Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The framework of Australia’s aviation security legislation has a number of layers to ensure the deterrence, detection and prevention of acts of unlawful interference with an aircraft. That framework is under constant review to ensure it is responsive to changing threats to the Australian aviation industry.
The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (2009 Measures No. 2) Bill 2009 will tighten the air cargo supply chain in a balanced and strategic way.
It is the government’s view that cargo which can either be transported by road or air should, where possible, be certified for security purposes early in the supply chain.
An example of this is express parcels that are transported domestically. At present, air cargo security measures such as X-ray examination, physical search and explosive trace detection tests are not used until it is decided that the parcel in question will definitely travel by air, which can be when the relevant package is at the airport.
The amendments being proposed in this bill will allow for better security checking earlier in the supply chain, when goods are in a less consolidated state and more easily unpacked and scrutinised if necessary.
Further, under the current legislative arrangements, only aircraft operators may certify air cargo even though other industry participants earlier in the supply chain apply security measures such as X-ray screening or explosive trace detection tests. This means that an aircraft operator may have to certify something which has been examined and packed by someone else earlier in the supply chain.
The amendments in the bill will allow for the certification of cargo at the appropriate point in the supply chain. The bill expands the classes of industry participants who may certify cargo for carriage on an aircraft, meaning the person who examines the cargo can also certify it at the same time.
In the example of an express parcel, these amendments mean the parcel can be inspected and cleared before it is sealed, allowing for a greater amount of certainty that its contents do not pose a threat to aviation security.
Specifically, this bill contains six key amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to expand the regulatory scope for supply chain security by the Office of Transport Security, Australia’s aviation security regulator.
Firstly, the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 will expand the definition of cargo to include circumstances where cargo is reasonably likely to be transported by aircraft.
The regulations would then provide that goods are considered to be ‘reasonably likely’ to be transported by aircraft when, for example, they are identified by the consignor as express or priority freight or goods accompanied by a dangerous goods statement as required by the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The amendment will ensure all cargo likely to be transported by aircraft is dealt with by parties who are regulated and obliged to apply measures at each stage, consistent with their operations.
The second amendment will expand the scope of industry participants who may certify cargo through a revised definition of the term ‘certified’. The revised definition will allow certification of cargo by regulated air cargo agents, accredited air cargo agents and aircraft operators. This amendment will reflect the expanded scope of industry participants who may certify cargo.
Thirdly, the bill will allow regulation-making powers to prescribe the circumstances in which cargo may be certified. The scope of industry participants who may certify cargo will be expanded to include regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents. This amendment will allow certification to take place along the supply chain in line with cargo examination processes performed by industry participants and enhance compliance to these processes by industry participants.
The fourth amendment in this bill will allow the secretary to issue a notice describing the circumstances in which cargo may be certified. The secretary will be empowered to specify criteria for certification appropriate to the changes in the threat to aviation security, technological advancements and international obligations. This amendment will provide greater flexibility and alter certification criteria to ensure they are fit for circumstance and carried out by appropriately regulated industry participants.
The fifth amendment will introduce a transitional provision for transport security programs to ensure a consistent application of measures in line with the amended definition of cargo proposed in this bill. Transport security programs with the existing definition of cargo will be taken to be amended as if they included the new definition of cargo.
The final amendment will preserve existing regulations until such time as new regulations take effect.
In summary, the proposed amendments will clarify the obligations of aviation industry participants in applying security measures along the cargo supply chain and empower the secretary to specify criteria for cargo certification appropriate to prevailing circumstances.
These amendments will enhance the security of the air cargo supply chain and, as a result, strengthen aviation security in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act) and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (SBS Act). The amendments will also reinstate the ABC staff-elected director.
This bill fulfils two important and longstanding commitments by the Australian Labor Party. We undertook in our national platform in 2007 to end political interference in the ABC by introducing a new transparent and democratic board appointment process in which non-executive directors are appointed on the basis of merit. We promised to deal with SBS board appointments in the same way and to restore the staff-elected director on the ABC board. Labor took these promises to the 2007 election and is now delivering on them with this bill.
The intention of these amendments is to achieve better long-term outcomes for both boards and consequently improve governance in our national broadcasters.
At present, ABC and SBS board appointments are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the government of the day, in accordance with provisions in the ABC and SBS acts. While these acts specify generic criteria against which candidates are to be assessed prior to appointment, they establish no formal process for appointments and do not require any degree of transparency in relation to how candidates are selected.
In practice this lack of due process has resulted in long-running concerns that ABC and, to a lesser extent, SBS board appointments have been politically motivated. Commentators have also raised concerns that perceived political appointments have diminished the level of expertise which particular board members can bring to bear on the range of complex technological, cultural and financial issues facing the national broadcasters.
There is no doubt the media landscape is undergoing a period of rapid change and that the ABC and SBS will face significant challenges over the coming years. Our national broadcasters need to have the best qualified and most experienced board members available to meet these challenges. A transparent and arm’s length board appointment process is essential to strengthen the independence and impartiality of our national broadcasters.
In order to address the perceived lack of transparency and to ensure the best candidates are available, the government has developed a new appointment process whereby an independent panel will conduct a merit based selection process for non-executive directors to the ABC and SBS boards and provide advice to the government on suitable appointments.
Guidelines were released in October 2008 and four appointments were made in March 2009 under the new process. An independent nomination panel was convened by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and established at arm’s length from the government to assess the applications and provide a short list of recommended candidates to the minister from an outstanding field of over 300 applicants from across the community.
This large number of candidates expanded the field and improved the number of candidates available for selection. The Governor-General subsequently appointed four exceptional new directors, two each to the ABC and SBS boards.
The merit based selection process takes the politics out of the appointment process and puts the focus where it should be—on getting the best candidates for the boards.
The amendments will formalise this new merit based appointment process in the legislation of both broadcasters and ensure it is used consistently to fill all future non-executive director vacancies. The legislation is also drafted to ensure that the nomination panel conducts its selection process at arm’s length from the government of the day.
Transparency is a key feature of the new arrangements. Consistent with this principle, the incumbent will be advised in writing at least four months before the expiry of their appointment whether it is intended to reappoint them or not reappoint them and advertise the position to test the field and commence a merit based selection process.
Features of the new process include:
The legislation provides for the nomination panel to be appointed by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and sets out processes for its operation. The nomination panel is independent and the legislation states it is not subject to direction by the government.
The role of the nomination panel is to invite written applications by persons seeking to be appointed as a director of the ABC or SBS board and to conduct a merit-based assessment process for all applicants against the selection criteria. The panel is to provide a written report to the minister (or in the case of the chair of the ABC board, the Prime Minister) on the outcome of the selection process that contains a list of at least three candidates who are nominated for each appointment.
While the minister (or in the case of the chair of the ABC board, the Prime Minister) may select a candidate who has not been recommended by the nomination panel, they are required to table a statement of reasons in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days of the announcement of the appointment.
This mechanism would enable the minister or Prime Minister to recommend the appointment of an individual not nominated by the nomination panel, for example in the case where there is an exceptional candidate. This approach recognises that it is the relevant minister, or Prime Minister in the case of the ABC chairperson, that has the statutory obligation to ensure that the candidates are suitable for appointment, having regard to the basic criteria set out in the respective acts.
It is consistent with the principle of ministerial responsibility whereby the ultimate responsibility for government appointments is with the relevant minister.
The new legislation will provide increased certainty for the boards regarding appointments and tenure. It will strengthen the process and entrench clear rules of appointment and security of tenure for the nomination panel. It will set out how they function and underscore the independence of the panel from government.
Prior to 2006, the ABC Act provided for the inclusion of a staff-elected director on the board. The previous government abolished this position—its rationale for removing the position was to remove a perceived potential conflict that occurred in 2004 between the statutory duties of the staff-elected director to act in good faith and in the best interests of the ABC, and the appointment of that director via election by ABC staff.
The government does not believe there is any inherent conflict of interest, and we made a commitment in the context of the 2007 election to restore the staff-elected director position on the ABC board.
The staff-elected director plays an important role in enhancing the ABC’s independence by providing the board with a unique and important insight into ABC operations. The staff-elected director will often be the only individual with the expertise to question the advice coming to the board from the ABC’s executive.
The staff-elected director has the same duties, rights and responsibilities as all other non-executive directors. Like any other ABC director, the staff-elected director’s primary duty is to act in the best interests of the corporation. The only difference between the staff-elected director and other ABC directors is their means of appointment.
The ABC is a ‘Commonwealth authority’ for the purpose of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. This act imposes a number of obligations on officers (directors and senior managers) of Commonwealth authorities, including requirements to act with due care and diligence, to act in good faith in the best interests of the Commonwealth authority, and to not improperly use their position to gain an advantage to themselves or someone else, or to cause detriment to the Commonwealth authority. These obligations apply equally to the staff-elected director and to all other directors.
There is nothing in the present act or amendment that says the duties of the staff-elected director are different to those of the other non-executive directors on the board.
The government’s expectation is that the staff-elected director will act in the interest of the corporation as a whole, not in the interest of one particular group; they will be obliged to comply with all legal duties and obligations that apply to directors generally and to adhere to best practice corporate governance.
In conclusion, the measures in this bill deliver on the government’s election commitments to introduce a new merit based appointment process for the ABC and SBS boards and to restore the position of staff-elected director on the board. They will increase the transparency and democratic accountability of the ABC and SBS boards and will strengthen our national broadcasters and assist in ensuring they continue to provide Australians with high-quality broadcasting services, free from political interference.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That notice No. 3, government business, be postponed until the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Emerson.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009 amends the National Access Regime in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The bill is designed to improve regulatory certainty and streamline administrative processes associated with the National Access Regime.
This bill does not aim to strengthen or weaken the criteria for application of the National Access Regime. It delivers on commitments made by the Council of Australian Governments under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, and includes other reforms, to streamline the National Access Regime.
The National Access Regime seeks to promote competition in markets that depend on the use of infrastructure that cannot be economically duplicated. Without such regulation, owners of this infrastructure might deny access to their facilities by prospective users or charge monopoly prices for their services.
The regime is not designed to replace commercial negotiations between facility owners and access seekers. Rather, it seeks to enhance the incentives for negotiation and provide a means of access on reasonable terms and conditions if negotiations fail.
Under the regime, there are three ways for a business to gain access to a service.
The first approach is when a service has been declaredunder the National Access Regime.
When a service is declared, the ACCC can make a binding arbitration determination if commercial negotiations between the access seeker and service provider are unsuccessful.
The second is through an industry-specific state or territory regime that has been certified as effectiveaccording to the agreed criteria.
The third is when access is provided under the terms and conditions specified in an approved undertaking given by the service provider.
Responsibility for administering the arrangements is divided among the National Competition Council, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Competition Tribunal. Various state and territory regulators are responsible for administering certified state access regimes.
Since its introduction in 1995, the National Access Regime has proven to be an innovative and important piece of economic regulation.
Although determinations under part IIIA have been relatively few in number, the regime influences the framework for the provision of access in most of Australia’s key infrastructure sectors.
However, infrastructure owners and access seekers have argued that processes under the regime are too lengthy and costly.
Indeed, some owners of nationally significant infrastructure have expressed concerns that the regime is generating regulatory risks that may hinder investment in essential infrastructure.
The government acknowledges that delays and costs in decision making under the regime may be having an adverse effect on important infrastructure investment that is needed to underpin economic growth and national productivity.
In 2001, the Productivity Commission reviewed the National Access Regime.
The Productivity Commission supported the retention of the regime but made recommendations to improve the regime’s operation and improve the certainty and transparency of regulatory processes.
The majority of these recommendations were endorsed by the former government and effected through amendments to the Trade Practices Act in 2006.
That year the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement.
Under this agreement, all jurisdictions agreed to streamline regulatory processes in their access regimes.
This included incorporating binding time limits and a limited form of merits review for regulatory decisions.
In November 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy which reaffirmed COAG’s commitment to complete outstanding reforms under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement.
This bill implements the Australian government’s commitments under the agreement.
I will now deal in turn with each of these reforms starting with binding time limits.
The 2006 reforms to the National Access Regime introduced target time limits for the decisions of regulators.
However, there remains a widespread view that more needs to be done to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of regulatory decision making under the regime.
COAG has also committed to implementing binding time limits in access regimes.
This bill provides that regulators must make decisions under the National Access Regime within a statutory time period.
For the National Competition Council, ACCC and Australian Competition Tribunal, this is generally a period of six months.
For ministers, a decision must be made within 60 days of receiving a recommendation from the National Competition Council. This is in line with the existing statutory time frames for declaration decisions.
In calculating the time for making decisions, certain periods of time will be disregarded through ‘clock stoppers’.
The main clock stoppers would occur when the regulator and the parties to the decision agree to stop the clock, or when the regulator requests information or invites public submissions.
Where ministers or the ACCC do not make a decision in the expected period they will be deemed to have made a decision according to the provisions of the bill.
The ACCC will be deemed to have made a decision that access is not to be regulated under the National Access Regime.
Consistent with a 2001 Productivity Commission recommendation, ministers who do not make a decision will be deemed to have made a decision that accords with the National Competition Council’s recommendation.
It is not practical to deem a decision by the National Competition Council, since its role is to make recommendations, or the tribunal since its role is to review decisions.
Accordingly, these bodies may extend the time limit for making decisions. However, I anticipate that extensions would rarely be used.
I now turn to the merits review process.
There are concerns that current review processes under the regime are too lengthy.
Concerns have been raised about the ability of parties in a review to provide additional information to the Australian Competition Tribunal that had not been provided to the original decision maker in their deliberations.
In light of this, COAG agreed that where merits review is available, the review should be limited to considering the information provided to the original decision maker.
The bill provides that where merits review of decisions under the regime is available, the Australian Competition Tribunal may only have regard to the information taken into account by the original decision maker.
The tribunal may only seek additional information to clarify information provided to the original decision maker or from the National Competition Council or the ACCC in their role of assisting the tribunal.
Uncertainty about whether the regime will apply to new infrastructure may hinder investment decisions.
The regime does not currently allow a person who is considering building an infrastructure facility to determine with certainty whether or not the proposed facility would be declarable.
The bill provides for an upfront decision that a service to be provided by a proposed infrastructure facility is ineligible to be a declared service.
To be considered ineligible, it must not meet the test for declaration under the regime.
Once the minister decides that a service is ineligible, it cannot be declared for at least 20 years, or longer as provided for in the minister’s decision.
A similar mechanism is also available under the National Gas Law for ‘greenfields’ pipeline projects.
This reform will enhance regulatory certainty for potential investors in major new infrastructure.
To improve regulatory certainty, the bill will also enable a service provider to submit an access undertaking to the ACCC which includes one or more terms that will apply for a certain period beyond the expiry date of the undertaking.
These terms, referred to in the bill as ‘fixed principles’, will help to ensure that investors and access seekers have greater certainty regarding the terms and conditions of access to the service under future access arrangements.
Once accepted by the ACCC, the fixed principle must be included in any subsequent undertaking covering that particular service for as long as the fixed principle is in operation. The fixed principle may only be varied or withdrawn with the consent of the ACCC.
Regulatory risk for infrastructure investors could also be reduced if access undertakings were allowed to contain fixed principles which apply to any subsequent access undertakings for that infrastructure service.
When important variables are fixed, service providers and access seekers can more easily extrapolate the terms and conditions for access under future arrangements.
For example, a fixed principle could apply to the method of calculating the value of an asset base in current and subsequent undertakings. This would allow access providers and seekers to extrapolate access prices in future access arrangements, thus delivering greater certainty in investment planning.
A similar mechanism is available under the access regulation of gas pipelines under the National Gas Law.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 currently before the parliament also includes provision for the ACCC to determine fixed principles in relation to access determinations for telecommunications services under part XIC of the Trade Practices Act.
The bill includes a number of other mechanisms to improve the efficiency of decision making under the regime.
Currently, the ACCC does not have the power to accept access undertakings which have been revised following the service provider agreeing to amendments. Instead, for a revised undertaking to be accepted it must be withdrawn and resubmitted.
Not only does this cause delays and increase costs but it may give rise to a perception that an infrastructure provider, which has voluntarily agreed to provide third-party access, has acted improperly.
This may reduce incentives for infrastructure providers to submit access undertakings.
The bill streamlines consideration of undertakings by allowing the ACCC to accept such undertakings when certain amendments have been made.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 currently before the parliament also includes provision for the ACCC to accept special access undertakings subject to amendments under part XIC of the Trade Practices Act.
The bill will introduce measures to streamline the declaration test under the regime.
The declaration test under the regime requires ministers and the National Competition Council to be satisfied of certain matters.
Firstly, the health and safety matter will be removed.
This required the National Competition Council or minister to be satisfied that if the service is declared access can be provided without undue risk to human health or safety.
This matter is misplaced as a consideration for declaration because health and safety issues are properly managed by other relevant regulation, irrespective of whether access is available for third parties.
If in exceptional circumstances it is a relevant consideration, the ACCC can consider these issues in an arbitration of an access dispute.
Secondly, the effective access regime matter will be amended so that designated ministers must only consider state or territory access regimes that have been certified as effective under the National Access Regime by the Commonwealth minister.
Currently, any access regime that may cover the service must be considered and assessed against the certification principles in clause 6 of the COAG Competition Principles Agreement. This can be an expensive exercise.
This reform will streamline the National Competition Council and the minister’s assessment of declaration applications by only requiring an assessment of whether certified state or territory regimes apply to the service.
This reform is consistent with the commitment by States and Territories under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement to seek certification of their access regimes for nationally significant infrastructure by the end of 2010.
Once a regime has been certified, access seekers must use the certified state or territory regime. The service cannot be declared, nor can any access undertaking be approved under the National Access Regime.
I now turn to amendments to declaration applications.
The bill clarifies the National Competition Council’s existing ability to accept variations to applications where appropriate.
The National Competition Council will be able to accept variations to declaration applications where the variation would not cause undue delay or unduly prejudice the interests of others.
The bill also allows the National Competition Council to make decisions by circulation of a document for signature.
A decision without a meeting must be a unanimous decision of all councillors, (except those who are unable to vote on the resolution due to a pecuniary conflict of interest).
This will improve the National Competition Council’s decision-making processes.
Decision-making processes of the Australian Competition Tribunal will also be improved by the bill.
Currently, any decision to declare a service is automatically stayed by an appeal to the tribunal.
This creates a strong incentive for service providers to commence appeals and then delay their completion.
To address this concern, the tribunal will be empowered to determine whether a stay is appropriate.
If a stay is not granted, access seekers may begin to negotiate with the service provider, and may lodge an access dispute with the ACCC if negotiations are unsuccessful.
The ACCC will be able to commence arbitration but will not be able to make a final decision until the tribunal makes a decision on the review. If the tribunal overturns the decision, the arbitration is terminated.
This will speed up the resolution of access disputes as preliminary matters may be settled in advance of the tribunal’s final decision.
Another improvement to the operation of the tribunal relates to the ability to award costs in review of declaration decisions.
