th to 30th.
The report cited restrictive labour regulations and inefficient government bureaucracy amongst the most problematic factors for doing business in Australia. It also highlighted very significant concerns over tax regulations and policy instability. The model used by the World Economic Forum was the basis for Regional Australia Institute's [In]Sight modelling, which was publicly released this morning. Australia's wine regions have been done a great service by Regional Australia Institute, and I would like to thank Su McCluskey, Jack Archer and the other staff at RAI for the work that they have done.
[In]Sight is the nation's first online index and interactive map tracking the competitiveness of Australia's 560 local government areas and 55 Regional Development Australia (RDA) regions. [In]Sight spans 10 themes and 59 indicators specifically tailored to reflect the fundamentals of sustainable growth in Australia, capturing the competitiveness of LGAs and RDAs according to current economic performance and drivers of future success. While investment in research, development and extension programs, and the promotion, adoption and commercialisation of the results amongst Australian businesses is vital to secure and retain an edge, this is especially so in agriculture.
I was pleased to attend the Winemakers Federation reception here in Parliament House last week, and spoke with the outgoing CEO of Wine Australia, Mr Andrew Cheesman. I would like to echo the remarks of Wine Australia's chairman who paid tribute to Mr Cheesman's record of service to the industry. The memorandum of understanding signed in January this year between Wine Australia and Tourism Australia on co-location of their offices was a great outcome.
According to the one-time adviser to the Hon. Robert Hill and current CEO of the Winemakers' Federation of Australia:
(1) A confluence of international and domestic financial and market impacts has severely impacted Australian producers …
… … …
(2) Like most primary and value-added industries, the effect of a high dollar, increasingly fierce global competition and high costs compared with other new world producers have created serious challenges for the wine sector.
(3) Domestic demand was flat, meaning most producers had to grow their sales overseas …
… … …
(4) Vineyard profitability continues to be a major concern, with Wine Grape Growers Australia figures showing average vineyard operators have not met the cost of production for the past three years.
(5) "The costs of production are not being met by the prices paid by wine producers who also are under extreme pressure," …
Against this backdrop, the main concern raised in the consultation was ensuring that levy funds collected for research and development would only be spent for research and development by a new authority. This government has a habit of spending other people's money for its own political purposes.
This is a good venture by the government to bring about greater efficiency, but what is critical is that we act in the interests of the wine industry and do what we can through the various agencies available to the industry to build our export markets. We have a glut of grapes in Australia at the moment, and we need to build on those markets. One of the key issues raised in one of the weekend newspapers was that our glut of wine being sent overseas was not at the premium end of the market, and this has affected those areas whose production is solely or primarily at the premium end of the market. Of course, that is the Hunter Valley, which, as I said right at the beginning, without doubt produces the best wines in Australia. It is a source of argument from those less informed—from the Barossa Valley, Tasmania or down in the Riverina. There can only be one premium area and of course, parochially, that is the Hunter Valley. It is recognised that young Neil McGuigan is the international best winemaker in a semillon grape.
We encourage this. We always want to work to grow the industry. It is a good, high-value industry. It suffers from weather. A single session of out-of-character rain can destroy some grapes yet improve other grapes. So all we can do is support them. We wish this organisation well and we encourage further dialogue with the industry to make sure the whole of the industry goes forward.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:57): I rise to speak on the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013. These three bills amend the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980 and also the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 to implement the merger of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and the Wine Australia Corporation to create a new statutory authority, to be called the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. This authority will direct research and development in the industry and it will have a combined budget of close to $35 million, which will come jointly from levies upon growers and from a matching contribution from the taxpayer.
This is an important move. It is supported by the industry and is also supported by the coalition. The wine industry is perhaps one of our most important agricultural industries. Here are some of the numbers from 2011. In Australia our consumption of wine was 455 million litres, which works out to something like 20 litres per person. I am sure there are some that drink quite a lot more than that. Our exports in this industry are even more impressive. Something like 66 per cent, or two-thirds, of our production of wine in Australia is exported. In the last calendar year we exported over 700 million litres of wine.