Unlike most court proceedings, and unlike matters arising in the tribunal in relation to the regulation of gas pipelines, there is currently no provision for ordering costs in reviews of declaration decisions.
Allowing the tribunal to order costs will reduce incentives for delaying tactics, frivolous review applications and other inappropriate behaviour.
In conclusion, this bill contains a number of modest but important measures to increase regulatory certainty and improve decision-making processes under the National Access Regime.
With the release of the latest population projections, suggesting a population of 35 million by 2049, Australia is facing a huge infrastructure investment challenge. That challenge is compounded by the imperative of ensuring there is sufficient national export infrastructure to enable Australia to respond to the opportunities presented by the phenomenal growth of China and other countries in our region. As a parliament, we need to ensure there are strong private sector incentives to make the infrastructure investments Australia needs and to promote the efficient use of that infrastructure.
I would like to thank my predecessor, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP, for his efforts in developing this reform package.
I would also like to thank premiers and chief ministers for providing their views on the reform package.
I appreciate the efforts of the National Access Regime regulators in assisting with the development of the bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Haase) adjourned.
I seek leave of the House to move the following motion forthwith:
That government order of the day No. 39, the Health Insurance Amendment (Revival of Table Items) Bill 2009, be called on for debate immediately and be debated and concluded through all its stages.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Dickson from moving the following motion forthwith: That government order of the day No. 39, the Health Insurance Amendment (Revival of Table Items) Bill 2009, be called on for debate immediately and be debated and concluded through all its stages.
This is essential business for the government to deal with because—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
I second the motion. This is the cruellest cut of all for older Australians—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
We have advice that this measure that has been introduced into the Senate is unconstitutional. This is the Liberal Party mucking things up yet again for patients and—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
The reason that we are opposing this suspension of standing orders is that the opposition should understand that we have advice that the steps taken in the Senate are unconstitutional.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. With due respect, I simply ask: is it in order for the government to allow their members to speak and for the opposition to be forced not to speak? Are we out of time for the debate?
It is competent for the House to determine which honourable members are given the opportunity to participate in a debate or not. There is no point of order. There is a 25-minute limit on this debate. I do not think the 25 minutes are up yet.
The reason we thought the opposition might be interested in understanding why this suspension is not being supported is that we have advice from the legal advisers to the government that the bill introduced in the Senate is unconstitutional. If the Liberal Party do not want to hear that they have taken an unconstitutional step—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order which is particularly relevant to the contribution of the Minister for Health and Ageing at the moment. The minister is talking to advice which—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Would honourable members either leave the chamber or resume their seats. There is too much interjection. I cannot hear the honourable member for Dickson on his point of order.
I will start again. In relation to the point of order, the minister raises constitutional issues. If the minister has that advice it should be tabled because it is contrary to the advice that the coalition has received.
There is no—
Given that the opposition is not raising a point of order about relevance, I am speaking on the suspension. We are happy to—
Order! I have not given you the call, Minister. The member for Dickson had a point of order. I ask the minister to be aware of the standing orders and to be relevant to the debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that was not the point of order he raised but I am happy, in deference to you, to ensure that we are speaking on the suspension. The House has the ability to agree to a suspension of standing orders on a matter of public importance and on a range of other things. But what this shows is that the Liberal Party cannot get its procedural processes right, let alone its content. It has delivered a zero rebate outcome—
Order! The Minister for Health and Ageing will resume her seat.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have most sensibly and sagely said—
Is this a point of order?
It is point of order. This is a debate about why the standing orders should be suspended in order to allow a bill to be brought on that would repair the damage that the government has done in this critical area of policy. The minister is now talking about the Liberal Party’s policy, which could not possibly be relevant to the suspension of standing orders motion.
I reiterate that the matter under discussion is the question on the suspension of the standing orders of the House. I ask the minister to confine her remarks to the question before the chair.
I am directly addressing the suspension of the standing orders, because the point of—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! There are too many interjections across the chair. I need to listen to the speaker who has the call, and I call the Minister for Health and Ageing.
I am talking to this suspension because it is not, in the government’s view or, I believe, in the public’s view, appropriate to suspend standing orders on the—
The Minister for Health and Ageing will resume her seat. The Minister for Health and Ageing will resume her seat and not defy the chair!
Mr Deputy Speaker—
I am sorry, I have not given—
Mr Baldwin interjecting
He has to sit down.
Order! In fact, when the person occupying the chair is on his feet, everyone sits down. I understood that the member for Paterson was seeking to make a point of order. He is not? In that case, I call the Minister for Health and Ageing.
The reason we oppose the suspension of standing orders and the reason I have tried five times to explain the government’s reason for so doing is that if we allowed the suspension we would be debating in this House a bill which we have received advice is unconstitutional. It should not have been introduced in the Senate and has not been appropriately passed. We are happy to provide that legal advice. It is a very long time since I was a constitutional lawyer, but I can tell you that I am happy to take the advice of the Attorney-General’s Department—(Time expired)
I certainly agree with the Minister for Health and Ageing in opposing the suspension of standing orders. Those opposite do not have a policy to put forward on this or other issues—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Would the Leader of the House and the honourable member for Sturt resume their seats. The time for this debate will expire at 10.02.30. There is still a minute to go. I have called the Leader of the House. The honourable member for Paterson will resume his seat.
Those opposite—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The minister will resume his seat because, under the standing orders, as the occupant of the chair I have a duty to listen to any point of order drawn to my attention. I call the honourable member for Paterson on a point of order.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
The time allotted for this debate has expired.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Dutton’s) be agreed to.
Regarding division process, I note that, if members did not vote in the previous division, they should report to the tellers. My view is that reporting to the tellers means that they actually approach the tellers and do not just wave from the back of the chamber. I would ask those members who reported on this occasion—and this advice goes to other members as well—to physically report to the tellers and not simply give a breezy wave, should they report in future.
Without wanting to be too precious, I also remind honourable members that, when they pass in front of the chair, they should acknowledge the presence of the chair.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Defence annual report 2007-2008.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
Consideration resumed from 27 October.
Senate’s amendment—
(1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 27), after item 32, insert:
32A At the end of section 200F
Add:
Certain exceptions cease to operate
(6) Subsections 200F(2), (3) and (4) cease to have effect 36 months after the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Termination Payments) Act 2009, unless their operation is continued or varied by a subsequent Act of Parliament.
Note: Subsections 200F(2), (3) and (4) provide exceptions to the member approval requirement for benefits that do not exceed one year’s base salary.
I move:
That the amendment be disagreed to.
The affect of the amendment passed by the Senate would be to, in three years time, remove completely the threshold which determines which termination payments are put before shareholders for a vote. This was made clear by Senator Xenophon in his remarks to the Senate as he moved his amendment. He said this:
This amendment inserts a creative sunset provision which causes certain exceptions to cease after a period of time. Those provisions are the ones that say member approval is not needed if the retirement benefit does not exceed one year’s base pay. If those exceptions ceased to operate, virtually all retirement benefits would require approval.
That is also the advice to the government about the impact of this amendment. This amendment would say that all termination pay must at all times be put before shareholders, and this would become effective in three years time. This is unacceptable to the government. The government feels that we have struck the right balance by having any termination pay over one year’s base salary go to shareholders. I understand and I accept that the opposition have a different view. The opposition’s view is that it should be one year’s total remuneration. They moved that amendment in the House and they moved that amendment in the Senate, and both of those amendments were defeated.
Having read the Hansard of the Senate it appears to me the most likely outcome, the most likely result, is that senators have created an unintended consequence. It appears to me that the most likely course of events in the Senate—and I understand that these things can happen—is that the Senate approved this amendment not realising the full consequences of what they were voting on. For that reason I want to give the Senate a chance to reflect on this amendment. I am more than happy to make the relevant Treasury officials available to the shadow minister to be briefed on the implications of this amendment, because I think it is quite likely that this is an unintended consequence. The government are not prepared to accept that unintended consequence, but we do not necessarily seek a quarrel with the opposition about the effect of this. We would ask the opposition in good faith to take this on board, and I would ask the shadow minister to perhaps bring to the attention of coalition senators the implication of their decision.
The only circumstance in which I will quarrel with the opposition is if this is not an unintended consequence. If the opposition has done this in full knowledge of the implications, then we will have a quarrel. But I do not intend to make a quarrel with coalition senators if they have not understood the full implications. I understand that things can move quickly in the Senate and that full advice may not have been available to them at that time. If that is the case, I think we should just reject the amendment in this House, send it back to the Senate and ask them to reflect.
If the opposition senators knew the implications of their decision, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they were inserting a poison pill into the bill—that they were attempting to make this bill unworkable. In that case we will have a quarrel when it returns again to the House. But I do not seek to make a quarrel on this. This is not a matter for political point-scoring, in my view; it is appropriate that a sensible and mature approach be taken. For that reason, I want to give the coalition senators the chance to reflect on their decision and to make the advice of the Treasury available to the coalition through the shadow minister so the shadow minister can bring to coalition senators the results of their actions.
Can I start by assuring the minister that I, too, do not wish to quarrel with him or the government. Secondly, I appreciate the approach the minister has taken this morning and I would welcome his offer of a Treasury briefing on this particular issue. I can say to the minister that in the last 24 hours I have actually received some conflicting advice about this particular matter, which is often the case when it comes to matters of law. In point of fact, I have spoken with two lawyers and—surprisingly!—they both have different views.
You would have more trouble if you had spoken to three.
I would have. But I do appreciate the approach that the minister is taking on this matter. I will accept his offer for a Treasury briefing and if we can facilitate that sooner rather than later, that would be good. On that basis, in good faith, the coalition is prepared to work with the government here in the House this morning. I will take that briefing and I will certainly then be in an even better position to brief coalition senators, as the minister has outlined.
Question agreed to.
I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Combet:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Turnbull moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House:
I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill and orders of the day Nos 3 to 12.
It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2], and cognate legislation, which is very important for my seat of Corangamite but also, of course, for Australia. It also is extremely important for the rest of the world. I would first like to express my thanks to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, for a fantastic job in getting this bill here today. This is extremely complex legislation dealing with extremely challenging issues of both an economic and environmental nature. I do not think there would be too many politicians who would have the capacity to drive the reform in the way that the minister has. It has been an epic and incredibly difficult task and the minister has done an incredibly good job in getting the legislation to this place today.
I want to make some clear and unequivocal statements so that they go on the record for the people in my electorate to judge me on this matter. But I do not want to be judged as many in the Liberal Party have been. It is a party that currently is very divided on this question and one that continues to duck and weave on having a sensible and practical debate on this issue—one of the great challenges to people of our time. I believe people, and industry, have contributed very substantially to the greenhouse effect that Australia and the rest of the world face. I believe that we have moral responsibilities that go to that challenge. I believe Australia is a country that has one of the highest carbon footprints proportionally anywhere in the world. It has a moral responsibility to lead on this matter.
We have a responsibility to help rectify the damage that we have done. We have a responsibility to future generations and, of course, we have a responsibility to respond to the challenges that this places on peoples across the world. We have a responsibility for the impact that we are having on our fellow Australians. I believe that advanced countries of the world, which have done the overwhelming amount of damage, have a responsibility to lead and to set an example for the rest of the world.
My seat, Corangamite, is a perfect example of the difficulties of putting together this legislation and the importance of getting it right. In Corangamite we have hundreds of kilometres of ocean bordering the electorate. We have the Great Ocean Road which is both an engine of the tourism industry and a huge social monument that was built by 3,000 returned servicemen post the First World War. Modelling that I undertook immediately before the 2007 election showed that sea level rise, driven by climate change, will see the Great Ocean Road breached in place after place. In my seat we have incredibly important environmental assets, such as the Otway Ranges, the Lakes District and our very unique volcanic plains that scatter across western Victoria. These assets are now at far greater risk due to fire, and the lakes have been drying out for the last decade, I believe, in part because of climate change.
In Corangamite we also have a very substantial farming community. Everybody should be very well aware of the challenges that a changing and drying climate has placed on our farming communities in Corangamite, in Victoria, and across large swathes of the Australian continent. Less rain is causing enormous challenges to our farming communities. I am also aware that there are some very big challenges as to how we might include farming in a CPRS into the future. As most people know, farming is within the top three emitting industries in Australia. In my view that means that, of course, farming has to be included in an ETS for us to drive the reduction in carbon that we need. It is also important because if we do not include them we have just put that extra pressure, that extra responsibility, onto the jobs of people in other industries.
The Liberal Party and National Party argument that farming should be excluded from the CPRS is just about playing favourites. It is shallow and it is shabby politics. Doing this means choosing to put more responsibility on Shell workers and Alcoa workers in my seat. It will make it harder for Shell and Alcoa workers and harder for those industries. I believe all industries should be included in a CPRS if we are to have a system that has integrity and that will work to stabilise our climate. Every person, every industry, in my belief has a responsibility to contribute.
The key question is how do we include agriculture? Again, I think Minister Wong has got the approach just right. The CPRS includes a well calibrated policy for the farming community. Putting together an expert panel of farmers, economists and scientists who have the time to look at the question and make recommendations makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Then there is also the time required for implementation.
It is a good policy—a sensible, balanced policy. It is just what the farmers in my communities tell me is required. The minister and the whole of the Rudd government are aware of our responsibilities regarding the jobs of farmers, the jobs of Alcoa workers, the jobs of Shell workers and the jobs of many workers in the tourism industry in my seat and many other seats across this nation.
We have to recognise the need for industry transition. We are providing the industry assistance that is required and the time that is required to implement it. These bills balance the overriding need to act on climate change with the need to put in place mechanisms that will allow our industries to adjust. What we are doing here I believe is historic. We are showing leadership. We are providing some certainty to business. I believe a world carbon market is inevitable and will be created. We are readying our country with some well-calibrated legislation for our time.
These bills have clear aims and targets. The government has an unconditional commitment to reduce our carbon pollution by five per cent by 2020. We are also making a commitment to reduce our carbon pollution by 15 per cent by 2020 if major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia’s. There is a quite clear target to reduce our carbon pollution by 25 per cent by 2020 if the world agrees to a global deal to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower.
There are no more important bills in this place than these bills. This is about how we can turn around the terrible legacy of unfettered industrialisation that we have had that has led to such enormous carbon dioxide emissions—a legacy that now threatens to engulf islands in the South Pacific; a legacy that threatens to decimate biodiversity; a legacy that is threatening human life and creating fire, storm and flood events of unprecedented ferocity and scale, as witnessed in Victoria last summer; and a legacy that will leave future generations with a shell of the world that they of course did not create.
On the other side of this chamber we continue to see a coalition that is in a shambles. It is a sad thing to watch, particularly given the importance of these bills. As we know, there are people over there who deny climate change is happening, and I think that is a great shame on this nation. There are people who want to pick industries to be left out of carbon pollution reduction processes. Of course, there are those on the other side who do not understand that the planet’s climate is changing rapidly and understand that we have to act. I say to those people: it is time to stand up. These are defining bills from both economic and environmental perspectives. Future generations will look at these bills and judge all of us. This is where politics does make a difference.
As I have said before, I am very proud of these bills. We are now a world away from the shameful Howard years when climate change continued to be denied. This is Australia saying that we are prepared to stand up and make a difference. This is Australia saying we are committed to stabilising our planet’s climate. This is Australia saying to the rest of the world we are fair dinkum about the role we can play. I commend these bills to the House.
I will take the few short minutes I have before I am forcibly removed and burnt at the stake for being a denier and a sceptic, one of those horrible people who dare stand in the way of the Rudd Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme juggernaut. Unlike members opposite, I do not come in here with prepared notes. I do not have a factory full of minions sweating away in the bowels of Parliament House giving me the correct lines to say on this. I come to this debate with years of experience. While those on the other side were crawling over each other stacking branches of the ALP and working off the sweat of others as union officials, I spent some time working with the environment in my previous occupation as a farmer.
I have heard nearly every speech in this debate on these CPRS bills, from the first time round in June and now. I have been prepared to have my mind changed. I am not denying that the climate is changing. I have listened to the debate from the other side and have heard some very compelling arguments about how the climate is affecting the Great Barrier Reef and Saibai Island, which the member for Leichhardt spoke about. Who can deny that? But we had some other quite fanciful arguments. The member for Makin said that we had to agree to this legislation now and we had no time to wait. I assume that he had a summer holiday planned and he wanted Kevin to fix up the climate so he would not have any bad storms. He said that fires, droughts and floods were all at the same time the effects of climate change and if we did not pass this legislation this week then we would have a pretty ordinary summer. That argument defies belief.
I have been sitting here and in my office watching this debate waiting for someone on that side to give me an explanation of how this legislation will affect climate change. We have heard compelling arguments that we do have climate change—and I am not going to deny that—but not one person has explained to me how these bills will affect the climate. What I do know is that this legislation will affect my electorate. If I am going to be seen as part of a rabble, as a denier or a sceptic because I am going to fight for my electorate, then so be it.
I will give an example. My electorate is embracing alternative forms of energy. Indeed, there are major wind farm developments in the Coolah district. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Schultz, you would know—coming from where you do—that wind farms are huge structures that require a large foundation, which is largely made up of cement. At the moment they get their cement from the Kandos cement plant, a plant that has produced cement for Australia for over 100 years. Indeed, the pylons on the Sydney Harbour Bridge came from Kandos cement. When this legislation comes in, Kandos cement will be 30 per cent dearer than cement from Asia. At the moment, there is about parity in price. It is about the same price for a boatload of cement from Asia as for cement produced in Kandos. Kandos has an edge because it is located in the central west and it is of higher quality. But it will not be able to compete with cement prices that are 30 per cent lower. So the Kandos cement plant will close. Over 100 people who work in that plant, many of their families having done so for six or seven generations, will lose their jobs. The entire reason for the township of Kandos, a town of 1,700 people, will cease to exist.
But we will still need cement, so we will import it from Asia, from countries that do not have a carbon pollution reduction scheme. The cement will be coming in, with probably 30 per cent higher emissions into the atmosphere. It will be put onto a ship, which burns fuel, and landed here. What will have happened? We will have increased our emissions, we will have destroyed a town, we will have destroyed an industry and we will have put our community at a disadvantage.
For this legislation to work, it will rely on people changing their habits. There has been a very dishonest argument in this. It has been perceived as something that the government can do. Our wonderful international statesman the Prime Minister is going to fix the climate with this legislation. What has not been explained is that, for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to work, people have to change their habits. I had a group of young people in my electorate come to speak to me. One of the great pleasures of being a member of parliament is that you get to speak to people from all age groups. This was a group of very concerned people. I asked them, ‘Should we be doing something about carbon pollution?’ They said, ‘Yes, we should.’ I asked, ‘Should we be going to Copenhagen and signing this?’ They said, ‘We should be showing the world that we care about the environment.’ I said, ‘That’s very honourable.’ Then I asked: ‘Okay, what are you going to do? How are you going to alter your behaviour to do your bit?’ They looked puzzled. I said, ‘For this to work, we have to use less energy.’ I asked: ‘Are you not going to go to the Gold Coast for schoolies this year? Think of the pollution, the greenhouses gases, of that car going up the Newell Highway from Dubbo.’ They said: ‘Oh, no, we hadn’t thought about missing out on schoolies. We’re going to be more sensible, so we’ll fill the car up.’ Okay. Then I asked, ‘When summer hits and it gets to 45 degrees, are you going to flick granny’s air conditioner off in the heat of the day? That will save a lot of electricity.’ They said: ‘Oh, no. We couldn’t do that.’
The people have been conned. This has been very cunning. The large amount of cash that these bills will generate will subsidise the pensioners in the initial stages, will subsidise the cost of fuel and will subsidise the power industry. So we will be subsidising all of these things, but the environment will not have changed. The government will have a $50 billion windfall, but ultimately if we are going to live up to our obligations and reduce our emissions, as we must, we will have to wind back the switches. We will have to use less electricity. As everyone in this place knows, the baby boomer bubble that is coming through will hit aged care. In 14 years time the baby boomers will hit the age where they will need higher care, which will basically mean living inside in a controlled environment. I think now there are five people in the workforce for every one person that is retired. By 2020 or 2030 we will have three people in the workforce for every one person who is retired. Either our elderly, our most disadvantaged, will have their power turned down or the few people left in the workforce will have their obligations cranked up. The sums do not add up.
We need to think about what we are doing here. Professor Garnaut said in his report that regional Australia will have a 20 per cent economic downturn. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Schultz, you have a rural seat. Can they afford a 20 per cent economic downturn? They are barely breaking even at the moment. Most of them are not breaking even. I wish the member for Corangamite luck for the next time he goes and speaks to his farmers. He said he supports agriculture being in. For those who are interested, the Australian Farm Institute has on its website the FarmGAS Calculator. You go on there and you fill in all the information for your farm. A farmer in my electorate put in a conservative estimate for a few years down the track, with carbon at $25 a tonne. He did not push the limits. He thought he was conservative with the work he did. The added cost of this for one farmer would be $75,000 a year.
It is quite interesting. In this debate we heard from the wonderful, caring, climate-loving people who are worried. It sounds like the member for Isaacs will be up to his neck in water by next Christmas if we do not get this legislation through, because his electorate is down on the coast. It is interesting to note who on the other side we have not heard from. We have not heard from the member for Maribyrnong, the champion of the Australian Workers Union, the man who tells me his union owns the tallest building in my electorate. It was built on the sweat of the backs of shearers, truck drivers, cement workers and coalminers. We have not heard from him. We have not heard from the member for Flynn.
I think this is one of the greatest scandals of all time. We come in here at question time, and they stand behind their leader and they nod and smile on cue, they frown on cue, and while they are there like Pavlov’s dog, nodding and smiling and frowning in unison, they are selling out the people that they represent—the workers of Australia, the people who are going to lose their jobs. How can you save the environment, how can you contribute your share to saving the environment, if you do not have a job? It is absolute madness.
This ‘government knows best’ legislative approach to fixing our environmental problems is absolutely flawed. Australia is the great country it is today not because government has imposed regulation but because of innovation, resourcefulness and hard work. That is why Australia has got to where it is today. How can the Australian people live up to the challenges of altering our practices, altering the way we live, altering our economy, if we have been excessively taxed? How can we do that? How can those companies that need to adapt to a lower carbon economy and use less energy do so if they have had the cream taken off the top? It is just nonsense.
We on this side have heard fanciful comments about embracing clean coal technology. Clean coal technology is a way off, but it requires 30 per cent more coal to generate a kilowatt of power, so when it does come in it is going to be more expensive. Who can afford it?
At this stage there are two things this country relies on that make it great: a cheap source of reliable energy and the ability to produce food—and we are severely going to hamper both with an ETS. If farmers are included, they will not be able to afford to run livestock. The temptation will be to plant their productive land with trees and claim carbon credits. Well, that is very nice, but we cannot eat carbon credits. Australia does not only feed the 20 million people that live here; it feeds another 50 million people around the world. By mid-century, 2050, Australia will have 35 million people and the world will have nine billion. Our obligation to the world is to feed them, and we need to do it in an environmentally sensitive way.
Indeed, I wonder, as I listen to the speeches from those opposite, how many of them have actually invested any of their own money, any of their own sweat, any of their own resourcefulness, in improving the environment in which they live. In my previous role as a farmer I am pleased to say that my family and I were involved in early experimental work with the department of agriculture and Monsanto in zero-till agriculture—growing crops without disturbing the soil. Over a period of time, as the organic material was incorporated into the soil as it broke down, it increased the soil’s water-holding capacity, and the carbon levels on the properties I was involved with grew exponentially. Is there any credit for that? Is there any recognition of that work? And I was one of many. It is now accepted practice right across the country. Is there any recognition of what the agricultural sector has already done to improve our environment? Our irrigators are now growing a kilogram of cotton or food items such as vegetables for a fraction of the water they were, but there is no recognition of that.
I am opposing this legislation. This is going to destroy this country. It is going to destroy my electorate. I just hope against hope that some sense can prevail in this argument before we commit Australia to absolute disaster.
In this debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills, I want to take two minutes of the parliament’s time to report on a visit I made to the United States about 2½ weeks ago. As part of a parliamentary delegation I was privileged to go to Columbia University in New York and meet with the world’s leading climate change scientists. It was a very interesting discussion. When asked quite directly what they thought of the Kyoto protocol, they said it was not worth the paper it was written on because there was no follow-through—lots of talk and no action. As for their advice on the way ahead, they said no one country should get too far ahead of any other country in relation to its approach to climate change and CPRS-ETS issues. I think that is very sensible advice. Australia should listen to that, and the government and the parliament should listen to that, because if we move too far ahead of the rest of the world our country will be damaged and our jobs will be lost, and that is indeed very concerning.
I note that this matter is given lower priority by the United States congress than the priority given to health issues and that they will not resolve their position before Copenhagen. Neither should we. That is a position that the opposition has adopted, and I think that deep down the government really thinks that is the way we should go. I support the sensible amendments that are being proposed and we look forward to seeing the government’s response in due course.
I rise to address the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. What is in a date? What is in a day? What is in a month or even three? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified man’s emissions of CO2—caused almost entirely by the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, over two hundred years ago—as the cause of global warming. Over the last twenty years, world opinion has slowly but surely been swinging to support for action. Accordingly, the Australian government has now committed to an emissions trading scheme—as, indeed, had its predecessor. The Prime Minister has deferred the start-up date for his scheme by 12 months to mid-2011, more than a year and a half away. Almost all of the rest of the developed world, including the world’s largest economy, the US, has not yet decided what their schemes, if any, will look like, and when they will start. In the developing world, the large emitters, China and India, are most likely years away from making any commitment. So what then is in a few months?
We are debating these bills now for no other reason than political advantage for the government. The Prime Minister would dearly like the opposition to vote against these bills so that he can claim that we on this side of the House are climate change sceptics, when in fact our major difficulty with the legislation is locking Australia into a permanent competitive disadvantage with an ETS that is out of step with the rest of the world. It is worth noting that the Canadians, who were quite advanced in the design of their ETS, have shelved its introduction and will now use whatever scheme the US decides on as a template. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind or in that of the majority of Australians that we should not be making these decisions until after the Copenhagen meeting and the passage of any US scheme through their Senate. But the government is determined to force the bills to a vote.
I said on a previous occasion when this bill was last being debated in this place that my commitment to the reduction of CO2 emissions was genuine but that I would not blindly support a scheme that had the effect of sending our industries overseas where they would contribute as much, if not more, carbon into the atmosphere of the planet, providing no benefit at all to the environment. Unfortunately, without serious amendment, that is just what this deeply flawed emissions trading scheme legislation is promising to do. Many would argue that, if the government’s legislation is flawed, we should just let it happen—that they will eventually wear the electoral consequences, lose government and the Liberal Party will be given the job of fixing everything up. Unfortunately, this legislation is just too dangerous to the future of Australia for us to let that happen. That is why the member for Groom is negotiating a number of amendments with the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Wong.
My electorate of Grey is more than a passive observer of the passage of this legislation. The Onesteel plant is essentially the lifeblood of Whyalla, the Nystar smelter is similarly essential to Port Pirie, as is the Northern Power Station to Port Augusta. And then there is the farming industry, which accounts for almost 50 per cent of our economy. They all stand to face significant obstacles to their survival if this legislation is passed in its current form. There is almost no chance that any scheme brought in by another nation will ever include agriculture. The Australian government must rule out agriculture permanently from the scheme, because to leave the spectre of its inclusion after 2015 hanging over its head will affect investment and confidence in the sector. It is also essential that the government offers incentives to farmers to participate in carbon capture and storage.
Landholders control 60 per cent of Australia’s land mass, which has been identified as one of the great potential carbon sinks. For the government not to engage landholders, to exclude them from incentives to change their farming practices—changes that could actually make a real difference—is just plain stupid. If we are to make a serious attempt to capture carbon—and its worth remembering that the only way carbon has ever been sequestered from the atmosphere is through photosynthesis—it is absolutely essential that the people responsible for the land management of 60 per cent of Australia be brought into the business of capturing carbon. Participation will give farmers a chance to offset some of the extra costs they will have to meet as a result of this legislation. If the legislation is unamended, input costs for farmers are likely to rise by as much as 13 per cent—a cost that farmers certainly cannot afford. The inclusion of off-sets will at least give farmers some chance to claw back some of that cost.
For the steel and lead industries in Whyalla and Port Pirie, we are looking at the cutting edge of what could become carbon leakage central. These industries are already being tested to the maximum by the financial difficulties of the world and by a number of policies implemented by the current government, including the new industrial relations environment and the spending-borrowing programs, which are exacerbating interest rate pressure and leading to a higher Australian dollar. The impact of the 92c Aussie dollar on our export and import replacement industries cannot be underestimated. If the government insists on continuing its policy of putting the Australian taxpayer more than $200 billion in debt, despite widespread advice that it should be winding back the stimulus program, then the chance of an even stronger dollar is high.
The ETS as it stands is incredibly complex. On the surface it offers support for industries like Nyrstar and Onesteel, with the issue of credits to the tune of 94.5 per cent of emissions. But, in reality, the businesses are cut up into sections, with some qualifying for different levels of assistance and some not at all. The effective levels of assistance are far lower, closer in fact to 70 per cent. The bill commits to a decay rate of 1.3 per cent a year, which increases the impact on industry year by year, without any reference to what may be occurring in competing countries. In 10 years that actual assistance of 70 per cent will have dropped to 57 per cent. It is a straightjacket which has the potential to strangle these vital industries that are the backbone of our regional economies. There is a grave danger that this approach will see Australia committing to cuts in emissions and to higher and higher costs on industry and the accompanying loss of jobs, when the rest of the world has not moved.
We must have the flexibility to deal with a changing environment. That is why the opposition is proposing that there should be a single level of assistance across all emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries of 94.5 per cent at start-up year until 2015, when it drops to 90 per cent. There will be no further reduction in assistance until 80 per cent of our trade competitors have implemented carbon reduction programs. We also propose that the threshold for assistance should be lower, at 850 tonnes of CO2 per $1 million worth of production. This proviso will allow us to ramp up our commitment to carbon reduction if our trading partners and competitors in the world show a genuine commitment to reducing carbon emissions, rather than just talking about them. In short, if the rest of the world gets serious about this issue, this will ensure that we remain in the forefront of the effort to reduce emissions, but it will not allow us to get so far in front of the pack that we drive jobs out of Australia. Without modifications of this nature, I have great fears for the future of the industries that underwrite the prosperity of both Whyalla and Port Pirie.
The government’s ETS will heavily tax coal-fired power stations, which, like other energy intensive industries, will be forced to have permits for all emissions. This approach will lead to the government collecting enormous amounts of carbon tax, which they will then be able to redistribute to whomever they wish as electoral largess—the honey pot of all honey pots. And do not think governments will not use this for political advantage. This is a heavy-taxing regime and it is little wonder that the industries that stand to benefit most from the trading of permits support their introduction. This will result in a completely new commodity for markets in which to trade and make margins. It is difficult not to have concerns about this outcome.
The opposition is asking the government to recognise how integral electricity is to all production and that large increases in electricity will lead to higher household and business costs. These will flow through the whole economy and eventually rest with those who provide the export income for Australia, because, in the end, they are the only group who cannot pass on their cost increases. So we propose that electricity generation should be rated on an intensity basis. This will allow for generators to be rated against world’s best practice, to buy credits for poorer outcomes and to receive credits for better. This will deliver the same cuts, with the same incentive per tonne of emissions, but with a much smaller total bill. It will reduce the enormous pool of money the government will harvest from the scheme, which they have proposed to give back to certain groups.
The significant reduction of tax will lead to a far smaller rise in the price of electricity. If the price rises by far less, then less compensation will be needed. In effect it reduces the wash of money going around and around in ever diminishing circles, being top sliced, bottom sliced and middle sliced at every transaction level. Our proposal on electricity is about efficiency—we can achieve the same cuts for far less.
This bill, which will introduce a cap and trade scheme, provides no incentive at all for individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. The nation sets a target and, theoretically at least, we will meet that target, even though we may emit more if we buy credits from other parts of the world. There are a plenty of reasons to be concerned by the bill and by the government’s politically motivated time frame.
However, if we assume we meet our target, if a householder changes their hot-water system, refrigerator and light bulbs, double glazes their house or installs solar panels, reducing their energy consumption, all that will do is to allow another industry to emit more without penalty. This is clearly silly.
Part of the amendments the member for Groom is negotiating allows for the introduction of ‘white certificate’ energy credits, which will reward those who make the effort and lead to a real reduction—real rewards for the environment for individual effort. We must not forget that an ETS for Australia is in fact a tax on everything. It will lead to rises in the cost of living and the cost of doing business. If we do not have a global solution, we will not provide any reduction in global emissions. If we are to have an ETS, we should take great care to ensure it is of the cheapest possible nature and still deliver the goods. It cannot do that if we act in a unilateral way.
I urge the government to take away the gun pointing at the head of the parliament, drop its politically based timetable and allow us to get this scheme in step with our major competitors. But I fear they are past common sense on the issue and are driven only by political advantage. If they are to insist on this manufactured timetable then I urge them to negotiate in good faith with the opposition, to recognise some of the flaws in their legislation and act in the best interests of Australia by accepting amendments which will lead to a vastly improved bill.
I am pleased to rise this morning to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and cognate bills, which have certainly captured the imagination of newspapers and people all around Australia. The problem with what is being proposed here is that the Labor government scheme is flawed and will have a devastating impact on Australian jobs and trade-exposed industries. The badly designed CPRS will force jobs overseas, will severely damage Australian business and will not make any positive difference to the environment.
The Labor government has again dismissed the needs of regional Australia. The CPRS will destroy regional Australia, it will destroy Australian industry and it will destroy jobs. This CPRS will send farmers bankrupt, if they are forced to buy carbon permits, and it will shift the market share to other countries. No other country in the world is yet to put agriculture into the system and I do not trust this government not to make that decision in 2013 or even before. Agriculture cannot pass on the cost of buying carbon permits, unlike other large companies and retailers. Therefore, they will be left with the financial burden. Given that there is very little scientific research on emissions produced by agriculture, it is unfair to include them in the scheme. The government is rushing this legislation through before Copenhagen and, frankly, it does not need to. The United States will not have anything before Copenhagen, and they are the largest emitters of CO2 in the world, so why does Australia?
This legislation has been poorly thought through and, as usual, it is up to the coalition to put in the hard yards so that Australia does not suffer. The Labor government has left the Australian public in the dark about CPRS, with 90 per cent of Australians admitting that they have very little understanding of this scheme. There are 40 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted globally on an annual basis. Australia emits about 560 million tonnes, which represents 1.4 per cent of total global emissions. Whether you are a believer in anthropogenic climate change—that is, that CO2 causes global warming or climate change—one has to ask whether this system will have any effect on the emissions of CO2 on a global basis. Europe has had an ETS system since 2005. I will give you some examples of what has happened in Europe.
In Cyprus in 2005 the level of emissions was 5.078 million tonnes. That has risen to 5.396 million tonnes in 2007, an increase in the two years of an ETS. In the Czech Republic, it has gone from 82.454 million tonnes in 2005 to 87.834 million tonnes in 2007—yet another increase. In Germany with an ETS it has gone from 474.990 million tonnes in 2005 to 487.004 million tonnes in 2007. In Denmark it was 26.475 million tonnes in 2005 and that has risen to 29.407 million tonnes in 2007. Estonia has gone from 12.621 million tonnes in 2005 to 15.329 million tonnes in 2007—another increase. In Spain, the country that has probably done more than most to bring in the so-called green revolution, it has risen from 183.626 million tonnes in 2005 to 186.495 million tonnes in 2007. Finland has gone from 33.099 million tonnes in 2005 to 42.541 million tonnes in 2007—quite a substantial increase, in the order of 30 per cent. Poland has gone from 203.149 million tonnes in 2005 to 209.601 million tonnes. And in the United Kingdom, where we hear all about their Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, saying that we have to do something about CO2 emissions—he is a great believer in it—they have had an increase from 242.513 million tonnes in 2005 to 256.581 million tonnes. Those are all countries that have an ETS in place, and yet their CO2 emissions are rising.
The coalition has proposed amendments to the CPRS which are designed to save jobs, lessen the impact on industry and consumers and achieve some carbon dioxide reduction targets. Our amendments will protect key export industries and save thousands of jobs in trade-exposed industries. These proposals will cut the price increases for small businesses and households by at least half. Benefits to agriculture under the coalition’s amendments will be the permanent exclusion of agricultural emissions and an agreement with the government to introduce an agricultural offset scheme so that farmers do not get all the penalties of the scheme, even if they are not in it, but they have the ability to offset the costs. Food prices are predicted to rise, although in my experience as a farmer—which I have been all my life before coming to this job—the prices paid to the farmers will be less as the extra costs for food retailers and wholesalers will mean they will pay less to farmers rather than absorbing those extra costs from the ETS tax.
It is interesting to note, as previous speakers on our side have noted, that farming is probably the only industry in Australia that has already reduced its emissions. Farmers have done that through zero- or minimum-till sowing of crops. They did not do that to reduce CO2; it was actually about reducing costs, using less moisture and having better control of weeds. Those are things farmers have achieved by using that sort of new technology.
Frankly, the ETS is nothing more than a system that gives or sells permits to continue emitting CO2—or, as many people term it, pollution. That is not a term I agree with, but it is certainly one that is used quite widely. Ordinary citizens apparently will not have to pay extra for their fuel at first because the extra cost from the ETS will be compensated. One has to ask: how does no change in the price of fuel change people’s habits? I have always been amused by the title of this scheme: the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Are we are talking about carbon or are we talking about carbon dioxide? The relationship between carbon and carbon dioxide is no closer than the relationship between hydrogen and hydrogen dioxide or water. They are completely different elements. But this government thought it would use the name CPRS as a marketing tool, rather than ETS, emissions trading scheme. It called it the CPRS in the hope that people might think somehow we are improving the health of our environment, as a CPR does in medicine. Frankly, I think it should be renamed the carbon reduction and pollution scheme: initials C-R-A-P.