It is very important that this industry remains diverse, has many players and continues to experiment—to develop new ideas and new methods of marketing—and to look for new export markets. It is also important that we have an environment that encourages investment and risk-taking amongst the entrepreneurs in the industry. However, there are threats to this industry. There is the threat of the carbon tax. A typical winery, producing 50,000 tonnes, will see its electricity bills increase close to $500,000. If the current government is re-elected, we will have the carbon tax extended to transport costs, and that would also have a substantial effect on the wine industry. Every grape has to be moved around the country. Movements from country areas to city ports will increase the tax.
Perhaps one of the main threats to the industry is the increasing market concentration in our retail sector. In that sector, under the current legislative settings of the Trade Practices Act, today we have two players, our supermarket duopoly, controlling something in the vicinity of 60 to 70 per cent of the wine sales of our nation. That has come about simply because of the legislative settings of our Trade Practices Act, which is based on the delusion that small business in the industry cannot be efficient. It has evolved so that we now see a policy that encourages not survival of the fittest, which is what we want, but survival of the biggest.
These problems with market concentration affect the wine industry in a few ways. Firstly, there are mergers. We have seen many mergers in the industry. A lot of those mergers and consolidations have been through bullying. A paper written by Professor Evan Jones details a few of the difficulties. It cites how in 1995 in Adelaide a small market trader of organic products applied for a liquor licence to sell organic wines. Coles fought the application in the Licensing Court of South Australia and appealed an adverse judgement in the Supreme Court, all with highly paid counsel. Although Coles lost the battle, the fact that they were prepared to expend substantial resources on harassment of a minnow is indicative of a strategy of market dominance.
The other issue that we see in our wine-retailing sector is the issue of price discrimination. Certainly if someone is buying a smaller quantity of wine they would expect to pay a higher price. Likewise, if someone is buying a larger quantity, they would expect to receive a discount. But, when retailers in the liquor industry can go to their larger competitors and buy wine at a retail level at a lower price than they can get it from a wholesaler, something is significantly wrong with the workings of the market. That is simply because of price discrimination, which we are seeing rampant in the liquor and wine retail industry.
Then there is the issue of predatory pricing. For many years, we had no effective law to combat predatory pricing. However, that was remedied in 2007 when the former Treasurer Peter Costello brought in what was known as the Birdsville amendment, legislation written and drafted by Professor Zumbo. But, in the last six years of this government, the ACCC has not brought one case under that legislation. There have also been examples of geographic price discrimination damaging independent retailers.
This is very important for our farmers and our wine producers. We need legislation not only to protect the consumer but also to make sure that our wine producers have several players to sell to. If they are forced into a market where two players control 60 to 70 per cent of the market, that damages the supply chain. That becomes a discouragement to investment. It simply becomes more difficult for a wine producer who is experimenting with a new label to get that label onto the nation's supermarket shelves and get it before consumers.
The other issue that affects our wine producers is our law on retail price maintenance. This law is a hangover from bygone years, taken from American antitrust legislation, when it was the producers who actually had the market power. Today we are seeing the inverse. The American courts have in many cases overridden that law against retail price maintenance and it is no longer anticompetitive and against the law of America. Again, that affects premium wine producers who would like to market their products at the premium end and to maintain a price.
Another law that leads to market concentration is our current licensing regime. Under that regime, anyone who wants to enter the market to sell wine on a retail basis has such regulatory barriers that the result is that only the largest players in the market have the resources to wade through all the legislation, regulation and red tape and be able to compete in the market. These are the risks to our wine producers from market concentration. We do not want to see a situation where our wine producers are the same as our dairy farmers, where they are being screwed down to the last penny, there is a lack of investment in the industry, they are getting low prices and they are basically being held hostage. This is the problem we face.