One of the problems with an ETS system is that we will have industries simply moving overseas to countries that do not have an ETS or a CPRS, as they have done in Europe. Cement factories, for example, have relocated just outside of the EU so that they do not have to comply with an ETS. That could quite easily happen in Australia, and what would be the point of that? We would be exporting our jobs in the cement industry and we would in fact increase our CO2 emissions as we would then have to import cement—you cannot get it from overseas to Australia without increasing your CO2 emissions. We hear that the jobs lost and exported overseas will be replaced by green jobs. That is the great mantra of the Labor Party. Anyone who believes that must also believe in Father Christmas. In Spain, for example—a country that, as I mentioned earlier, has gone a long way down the track of renewable energy—for every so-called green job created, 2.2 jobs were lost, so there was a net loss. There will also be severe effects on farmers even if they are not included in the system. University submissions have shown that costs for farmers are estimated to increase by 14 to 27 per cent even if they are not part of the system because of the extra costs for transport, manufacturing and so on.
I hear people use the line that the oceans will rise by six metres. That is interesting because we spoke with a group of scientists in this parliament on Monday and they were very pro the need to take action, but even they do not agree with that prediction. The IPCC report talks about 30 centimetres over the next 100 years, one foot in the old measures. That is what the IPCC is suggesting, but some people have been quite happy to use this six metres line, as indeed the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, did earlier this week during question time. It would not happen in this millennium. It would not happen in the next millennium. We are 2,000 years off six metres, even if the present rate continues.
I have heard Tim Flannery say that the oceans will rise by 100 metres. According to the present theory expounded by the IPCC, that would take 34,000 years. So it is no wonder that I might be somewhat sceptical about what Tim Flannery writes and says. I hear people saying that global warming might cause deaths from heatwaves. I can assure you that in fact more people will die from global cooling because coldness causes more deaths than heat ever does and ever will. So whenever you hear that argument that global warming might cause extra deaths, you must sit back think that, if we go the opposite way, we will actually have more deaths than we would from warming.
Like the member for Herbert, I was present on that trip to the US and I thank the parliament for bestowing that honour on me. The US will not have a bill passed in the Senate before Copenhagen. In fact, it may never have a bill passed for an ETS. Even the promoters of the bill in the US—and we spoke to them—think that their best chance is a two-vote victory. So there is no guarantee that there will be anything coming from the US on this.
I think there is considerable scientific evidence to show that aerosols of particulates, such as soot and ash, do affect the climate locally. In fact, when Indonesia could not sell its rainforest timber because they were told that nobody would buy it, they actually burnt it and replanted palm oil trees because they could make some money out of palm oil. The problem with that was that it actually affected our climate in Australia. I think there are quite a few scientific studies—in fact I tabled one in parliament in February last year—that show the effect of those aerosols created by the burning of forests in Indonesia. I do not think any scientist rejects the idea that aerosols can have quite a considerable effect on our climate. In fact, we have had volcanoes explode and that sort of negative effect has come about as a result of those volcanic eruptions.
We do have lots of variability about the science. I have no doubt that there will be believers and non-believers in anthropogenic climate change. But, as I said earlier, the question you have to ask is: does an ETS actually reduce global emissions? It has not in Europe, and I gave those figures earlier. In California they have actually levelled off their emissions without an ETS. So there are other ways that you can actually achieve it. I make no apology for the fact that I oppose an ETS. It would be disastrous for my electorate. It would be disastrous for Australia. This ETS, or CPRS as the Labor government have renamed it, simply will not do the job that they say it will. I will leave it at that. There has been a lot of debate on this subject but I can certainly say to this House that I have no intention of voting for this CPRS.
I rise today to again talk about the euphemism that is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which really looks like an enormous grab for cash that can then be given away by a big government that wants to be big in everybody’s lives and which really does not tackle some of the compelling issues about climate change and our need to adapt and abate those pressures on our landscape and on our way of life. We are back here in what some would say is a Groundhog Day moment. Like others, I have spoken previously on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and have outlined its deficiencies, but there seems to be little movement from the Rudd Labor government to pick up what have been widely recognised as very genuine and legitimate concerns that the coalition parties have raised, and more particularly the very constructive and positive amendments that have been brought forward.
There has been some debate about whether that will salvage one of the ugliest ETSs anyone has seen, a friendless and flawed emissions trading system with that euphemistic name—Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. There are some who are doubting whether it can be salvaged. I am one among many in the opposition who are keen to do what we can to try and avoid the worst damage this flawed and friendless scheme will cause on Australia, on our economy and on our way of life while doing very little to address the atmospheric concerns that are leading to climate change and that are having an impact on our way of life, on our wellness and on the health of the globe. To put it simply, many have debated the complexity of climate change and the issues that influence it. Many have pointed to the range of factors and the consensus in scientific opinion that we humans have had an impact, but there is doubt and confusion and lack of continuity in scientific assessments about what precisely one extra tonne of CO2 will do. We have had an impact as humans but there is a lack of precision and specificity about what particular consequences will flow, and often that is a cause of concern.
That complexity reminds me that if we have a world that is ill and unwell and has some troubling symptoms, we need to be very careful in the way we go about addressing those concerns. Think about our own health and the complexity of the human body and the systems that are in it. Those of us who have an ailment hope that the treating physicians will actually target the cause and approach our recovery in a measured and considered way, not simply take action that looks like it will cure our illness but will actually take us out. The solution might be more damaging than the problem we are trying to solve.
Here, though, we are faced with a proposition that has not changed. We are not back here because the Rudd Labor government has proven that its arguments are stronger than ours and that it knows better than just about everyone else in the broader community. The government has not even attempted to make that case. We have not heard a Labor speaker on this bill actually address the amendments the opposition has put forward. We have not had anybody make the case that they are bad proposals. We have not had a single speaker from the Labor Party get up and address the deficiencies in the scheme that have been widely reported in the media. We have not had anybody suggest that the remedies being proposed by the opposition are less effective or more poorly conceived than the ones the government is trying to force upon the nation by bulldozing this legislation through the parliament.
We have had none of that. All we have had is a re-run of some false argument that the government wants to do something about climate change and the opposition does not. This is not a question of will or wanting to do something. The parliament is generally as one in that view. The question is: what is the wise and considered thing to do? But we have heard so little about that from the Labor speakers in this parliament; so little from the Rudd Labor government and its ministers about the wisdom of the actions it is forcing on the nation compared with alternative actions that are being advocated by some, including the opposition, in these carefully considered and thoughtful amendments.
So why are we back here? We are back here because this is part of the Rudd Labor government’s political strategy. The government has not made a case for the bill. It has not made a case that challenges and discredits the alternative ideas being advanced by the opposition. All it has done is re-run the arguments that we heard the last time we debated this bill without anyone turning their minds to whether the provisions in this bill are wise and thoughtful and will deliver the best outcome for our nation, our economy, our natural systems and, in the longer term, the health of the globe.
That has been revealed by Labor speaker after Labor speaker, replaying the false and hackneyed claims of the Rudd government and its political Labor acolytes trying to assert that the opposition is not interested in taking action on climate change and not supportive of an emissions trading scheme. Both are wrong—demonstrably wrong. They are wrong in the sense that it was the coalition parties that first introduced the concept of an emissions trading scheme and wrong in the sense that the Liberal and National parties have a very positive record of action on greenhouse gases and climate change.
This record includes: the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, investing directly in cost-effective abatement; the Australian Greenhouse Office, the world’s first dedicated greenhouse agency; the mandatory renewable energy target that has been emulated internationally and is now emulated and embraced by the Labor Party; the Solar Cities program, with direct action to address fuel and energy efficiency; the Greenhouse Challenge Program, whereby a collaboration of industry, government and science reduced emissions in the creation of wealth in this country; world leadership on international insights on the impact of land use, land use change and sequestration in our flora; and the decoupling of what was once a direct link between economic growth and energy consumption—it was under the Howard government that we actually decoupled those things and grew the economy at a faster rate than increases in energy consumption. We were one of the few developed countries in the world that were on track to meet our Kyoto target.
All those things have happened under the Liberal and National parties. All those things show the lie in the argument being asserted through the hackneyed claims by those opposite, by the Labor Party and its acolytes, that somehow the Liberal and National parties are not interested in taking action. Well, the record is there and the record is positive and compelling.
It was actually the coalition that instigated work on the emissions trading scheme. In fact, I have in my hand a report that I helped author back in 1998 which talks about regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions—1998! The committee was chaired by and the inquiry was instigated by the Liberal and National parties. That interim report to the House identified a number of issues and concerns, many of which we are still debating today. These issues were identified a decade ago as fundamental elements that would need to be addressed in an effective emissions trading scheme. Those fundamental concerns remain unattended to and the Labor government refuses to turn its mind to what remedies might look like—remedies encapsulated in the opposition’s amendments.
From that body of work the Australian Greenhouse Office got on with the job of looking at the feasibility of introducing a national greenhouse gas emissions scheme. There was consultation, and an effective and efficient scheme was developed. It was captured following extensive consultation in what has become known as the Shergold model. The coalition’s commitment to an ETS is demonstrable.
When the Liberal and National parties were in government, the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, was in his ‘me too’ mode—remember that, when there was not a cigarette paper between Prime Minister Howard and then opposition leader Kevin Rudd? In ‘me too’ mode he simply fell into line and picked up the coalition’s commitment to an ETS. He has a character trait of wanting to be the biggest and the best. I am not sure why his name is not Kevin Ruddest—he likes putting ‘est’ on the end of everything he has to say to show how persuasive and important he is. He said, ‘Me too. I will follow the coalition’s lead and embrace an ETS.’ He thought, ‘What can I do to be -est about the ETS?’ And he thought, ‘Let’s be quickest.’ He said he would bring it in earlier than the coalition parties would.
The timing of the coalition parties’ development and introduction of the ETS reflected international trends. Nobody in this place could credibly say that what is happening internationally does not matter. Why would there be such an effort to have the Prime Minister feeling well positioned to go to Copenhagen if it did not matter? Why would he be making such a big deal and ramming this bill through without addressing any of the legitimate concerns and constructive and positive propositions that the opposition has put forward? Why would he be doing that?
The Prime Minister effectively has the strategy of using a statute to increase his stature. That is all this is about. Our Prime Minister is driving this parliament so that he has a statute to enhance his stature at Copenhagen. If Copenhagen did not matter and was so immaterial, you could understand the rush to act. But if it does matter, should this not be an important input? The coalition thinks it should be, and that is why in our timing for an ETS we had accommodated that forward scheduling, recognising that international developments would have an impact and should be taken into account as key input for our domestic emissions trading scheme. But Kevin Rudd wanting to be ‘est’—quickest, in this case—brought the timetable forward as his point of difference. It is hasty and knee-jerk political positioning by a Labor leader who did not think through the implications and had little understanding of what the impact would be of his actions.
Back in July, the Leader of the Opposition outlined concerns such as design deficiencies and issues around voluntary action. Many of them were fundamental and many were highlighted 10 years ago, in 1998, in a bipartisan report to this parliament. It talked about harmonisation issues with major economies, looking at what is happening internationally and having complementarity so that our systems work in partnership with other actions going on within Australia and overseas. It talked about how a scheme would operate with other trading systems and how the global framework would impact on the design. It mentioned other market mechanisms that could feed into an emissions trading scheme, like the clean development mechanism, a system available under the Kyoto protocol. It also mentioned the joint implementation project pathway, where you could do things in developing countries that were funded and driven by developed countries with emissions target obligations and then carry those gains, those credits, back into the accounting for the emissions of the developed economy.
See how they need to interact? This is why Copenhagen and international developments matter. This is why we had the timetable that we did. There are concerns around carbon leakage and emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. We are interested in the way permits are allocated and the impact on coal fired electricity generation. We are interested in sequestration opportunities—how to encourage and facilitate those so that they can play their part in a sincere effort to reduce our emissions, not a political show to make it look like we are doing something, capped off by a debate by about a statute designed solely to enhance Prime Minister Rudd’s stature. I have not heard too many people saying our Prime Minister needs to feel more positive about himself. I cannot really see why that should be the driving force behind passing a bill through the parliament with no other objective, no other rationale for the time frame being so truncated.
The coalition’s identification of the design principles that need to be addressed and our identification of constructive ideas to improve what has been brought before the parliament have earned widespread support. They were identified back in July. The coalition took up the challenge and provided this positive contribution. It has been well received, but there has been no interest and no engagement from the Labor Party. We hope the negotiations are going well, but why so late? Why the political brinkmanship by the Labor Party when these concerns have been out there for months? It is just more politicking and posturing by the Prime Minister and the Rudd Labor government, who have some steadfast attachment to this flawed and friendless scheme.
When it was first produced, the bill was rejected by all parties in the Senate other than Labor: the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and the Independents. But would the Labor Party listen at that point? No. There were just more lectures. They leered at anybody who had the gall to question what was in there or to point to deficiencies or to suggest improvements to the flawed and friendless scheme. So we are back here again with no change or improvement to the Labor Party’s flawed and friendless emissions trading scheme. We have just bald assertion after bald assertion from those opposite. They are repeating mantras while showing no understanding of, or willingness to engage on, the constructive proposals the Liberal and National parties have brought forward. They just keep repeating the chant, the mantra, that if climate change matters to you the CPRS will do. It is a ridiculous chant from the Labor Party, a moronic statement that really does no service to them and diminishes the parliament.
The opposition’s proposals are thoughtful and constructive and should be embraced. They have been positively received by the broader Australian community. They have at their heart trying to make sure that we do not shut down trade exposed industries for no gain for the environment. What is the upside in that? If we punish and penalise Australian producers and cause them to shut down or to decrease their activity just so that that activity goes somewhere else where climate compliance and time constraints are not a concern, what is the point of that? How is that in our national interest?
Our idea is to cushion the impact of power price increases on small business and consumers. In fact, we believe we will be able to cut them by at least half because of the way we design the scheme. Rather than fit up every electricity generator with the cost of permits for all of their emissions and punish those who are relatively low emitters by forcing them to go and buy Kevin Rudd’s emissions permits, we have said that we can benchmark a level of emissions and reward those that are producing energy for less than that. They will get credits. They will get a bonus for being below the benchmark. Those who are emitting at a greater level, above that benchmark, will have to buy permits from the Prime Minister and the Rudd Labor government. Therefore, the price penalty is only that bit above the benchmark and those below actually get rewarded. You still get the price differential that is at the heart of trying to make behavioural change but you are not ramping up everybody’s costs; you are actually rewarding the lower emitters. Therefore, the cost impact for consumers, for small businesses, families and individuals in my electorate and right across Australia is reduced while maintaining the very price signal that is designed to bring about behavioural change. Doesn’t that make sense? It does unless you have your eye focused on the lolly. It makes sense unless you are the Rudd Labor government, which says, ‘If not everybody is buying our permits we’re not going to get money for all of those permits.’ If we make everybody buy permits then that is more money coming into the Commonwealth so that the Rudd Labor government can be big in everybody’s lives and give some of it back where they think that compensation is justified. That is why they do not like our idea.
But what happens when, as has been discussed in this place, even at the lower permit price level that is being introduced here—which does ramp up—people can buy permits overseas for less than one-tenth of the cost? What if they just go overseas and buy them? What happens then to the Rudd Labor model? They will not be getting all that cash coming in that they are gleefully rubbing their hands waiting to receive. Therefore, their capacity to compensate the people they have needlessly punished is diminished. In that case, what goes? I predict the compensation goes.
To negate that risk you should be very careful in the way you put a price penalty on electricity if you are not able to compensate for it in the longer term. This is at the heart of what the Rudd government is concerned about. If we allow people other than the government to hand out payments—to create permit capability through sequestration action by letting the earth’s systems that have been damaged by humans be improved and enhanced by human action and therefore sequester, or soak up, carbon and create credits that way, like in the farming community—then people would have somewhere else to buy their permits and their credits. This would negate the need to buy permits from this big government that wants to be big in everybody’s lives. Can you see why it does not want to pick up the opposition’s proposals and amendments? Because it puts someone else out there that people can turn to, to help emitters meet their responsibilities. That means less cash for Canberra. The reward for that would go to those who are taking action. That leads me into another area: the built environment, something I am quite passionate about.
Industry body after industry body, scientist after scientist, over and over has pointed out that the built environment is an opportunity for enormous emissions reductions—23 per cent of Australia’s emissions come from our built environment. Why has the built environment been frozen out of this model? The opposition is saying let’s introduce a white certificate scheme, a scheme that rewards improved energy efficiency. It operates in two states now. Why not have a voluntary market and encourage the commercial building sector which, in submission after submission, has said to the Rudd Labor government that it should be in this voluntary scheme. The commendation, positive response and support that have come to the opposition for its proposals in the built environment are echoed every time an industry leader makes a comment about scope and opportunity for the built environment.
Our green depreciation measure has been welcomed and embraced. It is something that has been recommended over and over again to the Rudd Labor government but those recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. The opportunity for efficiencies in the built environment to generate credits that can be on-sold to emitters through a voluntary market is something that has been raised over and over again. But the Rudd Labor government is just not interested. It is interested only in the politics—to get this statute through so as to enhance Prime Minister Rudd’s stature when he turns up in Copenhagen. That is all this about. We have had no coherent, credible argument or challenge or contest to the propositions that have been brought forward by the opposition. I am pleased there is talk of good faith negotiations going on. Maybe there should be some good faith action by the Rudd Labor government as well. (Time expired)
I am always pleased and honoured to speak in the House of Representatives of this great country, this great democracy of ours, as the member for Ryan representing the western suburbs of Brisbane. I pay tribute to the people of my electorate for their concern on this issue, for their interest on this issue and indeed for their desire that their government and their opposition, their elected members of the national parliament, get it right.
Australia is a great country. For the century since Federation we have had prime ministers from both sides of the parliament, from both political parties, and elected representatives from all parts of our country come to this chamber to do their best to formulate policy and to come up with ideas that take our country forward. They have tried to find policies and programs that empower our people, enrich our nation, give opportunities to our young people and deliver platforms for businesses to improve their bottom line, because we all know that at the end of the day it is small- and medium-sized businesses that employ people; it is not government.
In that context and against that background, I am pleased to speak on these Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills because in my view the federal Labor government is doing a disservice to itself and our country in relation to the way it has gone about this issue. I am sure that I speak for the people of the western suburbs of Brisbane, the Ryan electorate, that I represent, and indeed the constituents I will represent in the new year—those Australians living in the suburbs of Ashgrove, Bardon, Ferny Grove, Keperra, Enoggera, Upper Kedron and Mitchelton—when I say that they want their government to produce a policy that is in the interests of this country’s economic prosperity and its environmental security. I am not sure that this government is doing that. The emissions trading scheme which the federal Labor government wishes to pass ahead of the international meeting in Copenhagen is one that has enormous implications. It is one that has enormous ramifications for every family in this country, for every Australian and for every young person who lives in our country. I notice that in the public gallery there are some young people from some part of our country. They are certainly not from my constituency but I am sure that they come from some school in some state of this great nation. The emissions trading scheme will have an incredible impact on them as they become members of the working constituency of Australia.