We must also look at the risks to the consumer from such market concentration in our retail wine sales. Despite the theory telling us that market concentration would lead to lower prices, what we have seen in our supermarket sector is that market concentration for food and groceries has led to the Australian consumer having to suffer some of the highest rates of food inflation in the developed world. If we do apples-for-apples comparisons of items on our grocery shelves and those in any other country, we find Australian consumers are paying some of the highest prices. For consumers who enjoy wine—and, as I said, the average is 20 litres per person; for every man, woman and child in the country—that is a risk they face from the increase in market concentration. So the idea that it will benefit consumers is wrong. There is pressure coming from this unnecessary market concentration, both for the consumer and for the supply chain.
The coalition welcomes this legislation. We hope it will lead to some benefits and we wish the wine industry well. We hope that their marketing and research will lead to innovation and to some new export markets that Australian wine producers can sell to. But we must have a look at our competition laws to ensure we do not get greater concentration, because that is not in the best interests of this important industry.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (17:07): At the outset I commend the member for Braddon, who I know is the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, because he has consulted industry on this legislation and I commend him for that. All too often in this place we have seen bills rushed through on which there has not been proper consultation with industry. In this case I know the member for Braddon has been dutiful in his portfolio area by actually consulting with industry, which is commendable. He represents a regional area in north-west Tasmania and, as far as regions go, he gets it. There are all too few people in this parliament who 'get' regional Australia, which is a unique place. There are so many people who live on the eastern fringe of Australia, overrepresented in terms of population and, dare I suggest, in the number of parliamentarians too.
Those of us who live beyond the sandstone curtain understand regional Australia and also understand the complexities, the unique challenges and the risks going forward. One of the risks is to our agricultural sector, so I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary has seen fit to consult industry. I served with him on the Regional Australia Committee, headed by the member for New England, and the member for Braddon was the deputy chair of our inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin and the challenges facing that vital part of regional Australia—that food bowl of not only our nation but other nations too. Thanks to a bipartisan approach, the committee did some good work. The wine industry made a very good submission to the inquiry and, had all the committee's recommendations been adopted, I think we would have had a better outcome as far as the water rights debate was concerned.
As far as this particular legislation is concerned, the three bills which we are debating as cognates amend the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act of 1997 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies 1997 to formulate the merger of the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and the Wine Australia Corporation to establish a new wine statutory body, the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. Like the parliamentary secretary and like the member for Calare—who is the shadow agriculture minister and, more importantly, the food security shadow minister—I too have done my due diligence and consulted with various industry groups and individuals within my electorate.
My electorate has a huge stake in the future of the wine industry. Members of the Riverina Winemakers Association include five of Australia's 16 largest wine exporters—namely Casella Wines, De Bortoli, McWilliam's, Nugan Estate and Warburn Estate. The Riverina wineries produce around a quarter of Australia's wine and the region grows around 20 per cent of the nation's grapes. The Riverina wine industry is worth around $1 billion and is a huge export earner. In fact the Yellowtail, which is produced by Casella Wines Pty Ltd and based at Yenda, in 2003 was the No. 1 imported wine to the United States of America. That is a tremendous achievement by a once-small and humble winery at Yenda in the Riverina. The winery has a capacity of about 300 million litres a year at its Yenda site. The Yellowtail label—with that very familiar yellow-footed rock wallaby—is synonymous with so many good dinner parties, certainly in the United States. John Casella, the proprietor of that wonderful company, is grateful that the Australian dollar is softening—today it is 92.52 cents—and also commends this legislation. He has been watching it carefully, but he is not opposed to it, because he sees the merit in it. The Winemakers Association is similarly supportive. I spoke to the Riverina Grape Marketing Board's industry development officer, Kristy Bartrop, just a few moments ago. She said that it will be a good thing when the money that is going to be spent on promotion and tourism and on research and development is fused together—so long as the R&D side is not diluted by the promotional side. We know that in all aspects of agriculture—indeed, in all aspects of business—that R&D is vitally important. We can never underestimate the value of R&D to ensure that industry not only survives but also prospers. Speaking of surviving and prospering into the future, I would like to take a moment—with the indulgence of the member for Braddon, who has heard this before—to mention the Riverina Winemakers Association submission to the Murray-Darling Basin. Water is crucial for the Riverina, and the new statutory board will also understand just how important water is as a component in the future of the wine industry in the Riverina. I have told the House before just how big that market is, not only to the Riverina's overall exports, but also to Australia's.