This emissions trading scheme has enormous impact on the Australian economy because it imposes enormous structural change on the architecture of the Australian economy. The emissions trading scheme is a fundamental redrawing of the economic architecture of the country and therefore it will have enormous consequences for Australians in employment and for Australian families. At its heart it seeks to impose a tax on industries that by their very nature are emissions-producing industries. At its heart, the emissions trading scheme seeks to put a financial penalty on industries that collectively employ tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of people. Simply by their nature those industries produce energy and they produce emissions.
This emissions trading scheme is effectively a tax. It is essentially a financial penalty that will have a massive impact upon the profitability, the commercial viability, of those key and, indeed, strategic industries in our country. I will mention some of them: coal had a value as an exporter in 2008 of some $46.4 billion; iron ore value as an exporter was $30.2 billion; gold was $14.7 billion; crude petroleum was $10.4 billion; natural gas was $9 billion; aluminium ores were $6.5 billion; beef was $5 billion; copper ores and concentrates were $4.2 billion; and passenger transportation was $4 billion. These are just some of the industries that have enormous significance in our country. They generate billions of dollars of revenue for the national government, they collectively employ hundreds of thousands of people and in many parts of Australia they make the economy tick in those respective areas and across the national economy.
I want to put on the record that this bill is one that I have great reservations about, and that also reflects the largely held sentiment, I believe, in the Ryan electorate. I want to take this opportunity to reflect the view of a handful of constituents that have written to me. I have received hundreds and hundreds of emails and lots and lots of letters about the federal Labor government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, so I will reflect the views of a few. Geoff Layton of Taringa, who has kindly given me his consent to mention his name, said:
Dear Michael …
I’m writing about the emissions trading scheme the Parliament will vote on in November.
The Government’s proposed scheme (the CPRS) puts a new tax on coal mines that won’t reduce global carbon emissions.
Why damage Australia’s most successful export industry, cause mines to close prematurely, reduce mine investment and see thousands of jobs lost?
We need a fair law that does more to cut emissions, not jobs.
Geoff Layton writes about coal and, as I mentioned, coal is worth some $46.4 billion in revenue to Australia. I also want to thank and quote Alex Vikulov, who has also given me permission to mention the words he emailed to me. He said:
I am a professional meteorologist. Water vapour is by far the main contributor to green house effect (100 times more than CO2). CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. Do not waste resources fighting the wrong cause. Climate has always been and will always remain changeable. Instead of creating Climate Change Ministry and wasting resources, concentrate on real issues, i.e. developing renewable energy not because of “climate change”, but because current energy sources are not renewable.
Alex Vikulov has a different angle to this issue. He is focused on the aspect of energy and the fact that we should be focusing more on trying to promote the renewable energy sector in this country. I want to also quote Craig Woodman, who has also kindly given me his permission to reflect his views. Craig, who is a Ryan constituent living in the suburb of Kenmore Hills in the western suburbs of Brisbane, said:
Michael, I work in the mining industry and the proposed emissions tax (it is not credits or a trading scheme—it is a tax) does not make sense. How can a mine be taxed for something it cannot control. Will China, Columbia or Indonesia impose taxes like this on their operations. Two of the mines in the organisation I worked for are marginal now, so with the added impost of additional taxes—these will close, with the loss of over 1,500 direct jobs. The flow on effect to electricity, transport, etc will be enormous. This is a stupid scheme, which is ill thought out. Why do Alumina refineries and smelters get 90% exemption as EITE’s, but coal mining does not.
That is Craig Woodman’s view. I randomly picked those constituents of mine. I do not know any of them and I look forward to meeting them in the weeks ahead. They reflect an overwhelming view in the Ryan electorate. They go to renewable energy, they go to the impost of this tax and they go to security of jobs and security of employment. They also touch on what is supposed to be the purpose of this legislation at the end of the day, which is to reduce greenhouse emissions, to try and protect our community and to protect our country, because we as one nation in the international community contribute to greenhouse gases.
That takes me to another point I want to mention about the contribution to global emissions by various countries in the world. I have the 2006 table from the National Energy Authority showing various percentages that nations contribute to greenhouse emissions. Let me say first of all—and I think this is widely known—that China is the No. 1 country in the world and contributed the most in greenhouse emissions, with 21.5 per cent, as shown in the table. The United States contributed 20.2 per cent. The European Union contributed 13.8 per cent, and that does not include Germany, the UK or Italy, which have been given separate percentages. I will come to them in a minute. Russia contributed 5.5 per cent. India contributed 5.3 per cent. Japan contributed 4.6 per cent. Germany contributed 2.8 per cent. The United Kingdom contributed two per cent. Canada contributed 1.9 per cent. South Korea contributed 1.7 per cent. Italy, a member of the European Union, contributed 1.7 per cent. France also held a separate line item and is No. 14 on the table of global emissions contributors and contributed 1.4 per cent. Even Saudi Arabia is above Australia at 1.3 per cent.
Where does Australia rank in our global emissions? On the 2006 table that I have here, Australia contributes 1.3 per cent of world emissions. So, even if Australia were to switch off overnight, even if Australia were to not have one single power light on in any home in this country or if not even a single vehicle were to start its engine in Australia at any given time, Australia’s contribution would be a reduction of 1.3 per cent annually. Yet here we are with the federal Labor government seeking to compromise the Australian economy and the Australian people’s standard of living and economic prosperity by signing us up to an emissions trading scheme that is effectively a tax. It is effectively a penalty on employment, a slap in the face to enterprises and industries that, by their very nature, contribute to emissions.
Let me say on the record for the House and for any of my constituents that might be listening, and also for the entire electorate when I have the opportunity to engage with them, that I am not a sceptic of climate change. I happen to think that climate change is a genuine issue, a real issue. It is one of deep concern for the world and indeed for Australia and Australians to tackle. I am not a scientist. I am not an expert. I have no technical background. So who am I to say that this is fundamentally 100 per cent absolutely correct or fundamentally 100 per cent absolutely incorrect? I am just a regular guy that has an interest in my community and my society and a deep desire for my country to deliver to its people the very best livelihoods and the very best opportunities we possibly can.
As a regular guy, what do I do as a legislator? Where do I go for opinion? Where do I go for advice? I go to the experts. I have to make a judgment in the end. I also have to back my own intellectual abilities and my own sense of judgment. I take the view that, if I do not absolutely know what the case is, I have to go along with the majority of scientific opinion. If that is not a compelling enough case, I take the view of it being an insurance policy, of giving the issue the benefit of the doubt. It may well be that science and technical know-how in a century’s time prove this is all just a complete con. Conversely, it may prove that this was indeed a substantive issue. Therefore I take out an insurance policy today. I hope very much that my house does not burn down. I hope very much that my home is safe and secure. But there may be a moment where circumstances collude and my house catches fire. In such circumstances I would be relieved that I have taken out an insurance policy. So let us give the planet the benefit of the doubt. It is better to be prudent and cautious, to be safe rather than sorry. It is better to be prudent and cautious rather than regretful, wishing we had done otherwise. I put firmly on the record for the electorate of Ryan that climate change is clearly an issue for all of us to do our bit on, as individuals, households and nations.
That is very different from our doing so as part of a global solution. I read out before the percentages that countries contribute to global emissions. We simply cannot tackle this issue on our own. We must come together as a global community to tackle this issue of global climate change. This is what Copenhagen is all about. It is technically about the targets, which both the government and the opposition have signed up to: a five per cent reduction on our 1990 levels by 2020. That is what Copenhagen is technically about. But Copenhagen is also a platform for the leaders of the world—the heads of government and those with the know-how—to come together, hopefully in goodwill, to carve out and to craft a global solution.
In the absence of that happening, it just defies logic that Australia should run a million miles in front of everybody else and beat our chests and say: ‘Look at us. Look how great we are. We have legislated an emissions trading scheme in Australia that will tax all these industries that employ so many people, that contribute to the livelihoods of so many families, that contribute to the economic activity of so many communities.’ It just defies logic that we should do that. I remind those that would contend with me about the significance of Copenhagen, in terms of its timing, that there are only 40 days to go. It is only a matter of weeks. Why should we legislate this right now when we have no idea what the great emitters are doing, what the great countries, in all their wisdom, are doing—countries like the United States, China, India and others? We do not know what they are going to do. So why do this now?
What we should be focusing on is the renewables—and I regret that time is getting away from me. We should be focusing on renewable energy at home. We should be investing in solar. We should be investing in wind. We should be investing in tidal. We should be investing in ethanol. And one that has come to my attention is algae. I suspect that not many people know about algae, but we should be investing in it. We should be looking at those alternative and renewable sources of energy, because one thing is for certain: the world today has six billion people; in decades time, in 30 years time, there will be nine billion human beings on the planet. The desire for energy will increase. The desire for energy consumption will increase. We must look at that. We must also look at nuclear energy. We cannot put our heads in the sand and say, ‘It’s okay for France to have nuclear energy and the UK and Russia and China and America—but not Australia.’ South Africa is going down the nuclear path. Let us also do so. This is a source of incredible revenue for our country. It is an emissions-free source of energy. We have to do something in the renewable energy and alternative energy space.
We must not put a tax right now on Australian industry and jobs. I am for climate change measures. I am for energy security. I am for renewable energy and alternative energy. I am for doing something to secure the prosperity of our country, the employment of our young people and the empowerment of our industries and our businesses to go forward, to shine and to innovate in the world. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and cognate bills. There is no doubt that the Labor government’s emissions trading scheme legislation is seriously flawed and will cost Australian jobs. It will cost investment and compromise our historic, natural, internationally competitive advantage of cheap energy as well as increase the potential for carbon leakage. As a result of these very real flaws, the coalition is proposing amendments designed to lessen the impact on industry, business, consumers, regional communities and economies, so saving Australian jobs yet achieving the same environmental targets. Our commonsense amendments will prevent the shutdown of industries that are essential to the Australian economy—industries that provide jobs in regional communities as well as contribute both directly and indirectly to regional, state and national economies. They include key export industries, including those in coalmining, aluminium, natural gas, food processing and agriculture.
The coalition has very serious concerns about the flawed Labor government ETS for all trade-exposed industries, small and medium businesses and energy generators—those that provide regional jobs and support local and regional communities and local, state and federal economies. Australia’s treatment of emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries must be comparable with the treatment of trade-exposed industries in the United States and the European Union, given the assistance in the proposed US and phase 3 EU trading schemes. One amendment is the exclusion of coalmine fugitive emissions. The government’s ETS proposal will cost the industry billions of dollars. It will cost jobs whilst having little or no environmental benefit. The Minerals Council of Australia stated in the Australian on the 22 September that the Labor government’s ETS plans ‘were far too tough compared with new European Commission ETS proposals’ and ‘would cripple the ability of Australian companies to compete’ against European companies.
The Labor government’s ETS compromises WA’s current energy security through the treatment of our black-coal energy generators. It totally ignores the fact that WA has no brown-coal energy generators and is not connected to the much larger National Energy Market and that WA, as an energy island, has to remain self-sufficient in managing its security of supply. Black-coal energy generators in the WA Energy Market have, by necessity, struck long-term contracts. There is no consideration of this in the ETS. In the WA electricity market the pass-through mechanisms for carbon costs are completely different to those in the NEM—again not reflected in the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme as less than one per cent of the ESAS assistance will be allocated to WA under the Labor scheme. The WA electricity market needs a separate ESAS formula and cut-off emission intensity applying a consistent design to both the WEM and NEM, based on the relative proportions and intensities of each market.
The coalition will also continue to advocate an intensity based cap and trade model for electricity generators, delivering the same emission cuts as the ETS but with a much less increase in electricity prices. Coal fired generators must also be better compensated for the loss of value they will experience from the ETS, to ensure security of electricity supply and to enable them to transition to lower emissions energy sources. Increasing the price of electricity to small businesses by 20 per cent in the first two years of this scheme will compromise the viability and profitability of thousands of small businesses which receive no compensation at all for their higher power bills under Labor’s ETS. Many of the approximately 13,400 small businesses in my electorate of Forrest will find it difficult to remain viable and compete with a 20 per cent increase in costs. The coal industry is a major employer of over 600 people in my electorate. Overall, the coal industry employs over 36,000 people in Australia. Yet the Labor government is clearly willing to jeopardise these and many other Australians’ jobs through this legislation that will see the Chinese, Japanese and others buying coal from other countries that do not impose ETS taxes.
The Australian Aluminium Council have stated that they support a well-designed emissions trading scheme. However, there are a number of fundamental changes that need to be made to the legislation. They have said that the CPRS will add $2 billion in costs in the first decade. Worsley Alumina is a major employer of over 1,200 people directly in my electorate, plus contractors. The alumina and aluminium industries are major, mostly regional employers of around 17,000 people across Australia, 6,000 of whom are employed in Western Australia. These industries’ companies add significantly to local and regional communities and economies. The coalition’s amendments will assist the alumina and aluminium industries in Australia to remain globally competitive and, as well, to have access to competitive energy availability and pricing.
In my electorate Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers are a prospective new industry hoping to produce urea at a project site in the town of Collie. Perdaman will use local coal as their feedstock for their urea-manufacturing process and will then gasify the coal and utilise the hydrocarbons in the gas to produce urea for export to India. The project will be a major employer, injecting millions into the local and national economies. The most significant problem that this project and their industry face is that, under the particular system of the proposed ETS, their coal ‘feedback’ will be treated as equivalent to natural gas rather than coal. Coal has an allocative baseline for permits at 90 per cent emission level whereas natural gas has only 65 per cent. This single decision alone under the ETS will make the project potentially unviable. I understand that Perdaman’s coal gasification process will be 40 per cent cleaner than standard coal fired power generation.
The coalition will also empower business and community groups to participate in voluntary measures to directly contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through measures such as energy efficiency. However, even with our amendments, the coalition has consistently argued that it is reckless for the Labor government to push ahead with this legislation prior to the Copenhagen summit in December, particularly before we know what the rest of the world is doing.
And we are not alone. Caltex chief executive, Julian Segal, described the government’s proposed scheme as ‘flawed’ and said:
…if it was introduced, Caltex would not invest more funds in its two Australian refineries, as it would be cheaper to operate refineries in Singapore, where there were no plans to introduce an emissions trading scheme.
He also stated:
If we are going to say this scheme is about reducing gases we need to be genuine about it and make sure we don’t push emissions from Australia somewhere else.
A recent survey by the Australian Industry Group stated:
Many Australian businesses—
including small businesses—
are actively managing their carbon footprints.
… … …
Almost three quarters of businesses (74%) are currently measuring their firm’s overall carbon footprint or plan to do
so over the next three years.
… … …
More than 60% of businesses have taken steps or plan over the next three years to invest in “cleaner” capital equipment …
With the additional costs of fuel in regional and remote areas, which are at least 10 per cent higher than in Perth in my state of Western Australia, and the significant distances, energy, general transport of goods, agricultural inputs and other service increases, businesses and households in regional and remote areas will be disproportionately affected by the Labor government’s ETS legislation. I would hate to think that any pensioner does not turn their lights or heater on as a result.
Western Australia derives 46.7 per cent of its income from exports compared to 20.5 per cent of the national income for 2006-07, which shows this is a direct market and trade exposure and WA’s economy is the most exposed and at risk of any state to carbon leakage. I note that the Western Australian government, in its submission to the green paper, made the following recommendations:
The Commonwealth Government should ensure that remote operations and communities with no short-term access to lower emissions energy substitutes do not face disproportionate disadvantage.
… … …
The cost of providing essential services such as power and water will rise in response to the CPRS. This is likely to increase the value of existing concessions and assistance provided by the State Government to households by at least $6 million a year if the State was to fully mitigate the impact of the CPRS.
The WA government noted that the lack of economic models available in the legislation to perform comprehensive activity analysis was an issue. The limited detail and regulations in the government’s legislation are clearly deliberate, to disguise the full costs and prevent individual industries, sectors and businesses and even consumers from being able to fully evaluate the economic impacts and costs of the government’s ETS.
This is an abject failing of the government for a policy that will have such a profound impact right across the economy. Why has the government not released the Treasury modelling on the impact of the ETS on Australian industry, business, employment or costs of living and provided comprehensive regional cost-benefit analysis? Much of the assistance provided by the government to consumers is short-term only.
The coalition proposes to permanently exclude agricultural emissions from the ETS, aligning the Australian scheme more closely with the proposed United States and phase 3 European Union schemes. Australian farmers, like all EITE industries, are simply asking for a reasonably level playing field. It is one industry that already has to compete with countries that have tariffs and protections. The Labor government ETS will further disadvantage Australian farmers, food processors and exporters
The coalition will allow agricultural offsets for farmers, including carbon sequestration in soils, vegetation and trees, providing an opportunity for our farmers as well as driving financial and land management benefits in the rural and regional areas. This is a win-win situation for farmers, the environment and the economy. No other country is including agriculture in their scheme. The Canadians are not. The Americans are not. The Europeans are not. But the Labor government is. ABARE in their publication Issues Insights stated:
Like all sectors of the economy, agriculture will face higher input costs because of the CPRS from 2011. This is a direct result of placing a price on non agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
Even more importantly, ABARE stated:
There may also be a CPRS related cost-price pass-through from downstream processors to farmers that lowers the prices farmers receive for their produce.
Effectively, under the government’s ETS legislation, Australia’s approximately 150,000 farming businesses and family farms will be hit with a carbon tax across their input costs—for fertiliser, fuels, freight, electricity and chemicals to name just a few. As we on this side are aware, farmers are price takers; they cannot pass on additional costs. But they will also have to accept lower prices for their products from processors that can pass their costs back to their source of supply, the farmers. Farmers will become less competitive in international markets as well as having to compete with imported and sometimes dumped products that do not bear the additional compounding costs of an ETS. But under the Labor government, farmers will have no capacity to generate carbon credits.
There is no doubt that Labor’s ETS will reduce farm profitability. Broad acre cropping enterprises, dairy, with its dependence on electricity, the beef and sheep industry, horticulture and vegetable producers will all reduce their farm cash margins. The agriculture and food processing sectors will face cost increases. Those with over 25 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent will have to buy permits. ABARE stated:
The processing sector is highly trade exposed and so it is expected that the full extent of increased costs will not be passed on to consumers … some of these increased costs to the processor will be passed on to agricultural producers in the form of lower prices paid for the inputs to the processing sector such as wool, livestock and milk, etc.
We are yet to see the administrative complexity of trying to identify diverse emissions from different enterprises on a single farm, for instance a mixed farming operation of dairy, beef, vegetables, cropping. There will be significant administrative costs for all businesses; and for family owned and run businesses there will be an additional time cost as well.