In its submission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on 17 December 2010, the Riverina Winemakers Association said in relation to water:
There are a number of long term risks in taking a quick fix route:
It takes the Basin out of the equation for any future role it may play in Australian food security.
I talked before about John Cobb, the member for Calare, and his role in food security. Certainly, food security is very much on the coalition's radar. The Riverina Winemakers further points were:
Once you take water from the farmers you take away their capacity to continue to farm, returning highly productive land to less profitable dry-land uses.
The economic and social foundations of Basin communities are therefore diminished.
Retaining more water in storages to meet environmental needs will increase the frequency and severity of floods during periods of heavy rain.
Future generations of Australians will crowd into the coastal margins and cities—not through choice but necessity. You can only employ so many people in eco-tourism.
So the Riverina Winemakers Association highlighted the need to ensure that ecotourism, marketing and tourism do not completely wash over the R&D component research funding necessity. The Winemakers Association also told the Murray-Darling Basin Authority:
Australia is a vast land mass, rich in resources above and below the ground, but with a small population the envy of the World
It is experiencing a minerals boom which is consuming vast amounts of labour and capital
Current rates of fertility suggest any growth in the economy moving forward will require increased migration
The majority of the population—around 16 million—live in the coastal regions outside the Basin which are subject to increasing environmental and social pressure
The world’s population will continue to grow
The demand for food will continue to grow.
I might add that the demand for the wine will continue to grow as well. The submission went on with these points:
Land and water for the growth of food is a finite resource and subject to competing demands
The Murray Darling Basin is a significant national asset which contributes 40% of national agriculture production and provides critical water supplies for 3 million people.
The association finished its submission by saying:
The problem is that the environmental genie is out of the bottle. Now that the Plan has determined the range of environmental water needs, unless there are modifications to the Water Act that will allow a more balanced plan, there will be constant agitation for further reviews and harsher implementation of SDLs—
sustainable diversion limits—
until the maximum needs of the environment are achieved.
Certainly I have no argument with the Winemakers Association there and I thank the member for Braddon for allowing me to put that on the record. He has heard it before because, as I say, he was on the Regional Australia Committee which spent time in Griffith and the Riverina and heard from those people who do such a wonderful job not just on behalf of the locals but on behalf of the nation and our exports.
The merger of the two existing wine statutory bodies would see the following benefits: it would create an ability to identify and deliver aligned industries strategic imperatives and R&D goals, management efficiency of program delivery and associated cost savings to government and the industry. That is important because the industry, like all agricultural industries and all regional industries, is hurting at the moment. The high Australian dollar and a crisis in confidence in regional Australia brought about by any number of factors are really having an effect on the psyche of people in regional Australia and certainly on business confidence. When those business confidence parameters are down, people are not willing to invest and they are not willing to spend. There is, hopefully, an opportunity into the future that things will improve. The softening Australian dollar is one thing that will go a long way to ensuring that confidence in regional Australia, which relies so much on exports, particularly in agriculture, will improve.
Another benefit of merging these two statutory bodies will be a streamlined functional relationship between industry and government. That is important. I said at the outset of this speech that government has not consulted with industry enough on so many levels and so many aspects of legislation. I thank the member for Braddon for consulting with industry, because it is important. Industry need to feel not only that they are participants in the parliament but also that what they do is actually worth something. How they go about achieving and generating income and, indeed, taxes for us as a government and as a Commonwealth to spend is really important, and they need to know that their worth to the nation is valued.
Another benefit will be genuine accountability to industry at the same time as meeting government requirements. That, too, is very important. Another benefit is improved communication and strategic alignment between the national associations and the new merged entity. That, too, is absolutely critical, because the wine industry does play an important part. As I said, it has been under a lot of pressure lately, not helped by the high Australian dollar, the global downturn or poor public policy, including on water. Water, as we all know, is critical to the Riverina and to all winemaking areas. Getting those parameters right is going to be critical for the future success of the winemaking industry. It is certainly a valuable industry to the Riverina.
Whilst I highlighted the Riverina side of things, as far as the Riverina Winemakers Association goes, there are also a number of boutique wineries in the cold climate of the Riverina electorate, which I serve. I am talking about those at Tumbarumba and other parts of the Snowy Mountains, because the Riverina electorate stretches from Mount Kosciuszko right out to the fringe of the outback beyond Hillston. The former regional Australia minister, the member for Hotham, once described it as the high point of the Australian parliament because Mount Kosciuszko is in the actual electorate. I rather thought he meant it was because of its value to regional Australia. I am certain that he is a friend of regional Australia, and certainly of the Riverina, because he visited there on a number of occasions during the time he held that portfolio. He was certainly very interested in the fortunes of the Riverina, because he recognised the value of the region to our nation's exports.
I finalise on a rather sombre note: today I telephoned Brian Simpson, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Riverina Wine Grape Marketing Board, in relation to this matter and, very sadly, in the last hour, his wife Liza had passed away after a very courageous fight against cancer. I wish to pass on my condolences to Brian and his family at this very sad point in time.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (17:22): Thank you very much for the contributions from the members for Calare, Paterson, Hughes, Wakefield—and particularly from my colleague and friend the member for Riverina. Thanks for your commitment and that of others in this chamber to regional Australia and for your support for this legislation. I assure the member for Riverina that there will be no dilution of R&D at the hands of or to the exclusion of marketing. That is not the intention here—in fact, it is the very opposite. Please be assured of that.
I will just give it some context. We are dealing with what appears on the surface to be a dry piece of legislation but which is absolutely crucial to the industry. I have actually got a specialist wine-growing area in my electorate of Braddon. I want to mention one particular white wine specialty vineyard, Ghost Rock at Port Sorell, and also the vineyards in the Lower Barrington. We are developing a really good reputation for these lovely, cool-climate wines.
Also, listening to the members opposite, and the member for Wakefield on our side, I think is really important—because it gives this legislation a very local, down-to-earth overview of how research and development and extension, and also marketing, in this important industry, is important to local economies. It is also, of course, most importantly, a significant contributor to the national economy. So it is good to give it some localised context.
In December 2012 Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, announced a merger of the two statutory wine corporations—namely, the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation and the Wine Australia Corporation. The merger of the two corporations will create a single, whole-of-industry statutory authority: the Australian Grape and Wine Authority. The new authority will offer strategic benefits to the industry—as highlighted by all those who have spoken in support of this legislation—such as improved leadership, service delivery and administrative efficiency. It will also enable a single board to make strategic links between research and development, investment initiatives and marketing. The merger creates a new authority that will inherit the functions of the two corporations.
The merger aligns with the Australian government's 2012 research and development policy statement, which noted that combining research and development, and marketing functions, in one organisation can lead to synergies such as being able to factor customer requirements into research programs, as highlighted by previous speakers.
The merger also fits with the broader government policy agenda of reducing the number of statutory bodies. There will not be any change to the structure or amount of industry levies. The legislation before us provides that all levies collected for a particular purpose, such as research and development—as I mentioned earlier to the member for Riverina, with respect to his concerns—will only be used for that purpose by the new authority. There will also be no change to the existing regulatory, marketing and compliance roles of the Wine Australia Corporation under the new authority.
The government's announcement of the merger followed an industry proposal, submitted in August 2012, by the two industry peak bodies: Winegrape Growers Australia and the Winemakers Federation of Australia. The merger has widespread industry support and addresses discussions that have been raised over the last 20 years—not recently alone, but over 20 years.
Three bills are being presented for introduction that provide the mechanism to create the Australian Grape and Wine Authority and implement the key elements of the reform. The bills are the Grape and Wine Legislation Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) Bill 2013. I thank all those who have taken part in the consultation process, and I thank the department for the excellent work that they went about, along with the minister's office, in the consultation that took place and in the presentation of this important legislation. I commend the legislation to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) 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.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendments.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Australian Grape and Wine Authority) 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.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (17:30): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013 amends the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 to bring the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) within the scope of the act.