Over the last financial year, Western Australia exported approximately $6 billion worth of food and agricultural commodities, and much of this was from my electorate of Forrest. This represents a growth in value of agrifood exports of 28 per cent in 2008-09. Having less than 10 per cent of Australia’s farms, WA produces nearly 20 per cent of Australia’s total agricultural and food exports, which has assisted in keeping Australia out of technical recession over the past 18 months. Given this, it is understandable that farmers in my electorate are seriously and very rightly concerned about the impact the Labor government’s ETS will have not only on their farms but also on their regional and rural communities.
The Senate standing committee inquiry into climate change in the Australian agricultural sector noted in their final report:
… there is little evidence of work being done on the impacts of climate change on rural communities.
The Labor government’s ETS will see Australian farmers disadvantaged compared to US farmers and the proposed US legislation. Not only are US farmers exempt from coverage but sequestration options and periods further disadvantage Australian agriculture. The Labor government ETS does not provide for the considerable existing sequestration capacity of annual and perennial crop and pasture cycles, as well as other on-farm practices. We have some of the best in the world. The US offers sequestration options for agricultural, grassland, rangeland and management practices, changes in carbon stocks attributed to land use change and forestry activities, as well as manure management and disposal. Even with forestry plantings, Australian farmers are at a disadvantage compared to what is projected for US farmers, with the forestry sequestration period for Australia being 70 years after trees reach maturity and in the US it is 20 years.
A further issue for agriculture in Australia is the food security issue—the loss of quality food-producing land to extensive carbon sink forests, which impacts not only on farmers themselves but also on their communities and the broader economy. In their submission to the Senate inquiry into climate change, citing the Australian agricultural sector final report, the ACCC stated:
If adapting to climate change proves too difficult in some areas, populations will decline and the abandonment of rural towns and farming areas could follow, with the consequent loss of local history, culture and dire natural resource implications. The advent of weeds, pests, disease and erosion could be considerable resulting from the exodus from certain rural and remote areas.
Is the Labor government prepared to facilitate this through a flawed ETS? From day one of the government’s ETS, farmers will pay more for virtually every input. Their costs of production will increase and their profits will decrease. It is that simple.
A Climate Institute paper recently acknowledged that there is a raft of challenges to be overcome before agriculture can be cost-effectively linked to the CPRS, acknowledging the issue of leakage and that higher farm costs makes overseas products not subject to emissions charges more competitive.
I note that the WA Farmers Federation spokesman for climate change summarised the opinion. What he would like to see is farmers being able to participate in the carbon market on both sides, as we in the coalition have proposed, recognising that, yes, they do put some methane into the air but also that they sequester carbon. Farmers are good carbon managers. In the last 15 years we have reduced emissions, or potential emissions, by 40 per cent, and it is basically those reductions that have allowed Australia to meet its Kyoto target. That was discussed on the ABC Rural Report this week. An article in the Weekly Times by the Australian Dairy Industry Council, referring to the dairy processing sector, stated:
Our industry is highly trade-exposed and our Government’s … Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme plan leaves us vulnerable to losing export markets to other countries whose policies differ significantly.
In my electorate of Forrest there has been a lot of investigation into sources of renewable energy. A lot can be achieved in Australia through energy efficiencies. We have heard this consistently from the member for O’Connor about the transmission sector: how and when energy is used and the integration of systems. Earlier this month, West Perth based Green Rock Energy announced that it had been granted three geothermal exploration permits within the town of Collie in my electorate, where a substantial proportion of Perth’s electricity supply is generated from power stations. I recently hosted an energy diversity forum in my electorate to provide information about current and future energy sources, including tidal, wind power and geothermal energy. The potential of converting CO2 to oil and stockfeed through algae is also being investigated, potentially for my electorate.
In conclusion, the coalition supports the view that it is reckless for the Labor government to insist that Australia locks in its emissions trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world. I support the coalition’s amendments to this seriously flawed Labor government ETS.
The question is that the words proposed stand as part of the question. The honourable member for Slipper—the honourable member for Fisher.
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, for saying that. While I am a member of this House, there should be an electorate named after me! That is a rare compliment. I thank you, Sir, for making that particular observation.
Hear, hear!
We must remember that, as Australians, we hold our environment in trust for future generations. All of us, I suspect, are much greener than we once were. I have to thank my wife, Ingé, for some of my education in this area. At home we compost all vegetable matter, we have brought in water-wise measures, we endeavour not to have taps on for as long as they once were, and we also have sought to dim the lights and not have the place looking like a Christmas tree. But I am not an expert on climate change and I suspect that most members of this House, and indeed the community generally, would not be experts on climate change.
There is no doubt that there is conflicting scientific evidence. There is respectable scientific evidence supporting the existence of climate change and there is also contradictory scientific evidence denying it. There is a view that climate has always changed, that it will continue to change and that there is nothing dramatic about today’s climate change, but all of us would agree that the issue should be given the benefit of the doubt. If we in the world and as a community are able to do something to bring about cleaner air and less pollution, then obviously these are steps in the right direction.
I am someone who believes that Australia, which produces only 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions, has a responsibility as a good corporate citizen to play its part as part of the world community in bringing about a world solution. The scheme covered by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and supporting legislation is, however, an unmitigated disaster. It is obvious that the CPRS as proposed by the government will destroy the competitiveness of Australian exports, will cost Australian jobs, and will reduce investment in our economy. And that is simply not a good thing because we are competing with the rest of the world. The scheme would also lead to emissions being sent overseas rather than being reduced at the global level and as a result there would be no net benefit to the world environment.
The CPRS also represents a tax grab disguised by the fact that the government has only published one year of estimates of the full fiscal impact of the scheme. A bit like the alcopops tax, the CPRS scheme is simply another tax grab by the Rudd Labor government. I find it absolutely unbelievable that about a month before Copenhagen, and certainly before the United States has made its position crystal clear, the government wants us to rush legislation through the parliament. It wants to commit us to a situation before we know what the rest of the world is doing.
The Liberal-National opposition is proposing amendments to the government’s legislation. There is no doubt in my view that the six key areas of amendments will bring about important improvements to this fatally flawed Labor Party legislation. I just want to outline broadly these amendments and changes. They are: placing Australian emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries on a level playing field with their competitors abroad; excluding agriculture from the scheme and providing a mechanism for farmers to earn offset credits when they abate carbon; ensuring Australian coal producers reduce their fugitive emissions as technology allows but are not unfairly financially penalised compared to competitors; moderating the impact of higher electricity charges on small business; and providing assistance to coal fired electricity generators to ensure they remain financially viable and the lights stay on.
These important amendments and changes to the legislation will substantially improve the legislation. The Minerals Council of Australia has said, however, that the CPRS will impose significant imposts on the Australian economy that are not faced by Australia’s competitors and it comes to this conclusion even if all of the Liberal-National opposition’s proposed amendments are adopted. Further, it considers the level of industry assistance given to the scheme to be inadequate compared to other schemes, particularly the emissions trading scheme of the European Union.
I am one of those people who believe that it is irresponsible to proceed with this legislation until such time as we know what the world is doing. There is no doubt that, while there has been substantial discussion in the Australian community, there is an increasing concern amongst Australians that we ought not to, in effect, put our collective national neck on the chopping block before we know what rest of the world is doing. Even if we brought in the most draconian scheme, which is being proposed by the government, and even if we were able to reduce emissions in Australia, we only produce 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions and so the reduction in emissions in Australia will make little difference to the reduction of emissions worldwide and the price that we will have paid is that Australians will be thrown on the unemployment scrapheap, Australian industry will fail, Australian investment will falter, and Australian exports will not be competitive in the world marketplace.
Increasingly, the world is a global village and we have to look upon ourselves as being an international citizen of the world. I could understand if the government was coming into the parliament and was saying that there is no world solution in sight so therefore we ought to show an example. But why on earth is the government insisting on proceeding at this stage just a month before Copenhagen to commit Australia, to threaten Australian jobs, to threaten Australian industry, to threaten Australian exports and to threaten Australian competitiveness?
I think that the answer to the question I pose is that the government is playing naked politics. The government is seeking a double dissolution trigger, because it wants to be able to put itself forward as a government which has an idea and it wants to show that the opposition is divided on this issue. The reality is that the government is the government of Australia. It should be the government for all people. It should not be playing cheap, petty politics at the cost of Australian jobs, Australian industry and at the cost of Australian exports. The government should defer all this legislation until after Copenhagen and until after we know what the world community is doing, and also of course until we know what the United States, an important part of the world community, is doing. It is patently irresponsible to sacrifice Australian jobs, Australian industry, Australian exports and Australian competitiveness on the altar of political expediency, and that is exactly what the Rudd Labor government is seeking to do.
I said before that I do support the amendments which are being negotiated by the Liberal-National opposition with the government. Any amendments which are accepted by the government will improve the legislation. But it is my view that, even if the government accepted every last one of the opposition amendments, it would still be an act of economic vandalism to vote for this legislation, as amended, before Copenhagen and before the United States makes its position clear.
I will repeat that: it would be an act of gross economic vandalism to vote for this legislation, even if all of our amendments are accepted, because the legislation will still be flawed. Admittedly, it will be an improved piece of legislation but it will still be flawed. We ought not to be proceeding before Copenhagen, before the world community makes its decision and before the United States makes its position clear.
I said at the outset that I am not an expert on climate change. I would be the first to admit that I am not an expert on climate change and I am sure that I am not alone in that situation. But I just do not see how anyone can rationally argue that we should sacrifice Australian jobs, we should cost Australian industry, we should destroy our competitiveness, we should kill off investment on the altar of political expediency. So I will make a plea to the government: stop playing politics and for once look at the interests of the country.
Contrary to the previous speaker and to several of the speeches heard yesterday and today, I am one who is giving the green light to the government to get the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the framework legislation through this parliament. Rather than this being a pre-emptive discussion two months before Copenhagen, I believe that this is a bit like groundhog day, where we in the political circles are repeating a discussion that has gone on since the time of former environment minister Robert Hill and former Prime Minister John Howard. We have had an election in which this was a central issue and we have had reports from eminent authorities such as Ross Garnaut. This issue has been around for a fair amount of time now for everyone in the political process to make clear decisions. In my view the world is moving in response and I think that Australia, in its national interest, should also move in response.
The comment from the previous speaker—and I think I have heard it verbatim from others—is that we have got to wait until we know what the world is doing. In response to that, I say, ‘We do know what the world is doing.’ The world is responding to the issue of climate change and it is responding significantly en masse through the form of trading schemes. We have already seen trading schemes put in place in many developed countries, such as in many European countries, which for some reason seem repeatedly to lead the way on these issues. Also, we are seeing that in many other countries where trading schemes are not in place they are at various stages of development for being put into place. I think it is a furphy to say that the world needs to wait and that countries need to wait for Copenhagen. There is far too much weight being put on that meeting of leaders on that date. In reality, countries are moving to market based responses to the natural resources management question of our time. Also, we are seeing in countries all around the world at the moment schemes either put in place or in development, and I would hope that Australia does not get left behind in the political positioning we see in this place and the other place.
My position has not changed since the last time. I am giving the green light to the government to progress this legislation and get the framework for a carbon pollution reduction scheme and an emissions trading scheme up and running within Australia. I do that by not necessarily supporting a Labor emissions trading scheme—a term that I have heard being thrown around—but it is just as easy to say that I support a Robert Hill/John Howard emissions trading scheme, which this government has really adopted and put in the public domain. We are now seeing it debated and hopefully will see it progress through on this second attempt.
I will again run through the reasons I support it. I believe that most people in this place are accepting of the science in regards to the issue of human based influence on the climate. I accept that there are those in this place who have not, for very genuine reasons—I am not one to use the word ‘sceptic’. If you jump through that gate of logic that accepts the science it becomes a question of a response in regards to how we as a country and as a world put together a policy response to minimise and, hopefully, start to turn around this issue of the human based influence on global warming.
As far as a response is concerned, jumping again through those gates of logic, I see that it comes down to three options. There is the ‘do nothing’ option in which we place the risk on future generations. We cross our fingers and hope that it is going to go away or that the human based influence on the climate today is not as we expected. The second option is a completely publicly owned response, which would in most cases be in the form of a carbon tax. That would be a direct and significant cost on consumables throughout Australia and in any market in which such a public based response was put in place. The third option is a market based response where it is an exercise in building a framework, in engaging the private sector through the policy development and in developing a market based response to try to minimise carbon outputs which will, hopefully, minimise human based influences.
If I jump through that first gate of logic, which is, ‘Yes, there are human based influences,’ then, out of the three options that I see as being available, I choose the third option, which is a market based response. I do that because I think there are higher costs involved if it is a publicly owned response, if it is a carbon tax. I think that is going to be a huge cost on the community of Australia. I also choose a market based response over the do-nothing option, because I think it accepts risk. We do need to consider in all of this that no-one is the holder of all wisdom. But if we are risk mitigators then a market based response is much less risky than the do-nothing, ‘cross the fingers and leave it for future generations’ approach.
The previous speaker asked for someone to explain their position. I hope I have done that as clearly as possible. I choose to green-light the government on this. This is, if anything, quite ironically, a Liberal based response, if we are talking about the type of engagement of the private sector. Traditionally, an emissions trading scheme would be a Liberal type of response in Australian politics to this issue of human based climate change. So it is a little bit ironic to see the political positioning going on at the moment. However, that is the nature of Australian politics.
In choosing that third option of the market based response, and green-lighting this process, I would hate anyone to think I am 100 per cent, cut-and-bleed sworn up to the model that the government has on the table with regard to that broader concept of a market based response. I think they can do better. I would certainly be one to hope that over time we can see this legislation improved. In my view it is very important that in this case we actually do let the market rip, which seems to have been a source of nervousness for government in their position earlier this year. If we are going to go down this path of having a market based response, we want to allow the market to operate in its most healthy way possible, and any exemptions and compensations are chipping away at the edges of allowing that market to rip.
I would hope that anyone who has done economics 101 would accept as a broad argument that, if we are going to go down this market based path, we want to give the market its full steam. That is where I think there are some concerns. I can understand why the government is having to dumb down this legislation to get it through the parliament, but I think there are some concerns about the future that we do need to address over time. We need to look at all those impediments that have been built into what is a market based response to a science question to get this legislation through the parliament that over time may actually work against a market based response and may therefore not answer the question that we are being posed with as well as it could.
An example of that is the amount of compensation to the big emitters. There is a finite amount of dollars—and a good, healthy finite amount of dollars—involved in this trading scheme. There are other examples of other schemes around the world where there is greater emphasis on offset dollars going to good biodiversity outcomes. In an Australian context what it could be is good soil erosion, water or coastal erosion outcomes—the topic of the week—good, uniquely Australian outcomes. However, this finite amount of dollars is being tipped in a different direction, and that is compensation to the big emitters. I think that is of concern to those who want to see some uniquely Australian outcomes in the long term from such a scheme as this.
There are good potential opportunities written into the legislation. I mentioned reafforestation as one. There is great potential in the concepts on the table in that regard. However, we are seeing, for political reasons, the money tipped in a direction which is trying to get this legislation through but, potentially in the long term, is not in the legislation’s interests and not in the national interest. I would hope that over time we can consider that more thoroughly. I would hope we can find a way to put greater emphasis on these uniquely Australian outcomes from such a scheme. Biodiversity is a big one that I would hope we could see written into this legislation in a better way. Soil erosion, water salinity and the vast array of uniquely Australian issues that we face today can potentially start to be addressed by a scheme that sees a greater emphasis on offsets moneys rather than on compensating big emitters.
In an area such as the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, we do not have big emitters. We are the land of small business, and I think we are reflective of Australia. Ninety-five per cent of our employment is in businesses of five employees or fewer. We are reflective of the country. The engine room of this country is small business. I would hope that, when this legislation passes, there is a great deal of engagement with the small business community in the potential opportunities through this scheme. This cannot be the Goldman Sachs scheme. This cannot be the big emitters’ scheme. This has to be a scheme for Australia and this has to be a scheme for the small business community of Australia. It has to be clearly laid out to many people who do not have the time to go through 440 pages of legislation. It has to clearly lay out the potential opportunities—and there are many—that are in this legislation for regional small businesses in particular. I hope the government will take that up when this legislation passes.
Also with regard to improving this legislation, I do want to comment about the amendments that have been put on the table so far. My colleague the member for New England has one that I would hope this place considers relating to the food chain. I have heard many comments already about the importance of food. I concur with all of those. I therefore think that is an amendment worthy of consideration by government. Rather than looking at it as agriculture generally—because that considers things such as timber, and you cannot eat wood—I think focusing on food and the supply chain is quite a valuable and important way of value-adding to this legislation. I will be sitting alongside my colleague there.
With regard to the coalition amendment, particularly about agriculture, I also concur with those thoughts on the full exemption of agriculture. I have to get on record my very good friend Sinclair Monroe, the Angus farmer from Bingara, who constantly reminds me: how on earth is he expected to monitor his cows’ farts? I think he has a good argument! Exempting agriculture, for reasons very similar in nature to the member for New England’s food supply chain argument, makes sense as we enter an era and a century where food supply is going to increase as an issue of our time and also increase as an issue that will create unrest within regions such as the Asia-Pacific region.
I will be putting up the same amendment as I put up the first time round with regard to the issue of who actually has authority, control and discretion over this legislation once it is passed. The issue of ministerial discretion and ministerial control at the end of the process is a sleeper in this legislation and it has not had the airtime that it deserves. On my reading of the legislation, I came up with roughly 23 or 24 brand-new concepts and market economy theories that are part of this framework of the suite of CPRS legislation. The ultimate authority at the end of the day in pretty much all of those concepts and theories is the minister, whether it is about targets and caps or about the issuing of licences. All of those big, key framework questions are not driven by the science, where we started with this issue and this problem; they are driven by the politics and by the minister of the day. That is an issue that I certainly hope the government thinks deeply about, once this dumbed-down legislation can get through this place. For example, there is the issue of fuel credits. What minister, what government or what executive wants to own the day that sees the removal of fuel credits? I think it is as much in the minister’s and the executive’s interests as it is in the interests of allowing the science to fly that we consider those issues of ministerial discretion that are built into this legislation. Therefore, I once again put up the amendment that tries to establish an independent, arms-length, science based view of the economy and an independent regulatory authority that starts to take care of those framework questions for the good and the bad—basically removing the politics from this issue and making it a science and economy exercise, not a politics and economy exercise, as it has quite clearly been over the last 12 to 18 months.
I certainly hope I get more than two other supporters on that legislation the second time around. I spoke to the minister about it previously and she was very polite in her understanding of it; there is just a philosophical point of difference in that the current government argues the case that it is such an important issue that parliament and the minister should have carriage of it. I take a different view on that philosophical standpoint and that is that it is such an important issue that it should not be part of the political process a la monetary policy, a la competition policy and the range of other independent, arms-length entities that we have built into this process at a time when issues are and quite rightly should be above the politics of the day.