The effect of the bill will be to provide a legislative basis for the subsequent enactment of regulations conferring certain privileges and immunities on the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court.
In relation to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the bill introduces a new section 9D into the act, which provides a basis for the conferral of privileges and immunities on the International Committee of the Red Cross in accordance with the 2005 ‘Arrangement between Australia and the International Committee of the Red Cross on a Regional Headquarters in Australia’. This memorandum of understanding confers legal personality on the International Committee of the Red Cross in Australia and other privileges and immunities needed to facilitate its work in Australia and the Pacific region. The International Committee of the Red Cross is Australia’s largest partner organisation in humanitarian action. The amendments will allow the government to implement this memorandum of understanding.
In the case of the International Criminal Court, the bill introduces a new section 9C, which provides a basis for the conferral of privileges and immunities on the International Criminal Court in accordance with the ‘Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court’. This will enable steps to be taken towards Australia’s accession to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. This will be a further expression of Australia’s strong support for the International Criminal Court.
The bill also makes consequential amendments to sections 3 and 7 of the act, regarding international conferences, to ensure that section 7 can also be used in future in relation to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court, as with international organisations to which the act applies. This provision is not automatic and it would require a future determination by the Governor-General plus the enactment of further regulations.
In conclusion, the bill will amend the act to allow the enactment of regulations conferring privileges and immunities on the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court. This will enable implementation of the government’s commitments in its memorandum of understanding and will enable steps to be taken towards Australia’s accession to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (17:33): I rise today to speak to the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013. This bill will amend the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 to enable privileges and immunities to be conferred on the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court.
With regard to the International Committee of the Red Cross, this legislation will allow for the arrangement between the government of Australia and the International Committee of the Red Cross on a regional headquarters in Australia to take effect. As described by the ICRC in its submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, the amendments made by this bill will confer legal personality on the ICRC in Australia's domestic legal order and will provide privileges and immunities to the organisation and its delegates as are needed for the ICRC to fulfil its mandate in full conformity with its fundamental principles and working methods and otherwise facilitate its work in Australia and the Pacific region. This agreement was signed in 2005 under the former Howard government.
The International Committee of the Red Cross plays a really important role in providing humanitarian assistance to people affected by armed conflict. In Syria, the ICRC is working to provide water, food and basic medical products to millions of people. Between January and March this year, the ICRC, in partnership with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, delivered food to 617,000 people and water by truck to 100,000 people. In Afghanistan, the ICRC is assisting civilians affected by conflict, supporting hospital care and working to improve water and sanitation standards. In the Pacific region, the ICRC promotes human rights law and responds to armed conflict and natural disasters.
In regard to the ICC, this bill will provide the legislative basis for implementing the 2002 Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. In 2002, the Howard government ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court following an 18-month inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Public hearings were held in the ACT, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. More than 250 submissions were received. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and federal member for Curtin stated in her role as chair of the Treaties Committee at that time, there was more to be gained from establishing a permanent International Criminal Court, capable of dealing with the worst crimes against humanity, than continuing to rely on ad hoc tribunals. The committee believed that it was:
… in Australia's national interest to be a member of the first meeting of the states' parties in September 2002 and therefore recommend that the government take action to ratify the statute and introduce implementing legislation into the parliament as soon as possible.
The committee made 11 recommendations to address the concerns that were raised to improve Australia's ability to work cooperatively with the International Criminal Court. As our records show, the coalition has had a proud history of supporting both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court.
Given the potential implications that are associated with extending immunities and privileges to organisations, the coalition referred this bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for further consideration. The committee has reported back and recommended that the bill be passed. The coalition has no objection to this bill.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (17:38): I thank the member for Brisbane for her contribution and for the opposition's support for the bill. The bill represents an important step in Australia's longstanding commitment to the ICRC and the International Criminal Court and will greatly assist these organisations in undertaking their work in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:39