I give this government the green light again this second time round. It is not a full endorsement. I am in the Ross Garnaut camp that this legislation has got to the point where you could be six of one or half a dozen to the other with regard to whether or not you support it. I understand the reasons for the efforts to get this legislation through. I encourage those who the first time round were in opposition to think about that point. If you are opposed to an emissions based and a market based trading scheme then you must be in the camp of the other two, which is the do-nothing answer or the publicly owned carbon tax answer. You cannot build an argument to justify both of those positions. This framework was shaped around a trading scheme first proposed by Robert Hill who has been in another job and left it already—that is how long this has been floating around. This was proposed some time ago by the previous regime and it has been picked up by this regime. I would ask this place and the other place to consider that, to let us move forward in getting the response to the natural resource question of our time sorted out and to do it in the national interest.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] has problems on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin. The chain that has led to this would be viewed as implausible in a work of fiction: how a theory of humans causing climate change could end up in a push for significant worldwide economic sacrifices at the altar of the god of climate change. The church that has been set up is the IPCC, with a clear statement of religious belief that humans are causing global warming in their very mission statement.
Kev wants to be the Pope.
We are now on track to introduce significant damage to our economy based on a complete turnaround in the onus of proof. The situation is that we are now looking at imposing a significant impost on the Australian people, based on an unproven proposition, and stating that the only way in which that cost will not be imposed is to prove that human beings are not responsible for climate change, as opposed to a proposition that people should not be slugged with costs without proof. Let us have a look at some of the financial aspects and imperatives associated with this extreme tax system that is being tagged with the Orwellian label of ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’.
We hear arguments from the alarmist side that big oil is paying enormous amounts on climate change denial science, and that is why you have sceptics with anthropogenic global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. And there is a huge industry built around the belief in anthropogenic climate change. Big oil has averaged paying $2 million per annum for research on this issue over the last 20 years. Meanwhile, the US government alone has averaged $3 billion to $4 billion per annum over the last 20 years and in total has spent $79 billion, with $7 billion spent this year. Yes, there is a huge imbalance favouring the sceptics. Do you think that is a lot? According to the World Bank, the banks traded $120 billion in carbon dioxide last year alone. This is subprime carbon, and a lot of money is to be made by the same people who brought you the global financial crisis.
For the government there is the significant issue of pecuniary interest. There is a significant amount of money that the government will receive—in Australia’s case $50 billion has been identified. The government clearly sees a combination of royalties from north-west gas fields and carbon taxes as being the solution to the massive debt it has saddled the nation with. In the US, Obama expects $645 billion over 10 years. That is a huge amount of money. Additionally, a huge industry has built up inside the Beltway in Washington DC. There are 2,300 climate lobbyists in Washington DC, or more than four lobbyists per congressman or woman.
So there are very definite financial reasons that this government is pushing for it. The unfortunate reality is that it will cost Australian families thousands of dollars per year to achieve absolutely nothing, even if you believe in the consensus position. I have frequently asked how much the CPRS will reduce global temperatures. As yet, funnily enough, no-one can tell me. This is a lot of money being paid for nothing.
Let us have a look at the science of some of this. Before we do, I want to clarify some issues about peer review. Peer review does not mean that the science and the results are correct; it merely means that the method used was scientifically sustainable. Journals will not publish all papers accepted by peer review. Indeed, there is editorial pressure, as the goal is to sell journals. Additionally, there is a predisposition in science that the review process for an accepted paradigm is less rigorous than when a paper goes against the prevailing wisdom. I will give you two fairly recent examples.
The first is the cold fusion issue of the late 1980s. Fleischmann and Pons, two physical chemists, published a paper which stated that they had discovered cold fusion. There was a flurry of activity in the journals, with papers repeating the results. The problem was that there was no neutron flux, as would be expected with fusion, but this was not picked up by the reviewers.
The second is the Paul Chu and yttrium-barium-calcium-copper oxide, or so-called 123 superconductors. The discovery of this was a huge jump in superconducting critical temperature. Chu was aware of the nature of the breakthrough and was concerned that one of the reviewers of his paper might try to pre-empt him, slow down his own review process and get a paper published himself, so Chu substituted ytterbium for yttrium, which resulted in a material that was not a superconductor. Despite this, the paper passed review. Chu substituted the correct element just prior to publication.
We are told that the globe is burning—to quote the member from Midnight Oil. We are told that sea levels are rising dangerously. We are told that ocean temperatures are warming dangerously. We are told that we are in danger of inundation due to melting icecaps. We are told that the only way to explain the observed climate is with anthropogenic factors included. The globe may have been burning in a metaphoric sense in 1998, but that is certainly not the case now. Using all four data repositories used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, it is clear that temperature trends are negative for this century. They are going down. This is certainly not what the IPCC models projected. They projected increasing temperatures for this century, even for the case where carbon dioxide is held constant at year 2000 levels. These inaccurate model projections use the same models that are used to explain the temperature rise between 1975 and 1998 and state that it has been due to anthropogenic causes.
Let us make sure we are on the same page. The models have been unable to predict, even to explain, the temperature reduction of this century, but these selfsame models, demonstrated to be inaccurate in terms of their robustness in prediction, are used to state that the science is settled—that human beings are unequivocally to blame for the 23-year warming trend in the late 20th century. I note that the IPCC is now covering its bases by saying that it expects reductions in temperature for the next 10 to 20 years. Guess what? The heating will then come on even stronger than before. This is not science but religious belief.
The alarmist scientists are also remarkably shy about sharing their data. The head of the Hadley Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, said in a request for data from Steve McIntyre: ‘We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should we make the data available to you when your aim is to find something wrong with it?’ This is staggering. The whole point of science is to attempt to find something wrong with it. It is called falsification. It has now been found that the Hadley Climatic Research Unit has lost a lot of raw data following the request, but we are supposed to trust that the adjusted data is correct. I guess the next time the tax office asks for receipts I should just say: ‘I don’t have the original receipts. Just trust that my statements on earnings and outgoings are correct.’
There has also been the hockey stick controversy. On a hockey stick graph, global temperatures were supposedly remarkably stable until industrialised society hit the scene. This not only was used extensively in the IPCC’s third assessment report but had been through peer reviewed literature, so theoretically it had been through peer review twice. However, with the IPCC, the reality was that Michael Mann reviewed his own work, so he was hardly an unbiased observer. It was found that bad statistical methods had been used and that in most cases using this technique with random data would result in a hockey stick shaped graph as well. It has taken years for McIntyre to get the original raw data, and it is now apparent that this was worse than bad science; it was fraudulent science. It turns out that Michael Mann had cherry-picked the data. This is someone who is still a lead author with the IPCC. So, contrary to popular propaganda, the globe is not burning and indeed has not been heating this century.
‘Ah,’ the alarmists now say, and: ‘It is really the oceans that hold the key. The oceans are the things that give the state of the planet in heat terms.’ The problem is that the oceans have not been warming since at least 2003, according to Argo buoy data. In case there is any doubt here, there is more data available from between 2003 and now as a result of Argo buoys than there is for all the rest of recorded history of ocean temperatures put together. What does the data show? According to the Argo steering team, there has been no change in temperature over that time. Lyman and Willis et al—no climate change sceptics, it must be added—found a decreasing trend, albeit that statistically speaking it could be stated that there was no trend. Certainly they found no increasing trend. Loehle, in Energy and Environment, another peer review journal, found a decreasing trend since 2003. So there has been atmospheric cooling this century and at best there has been no warming of the ocean since the Argo buoys entered business.
We have heard of the fears of inundation due to rapidly accelerating sea level rise. Professor Will Steffen, Minister Penny Wong’s personal guru on climate change, in a briefing to some parliamentarians suggested that the work of Domingues and Church et al in Nature last year should be used for sea level rise. Problematically, the analysis ends just where the sea level rise stops—that is, in 2005. There have been accelerations and there has been a lack of rise in the sea level over a long period of time, but there has been an underlying upward trend since the end of the last ice age. In effect, what has been observed is a recovery from the Younger Dryas ice age.
What about melting polar icecaps? In a global sense, the area of sea ice today is pretty much the same as it was in 1980. We have all heard about the melting Arctic ice, and it is true that the area of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased somewhat in the last 30 years—although there has been some recovery in the last couple of years. However, how many of you are aware that the Antarctic is cooling and that the area of sea ice in the Antarctic has been increasing for those 30 years? As a little clincher, the theory as accepted by the IPCC is that there should be a hot spot in the upper troposphere, about 10 kilometres up in the tropics. This is a fingerprint for well-mixed greenhouse gases causing warming. To date, despite a lot of looking, no such a hot spot has been found.
So, all in all, there has been a failure of the premise that human beings are heating the planet. We are basing everything on a 20-year period of warming in the late 20th century. The models—the entire ensemble of models used by the IPCC—comprehensively did not predict the cooling that has been observed this century. We see no heating of the oceans since 2003. We see no sea level rise since 2005. We see a relatively stable global sea ice area. Yet we are supposed to bet significant damage to the economy on this failure of predictive capacity of the models. What a joke. Precautionary principle? How about we apply a precautionary principle based on there having to be a clear threat before we spend money on this? How about science comes up with modelling that actually predicts various aspects of global climate, rather than simply saying that models that are able to hindcast previous climates have been validated? There is all of this, yet we know from evidence taken from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology that we do not even know what causes El Nino events, which are one of the major drivers of global climate.
We are supposed to trust forecasts of global temperature going—get this—1,000 years into the future, from the IPCC Fourth assessment report. This is not science; this is guys and girls having too much fun playing computer games. We are supposed to bet our economy on science that at present is unable to make long-range predictions; we are supposed to believe that they can confidently predict global temperature 1,000 years hence. We are supposed to trust economists like Stern and Garnaut with economic projections 100 years into the future, yet in both cases they were unable to predict the GFC a mere couple of years prior to the event. Here we are talking prophets of the grand religion, not serious science and economics. In order to get a good handle on these issues, I believe that we need to hold a parliamentary inquiry into the science of climate change, where those on both sides of the argument have to give evidence under oath. What is the bet the Rudd government lacks the intestinal fortitude to accept the challenge?
Another reason for my concern is that embarking on setting a price on carbon dioxide is effectively putting a tax on everything and will give the control freaks a level of control over all human enterprise within a nation not seen in democratic history. Indeed, we have observed antidemocratic comments from many so-called environmentalists, calling for the overthrow of democracy and/or capitalism to save the planet. I stated this in an opening address to the Australian Environment Foundation over a week ago, and it turns out that I understated the danger.
Have a look at the draft Copenhagen convention. It looks to, according to section 36 on page 18, the setting up of a government and transferring wealth from First World to Third World countries, and, according to clause 33, page 39:
By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70–140 billion] per year.
The third point is the issue of this new government being able to enforce these provisions, including:
… the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.
There is also an attack on market based economics. Page 18, section 36 of the document reads:
It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument—
and take note of this—
to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention.
So we should subordinate our national sovereignty and our entire system of free enterprise so that Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party can go cap in hand—as opposed to cap and trade—to sell out the birthright of every Australian! Throughout our history people have gone to war and died for our sovereignty and way of life. The Rudd government simply wants to hand it over. This is absolutely scandalous and I for one will not be a party to it. Kevin Rudd may want to strut the world stage, but he is so enamoured with the idea that he is willing to burn our economy and sacrifice our sovereignty and free enterprise way of life. I find that reprehensible, but I guess that has always been a Labor dream.
On the science, in my view the IPCC needs to be dissolved. If it is felt that it is necessary to have a global organisation examining climate change, the mission statement needs to change so that human caused climate change is not a given. Climate change needs to be studied without preconceived outcomes relating to human causes. The peer review process needs to be genuine, rather than having comparatively few authors able to simply ignore reviewers’ advice or comments. In that regard, the IPCC has no genuine peer review process, not until such time as a reviewer’s comments cannot simply be ignored, given the predisposition of some authors. That process leads to the institutionalised groupthink that is endemic in the IPCC.
Finally, the process needs to be driven genuinely by scientists in multiple disciplines with differing viewpoints, and the bureaucrats need to stay out of the system in its entirety. The fact that the summary for policymakers of the last assessment report came out months prior to the scientific document and the scientific document had to be scrutinised for potential inconsistencies against the summary for policymakers—meaning that the scientific document would be modified to accord with a bureaucrat’s summary for policymakers—should be anathema to any scientist. Also of concern is the view that everyone, including scientists, should be singing from the same hymn book. The fact is that the scientist who is not sceptical—in other words, who is a true believer—is the scientist of concern. I seek leave to table some documents.
Leave granted.
Fear, optimism and hope are the emotions that charge this debate. As the member for Tangney leaves the chamber, I suspect that some day his words will be read again by thousands of people, if not more, recognising pearls of wisdom in what may well one day come true. It is important that we have that diversity in the debate. I find it very difficult to disagree with much of what he says but I can say one thing: I vehemently disagree with the member for Tangney’s position on this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]. I will be working as hard as I can to have it passed. I will be working with colleagues of mine in both chambers to see that it is passed, but for very, very different reasons: ‘If it helps the environment.’ Let that simple phrase not be forgotten. They are the words of the quiet majority in this country.
I flew Virgin Blue this morning and I had a moment to ask some of the cabin crew, who work in perhaps the most energy and emissions intensive sector we have, what they thought about the debate today. And I say to the seven very worthy audience members in the public gallery who are listening to this debate: you are among the very few who even know we are having this debate at all. That in itself is a criticism of this government for failing to take Australians with them through this process of very important legislation that will have a huge impact on Australia, we know, in a generation to come. Going back to the crew, after that flicker in the eye, that almost ‘beauty pageant’ moment when the answer to a hard question comes into the mind of someone who has never really thought about the problem, it was simple: ‘If it helps the environment.’ In fact, when the entire crew got together to discuss it a little bit more, the same answer came out: it is a very big ‘if’, but ‘if it helps the environment’.
I have to say to the hundreds of people who have lobbied me personally to not support this bill: with the greatest of respect, the case you have made, articulate as it is, forceful as it is, has failed to move beyond the over-50s, mostly male, mostly conservative voters in this country. That is a battle on climate which as so far been lost. I appreciate, as many tell me, that the mood may change and one day the things I say may be less fashionable than they are, but right now, as we consider this bill in the artificial timing forced upon us by the government, the mood is predominantly one of an optimistic young nation that wants to play its role in the world, a nation that wants to be sitting at the table when the only scheme globally under consideration is discussed. We want to be at that table playing a role.
For all the modelling of what damage this ETS could do to our economy and what climate change could do to the globe, the fact is that modelling can change. Value-laden assumptions will always underpin those results. But one thing is for sure: Australia needs to be part of that dialogue. I appreciate that it makes people very uncomfortable that their particular sector has not yet been exempted from the scheme. To them I say we are still 33 months away from pressing ‘go’ on trading, 33 months of negotiation is before us, on regulations that will determine how this ETS works. Today we are discussing only the very basic infrastructure of this legislation. It has been referred to as legislative plumbing. We are simply talking about the structure upon which the functionality of an ETS will be based. That is all we are discussing today.
To my National Party colleagues I say I cannot promise them the concessions that they are probably hoping for from the government but I can say this: whether those concessions are small—and I personally believe that agriculture will be exempted—or whether they are more significant, I still know that this legislation will be placed in front of us, we will have our noses rubbed in it and we will have to vote for or against it. We are a diverse party which represents a diverse community with different views. But I am absolutely determined, in the role I play in this place, to make sure that this bill is passed.
This is a long battle and the closest allegory of it is the trade negotiations which began back in the 1980s—the GATT rounds, the Uruguay Round. Negotiations go back decades and similarly climate negotiations will be a decades-long process. I am absolutely committed that this side of the chamber does not deal itself out of that discussion, which is the great threat. Blocking this bill would leave this issue on the pages of the newspapers for months to come. We would be facing more legislation like this next year, when there are far more important domestic issues which this country needs to engage—but we cannot, until we can move together and at least participate in the Copenhagen process.
To those who will one day read the speech by the member for Tangney and then have a peek at the person who spoke after him—I feel a little like that—let me say this. We will work very hard—me at a personal level in representing my electorate—to see that we are around the table of the ETS, whatever shape it takes. Consider it a game of Monopoly or a game of poker. We do not yet know who is going to win or lose, but if you are not at the table you simply hand the opportunity to someone else to speak on your behalf. I am not prepared to concede that advantage to this Prime Minister.
We have proposed six very simple amendments, upon which time does not allow me to elaborate on. Those amendments are to give protection to Australian jobs in emission intensive industries—it is quite simple—to exempt agriculture from this scheme even after 2015, and to offer opportunities for agricultural offsets, which is Australia’s strategic advantage. We have 770 million hectares of Australia which we can start to re-carbon in order to reduce our emissions.
We need to remember to support our power generators and their battle against fugitive emissions and give them an opportunity to be competitive. We need to look after our small business because Australia is the No. 1 small business economy in the world. We need to allow our power generators to remain viable, whatever that takes, regardless of the Morgan Stanley modelling, which has never been revealed to us; instead it remains in the nest of government, hoarded and protected. We must protect our power generators because they are the spine of our country and we need to ensure that they can maintain the stability of our grid, to provide the power which drives our economy and be there with the adequate resources so that when they need to they can adapt to a clean carbon future. Lastly, we need the ability to provide the alternatives in the form of voluntary offset and abatement opportunities.
They are such common sense amendments. Right now they are rippling around Facebook and YouTube as people listen to a range of groups talking about the importance of these to the Australian economy. Whether we get them or not, I am absolutely and firmly committed to doing everything we can to take this bill through in this sitting. Not everyone will agree with me, so let me make one observation. If we deal ourselves out of the debate at this point, then I must place complete trust in all of this ETS modelling, that the demise of this country, the destruction of our industry and the non-viability of the agricultural sector is a certainty.
I have a sense that we have a Prime Minister—agile enough, smart enough and politically savvy enough—who will go around the country and cut deals next year. I suspect the Prime Minister will be cutting deals with workers in town hall meetings in your state of Tasmania, Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, talking to boardrooms, cutting deals with them, and the whole time surrounded by a miasma of supportive press releases about a generous Prime Minister listening to his electorate. I say to this chamber: we will see almost none of the pain of which many of the sceptics fear, because we have a Prime Minister driven not by ideology on this issue, not by conviction but by political pragmatism. This Prime Minister wants the stage to himself next year. He does not want an opposition standing with him, shoulder to shoulder, saying, ‘Let’s fix this problem together.’ That is why this odious, unmodified and unreformed bill is placed before us today and our noses are rubbed in it, as opposition members, and we are asked to vote for it and potentially harm or own constituents. We have to fight the larger fight. We must be shoulder to shoulder.
By allowing this bill to go through, we can move on to more important tasks. I remind the many colleagues in this chamber what one of those important tasks is: when the opportunity arises, where anti-Australian provisions in the form of regulations are added to this bill, we will, in a unified way, fight against them. It will be at that time that we will be united in an Australia-friendly ETS which allows us to play our role in the international community without the loss of a job and without exporting a gram of carbon. That will be a day when Labor members will wish that in this debate, instead of scurrying into their offices or giving theological diatribes about climate, that they had engaged more fully in the amendments which we have put forward in good faith.
It would be interesting to do a tally of Hansard to see how many times abuse has been hurled across the chamber at the Nationals for their policy beliefs and their principles. It sometimes confounds me, but I think it is because the Nationals and their views may be resonating in the heads of opposition members. Maybe they feel a prick of guilt that they are not espousing the same views or maybe it is that they are not game to espouse similar views. It never ceases to amaze me how Labor members come into this chamber to make derogatory remarks about the Nationals. It has been no different in this debate. I could certainly be accused today of trading a few insulting words of my own.
Make no mistake about it, our regional social fabric as we know it today will be forever changed by the intentions of this bill, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2], and related bills. This legislation will allow the CPRS contained in the bill to white-ant our economy. In fact, the bill before us bears a great resemblance to a nest of white ants. It will eat through the centre of susceptible structures and leave nothing but a thin veneer of what was once a functional, thriving and prosperous economy, with the spoils being enjoyed by the bankers, the traders and the world polluters who will enjoy our wealth transfer. In fact, when you think about white ants, you are drawn to thinking about the structure of a white ants’ nest which, oddly, resembles the structure of the Labor government in the debate on this bill: you have a king and queen and a host of wingless and blind worker ants who inflict enormous damage in a highly secretive manner. This is clearly what is happening here. This bill is highly secretive. It may as well have been written in cryptic code, because the effect has been very similar. One almost needs a decoder to understand the make-up of this bill, and it is obvious from listening to the many speakers in this House that even Labor members were not told how to crack the code so that they could understand it either.
This bill is designed to be complicated so that it enables this Labor government to commit a fraud on every Australian. Labor members of parliament are blindly following their leader in this wilful destruction. Perhaps I need to correct a little of that statement: I think some Labor members are following, but they are not blinded to the effect of this bill and of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s ETS, including his CPRS. We know who they are because, behind the closed doors and in whispers, they tell us of their concerns. But they obviously cannot raise their concerns within the Labor caucus for fear of being disendorsed and becoming another victim of this CPRS.
I say this bill attacks all Australians, and I make no apology for asserting that in this House. I was part of the process of implementing the GST. In the lead-up to the 1998 election it was well known by communities and voters that a GST would be imposed. I was running for election in that year and had to withstand the onslaught of angst about the introduction of a GST. And between my election in 1998 and 2000 it was extraordinary that I had to be in every shopping centre with a full shopping list of every single item on the shelves. That was what was being demanded of us as government members by Labor Party members. Members of Labor branches throughout our electorates demanded that we were able to tell every price of every single item that was on a grocery shelf, what tax it had on it at that time and what it would be after the introduction of the GST. There were copious amounts of information out there. There were so many fact sheets we could provide to the consumers to explain that tax to them. That was demanded, yet we have seen none of that associated with this bill.
This bill is none other than a secretive and deceptive new tax, and that is the truth. It must be recognised that this bill is a tax. The Nationals have been laughed at for saying that. There has been some sniggering occasionally here today, but I note that the Nationals have continually been laughed at and ridiculed in the House and in the public arena by Labor members and senators for raising this point. If you listened to those Labor members during their speeches you would think the Nationals are the only people living who have this view. Well, I decided that in my speech today I would quote from a few people who have a similar view to us. They actually are in the media. They are finally coming forward, so it is not only the Nationals who have this view. I will quote from an article in the Weekend Australian of 17 and 18 October 2009, just one week ago, by Terry McCrann. I want to quote this article because he talks about the tax that I have raised here. Terry McCrann says:
IMAGINE if John Howard and Peter Costello had proposed a GST with an indeterminate variable rate, with the “variation” left hostage to the manipulation of clever investment bankers and other main-chancers, and you might begin to understand “Kevin Rudd’s GST”—his Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS.
“His GST?” If we get the ETS, it is going to add to the price of everything—not just power and not just carbon-based power in particular. On that point, it’s worth noting that it is specifically designed to increase the price of all power—quite deliberately, to make wind and solar power “competitive”. That’s to say we pay more for them, but they become “cheaper” than coal-based power.
Indeed, the ETS is intended to be, and will be, even more punitively pervasive than the GST. Because once we get past the early, politically driven, subsidies to hide its real impact and real cost, there will be no carve-outs, as is the case with the GST and fresh food and medical services. They will all become more expensive.
The pervasiveness and very significant impact on your everyday costs makes Rudd’s ETS the elephant in every living room. What will turn it into a dangerous, unpredictable rogue is the way it becomes hostage to market manipulation.
To return to the—real—GST, imagine if Howard and Costello had said we are going to have this tax on (almost) everything. Right, at what rate, would properly be the immediate response?
Sorry, we can’t tell you that—the rate will be left to the market. But we can guarantee it will be 10 per cent for the first year—after that you’re on your own. Sorry, what we meant to say, was that after that the market will determine it in its usual at the fair and efficient way.
The author goes on to say:
Yet that is exactly what’s proposed with Rudd’s ETS. That it comes with a “variable rate”. Worse, not simply “variable” by politicians—who, sure, I don’t trust but are at least accountable and punishable. But “variable” and by “the market”. And not just the market in some broad, not too threatening, way, but clever speculators and manipulators.
In fact, he goes on to say:
Don’t believe me? I quote from the last budget papers: “The government will commence the scheme on 1 July 2011, with a fixed carbon price of $10 during 2011-12, and the carbon price determined by the market from 1 July, 2012.”
Now, in the first year, the budget estimates that the ETS—officially called, as Rudd’s “Big Lie”, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—will raise $1.9 billion cash at that $10. Again, as everything to do with this is a cacophony of liars, small as well as big, the ETS/CPRS is not a price on carbon but on carbon dioxide.
He goes on:
Year two is where it gets interesting. The budget estimates that when “the market” takes over, the ETS take will leap to $11.5bn on a cash basis and just shy of $13bn on an accrual basis.
In that 2012-13 year—the last “outest” year of budget estimates—the GST itself is estimated to raise just under $50bn on a cash basis and just under $52bn on an accrual basis.
Any accounting way you carve the numbers, the ETS is equivalent to a 25 per cent increase in the GST … In the first fully operational year …
I could go on further but I make my point: this is a tax. What will we be seeing? Will we be seeing a difference in world emissions? No, we will not. There will be huge differences for Australians because they will be taxed heavily so that countries such as India, China and others can emit more and Australians’ hard-earned wealth can be distributed across the world.
There will be laughter from across the chamber, I am sure, at these words. But, believe me, we are entering dangerous waters. Who will be the banker? I believe that we will have the world’s biggest cartel. It will be more powerful than anything we have seen before. I was so pleased to see another journalist doing some research on this issue of who will be the banker. Janet Albrechtsen has done what other journalists were too lazy to do, or maybe they were too intimidated. On 28 October 2009, in an article in the Australian entitled ‘Beware the UN’s Copenhagen Plot’, the journalist demonstrated enormous bravery in raising the lack of detail on the Copenhagen meeting, and her work on the draft treaty is absolutely commendable. She has covered the intentions to control the once-free markets—namely, the financial and trading markets. The journalist explains more comprehensively what I call ‘the cartel’ within her article. She starts by saying:
SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?
I think Senator Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals have been trying to raise this issue loudly and clearly for a long time. After her research into the draft treaty she really started to question it and says:
Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.
How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.
The journalist goes on to say:
Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.
Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable?
And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy?
Labor members may choose to remain blind. They may speak of embracing science. I ask: what version of science should be embraced? There was a London Times article in the Australian dated 27 October 2009, which I will not have time to read. It dictated an extreme position that has evolved from the so-called science that Labor members are adhering to. The article quotes Lord Stern and says, ‘People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.’ It talks about methane from cows and pigs and the fact that we all have to become vegetarians. The article goes on to say of Lord Stern:
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.
… … …
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18.
“I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will necessary,’ he added.
I can tell you that people do not fully understand.
The Nationals have agreed to negotiations on this bill, for if this bill is to go through the Senate to be implemented then it most certainly should be given the chance to be improved. However, I stand behind the Nationals’ view and emphatically behind the Nationals’ position. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. This legislation should be thrown out. It is failed and flawed, to use the words of the Prime Minister in an explanation of something that had gone wrong in his life in the past. I have tried to engage in this debate in a realist way and have even produced my own booklet, Carbon Conversation, and distributed it to everybody in my electorate with what I felt were balanced facts on what science tells us on the issues of carbon and so-called climate change. Even though I have held these forums, put this booklet out and tried to have a sensible, balanced view on this, I have been absolutely glued to the fact that this legislation should never be passed. It is not in the best interests of Australian agriculture and Australian regions, and certainly not in the interests of any Australian person.
Let me pose a very simple question about Labor’s ETS, as it is outlined in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]. By how much will the price of this carton of milk increase once the ETS is introduced? Or another question: by how much will the price of this loaf of bread increase once Labor’s ETS is introduced? Let me give you the simple answer: nobody knows. The minister does not know. The government does not know. Indeed, I challenge them to come in here before the end of this debate and say what the increase in price will be for an ordinary, everyday staple—namely, a carton of milk—because of the ETS.
Let us take that carton of milk. It is estimated that the ETS will amount to a tax on every cow in Australia, because of emissions, of up to $75. That is a tax on the farming sector of this country of $2 billion a year. This will be reflected in prices. The respected financial commentator Terry McCrann estimates that the ETS is equivalent to initially raising the GST to 12½ per cent. But he warns:
… there is no … cap on this insidious version of a GST. The effective rate could double or triple, the amount of money raised could skyrocket. Indeed, it is intended to do exactly that, with no referral back to parliament for endorsement.
A brief to the Victorian Treasurer estimates that electricity costs in Victoria will increase between 26 and 46 per cent as a result of this ETS. And this increase in electricity costs will cascade through the entire economy, affecting almost everything that is produced. Indeed, the Rudd government has refused to release another report about the hike in electricity costs because of this legislation. The ETS is a massive tax hike that will be paid for by all Australians.
So a carton of milk will increase in price because of the tax on farming. It will increase in price because of the tax on electricity. It will increase in price because of the tax on transport. Simply having a dairy cow will be taxed. Using machinery to milk the cow will involve further tax. Refrigerating the milk will involve further tax because of the electricity it uses. Transporting the milk from the farm to the factory will involve further tax. The manufacture of milk products at the factory will involve further tax. The distribution of those products, whether it be the carton of milk or any other milk product, will involve further tax. And the government cannot tell us how much something simple that Australians buy everyday, such as a carton of milk, will increase in cost. Yet the estimates are that in the first year this will be like increasing the GST to 12½ per cent. I remind you that there is not a tax on many food products at the present time, but there will be under this new tax.
Worse than that, the ETS will destroy much of our competitive advantage as a nation. It is worthwhile remembering some sobering statistics about China, whose economy will not be subject to an ETS type tax. China’s reliance on coal as a primary source of energy is reflected in the fact that coal makes up 69 per cent of China’s total primary energy consumption. China has an average of two new coal fired power stations opening every week, with another 500 under construction. In 2007, China edged ahead of the United States as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse pollution. If unabated by 2030, China’s emissions will grow by 139 per cent and make up 26 per cent, more than a quarter, of the world’s total emissions output. And China claims that it will be a developing country for at least the next 50 years and therefore will not agree to be subject to the Kyoto protocol.
Indeed, just last week India and China signed an agreement in New Delhi to collaborate on the development of renewable power projects and improved energy efficiency programs while rejecting any outside mandates that would slow the growth of both those nations. In other words, two of the world’s leading emitters have already said no to the Copenhagen proposals. So why on earth should Australia impose upon itself a job-and economy-destroying ETS when developing countries such as China will continue to grow and to pollute unabated?
None of this has been explained by Mr Rudd. Instead, he insists that Australia enact his job-destroying, high-taxing legislation before the rest of the world. He cannot even wait until December when the nations of the world meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change. In July, the coalition issued nine principles about an ETS. In addition, we have repeatedly stressed that there should be no Australian legislation before the Copenhagen climate change conference, due as I said in less than two months time in December. In simple language: no legislation before Copenhagen and, relative to the rest of the world, no detriment to Australian industry and no loss of Australian jobs.
The Copenhagen conference, as I said, begins on 7 December, less than two months away. The US congress will not have enacted legislation before Copenhagen and neither will any major emitting nation. Despite this, Mr Rudd insists that Australia, with less than two per cent of the world’s emissions, legislates beforehand. Worse, the draft Copenhagen agreement envisions a massive transfer of moneys from countries like Australia to others. It envisages an international government of this new system. None of this has been discussed with the Australian people. And Mr Rudd cannot even tell us what the real cost to ordinary Australians will be on their ordinary everyday purchases and on their lives.
The reality is that Labor’s proposals will be a tax on everything. It will cascade through the tax system, adding a massive cost to business in this country and hence goods and services throughout Australia. It will make the GST look like a minor imposition by comparison. Mr Rudd’s tax on everything will cost us dearly. At the very least, we should not be enacting this legislation until after Copenhagen. When the Australian people realise the con that Mr Rudd is engaged in, their views will harden against this proposal. As I said, I challenge the minister before the end of this debate to tell the Australian people just how much this carton of milk will increase by because of his ETS.
The member knows that props, while sometimes assisting and tolerated, are not encouraged. He got good value from his milk carton.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put:
Kevin Rudd said something very clearly to the people of Dawson in this headline: ‘How I’ll save the mining industry.’ Here it is in the Daily Mercury on 25 July. Through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme we are going to cut emissions and we are going to save jobs. The Labor Party is the miners’ friend—always has been, always will be.
Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Dawson will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his answer yesterday that decisions about the 11-day stand-off involving the Oceanic Viking and the 78 asylum seekers aboard it were being made by the National Security Adviser in his department. I ask the Prime Minister: is the National Security Adviser reporting directly to the Prime Minister on this issue and have any decisions been referred to the Prime Minister? Further, on how many occasions, if any, has the National Security Committee of Cabinet met to consider this fiasco?
The first thing I would say is that, as the Indonesian foreign minister said last night, in handling this matter Indonesia has an abundance of patience and so does Australia, because we intend to process this complex matter over a period of time and each of these circumstances is different, as they have been in the past.
Therefore, to go to the second part of the honourable member’s question, which goes to the decision-making processes of this government, as I said to the House yesterday on operational matters, that lies within the purchase of the National Security Adviser. As the honourable member would know, that individual served with distinction in the previous government as well. Furthermore, the National Security Adviser both periodically briefs my own office and periodically briefs other cabinet ministers. On the question of cabinet deliberations on that, I am sure they are being considered by relevant cabinet committees over an extended period of time, and not just in relation to the matters which have arisen in the case of this particular vessel.
These are the normal processes of government. The National Security Adviser is doing a first-class job. He is an independent public servant who has served serve governments of both political persuasions with distinction.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the developments relating to the Australian Customs vessel the Oceanic Viking?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As the House would know, some 44 identified suspected illegal entry vehicles have come to Australian—
Vessels.
vessels have come to this part of the world since this government has been in office. While the previous government was in office there were some 244 identified vessels. That brought something in the vicinity of 15,000 people to these shores. In fact, while the average over the years was about 20, in particular years under the previous government that number surged to nearly 100. This always is dependent upon various global factors at work, as any reasonable-minded member of this House would conclude. Each of these vessels involves its own individual complexity and must therefore be handled according to the circumstances at hand.
The Oceanic Viking is a case of a humanitarian rescue of a boat in distress on the high seas with 78 passengers on board. This is not a boat that had reached the Australian mainland or our territorial waters; rather, it was a boat that became distressed in Indonesia’s search and rescue area, and the Indonesian search and rescue authorities sought assistance from Australia. As Indonesia’s foreign minister said last night, their first concern was humanitarian—humanitarian concern for passengers in distress.
Since being contacted by the Indonesian government for assistance, the Australian government has made two fundamental decisions in relation to this case. First, we decided to rescue the vessel in distress, consistent with our obligations under international law—the safety of life at sea obligations under which Australian ships have an obligation to assist vessels that are not seaworthy. This duty is reflected, as I said to the House yesterday, in article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both Australia and Indonesia are parties. Australia takes its search and rescue obligations seriously. Therefore, the HMAS Armidale responded to the request for assistance. The passengers on board the distressed vessel were then transferred to the Oceanic Viking.
The second decision was to direct the Oceanic Viking to deliver these people to Indonesia for processing. After the asylum seekers were rescued by an Australian vessel in Indonesia’s search and rescue area, Australian and Indonesian agencies discussed the best practice for the people on board the vessel to be disembarked. The discussions included communications with the Indonesian search and rescue authority. Indonesia requested the Oceanic Viking to proceed to shore in Indonesia to disembark the passengers at the port of Merak. The Indonesian authorities have now requested the Oceanic Viking to anchor on the eastern side of the island of Bintan, off the port of Kijang. The Australian authorities have agreed to that request, as you would expect.
The Australian government is working closely with the Indonesian authorities to facilitate the safe transfer of passengers to land. As the Indonesian foreign minister said quite correctly last night, Indonesia has an abundance of patience in handling these matters. Australia also has great patience in handling these complex matters. As the Indonesian foreign minister said last night, there are unique humanitarian circumstances pertaining to this particular vessel. He is right concerning those circumstances, which I have just described in some detail to the House. The Indonesian foreign minister is right to point out the fact that there is a three-part solution which is necessary here: one dealing with source countries, one dealing with transit countries and one dealing with so-called destination countries. He was right to say that Australia and Indonesia for some years have been working at all three levels. And the Indonesian foreign minister was right to point out the particular circumstances surrounding the proper treatment of children. I reflect carefully on what he had to say last night on that point and I refer also to the advice I provided to the House yesterday. Can I say, therefore, that the cooperation between the two governments on this matter is proceeding. It is a complex case, as there have been many such complex cases in the past. That is our approach to how we are handling this particular matter.
It raises the question, however, as to what the alternative approach would be in this particular circumstance. There are only two alternatives to rescuing such a vessel by Australia. The first is a decision by a government not to rescue such a vessel—that the first alternative. The second is, if you have proceeded to rescue that vessel, do you take it to the nearest Indonesia port, as in this case, or do you bring it to Australia? What this government has done is straightforward. We have responded to an Indonesian request. We have proceeded to rescue this vessel consistent with the obligations of international law and, through consultation with the Indonesian authorities, proceeded to the nearest port in Indonesia. That is our approach.
But what is the alternative approach? It can only be twofold. First, not to assist a vessel in distress—are those opposite suggesting that?—or, second, having interdicted such a vessel to support it and then bring it to Australia rather than to the nearest Indonesian port. They are the alternatives.
So, Mr Speaker, what have those opposite said on policy on these matters? They have criticised us, as you know—from the right, from the left, from in front, from behind and from the centre, all possible when you do not have a policy or made much easier when you do not have a policy. But, on the specific operational characteristics of this, here is a question asked of one of those opposite, in fact my good friend the member for Murray. She was asked on 29 October:
So do you believe Australia should take these people to Christmas Island?
The answer from the forthright shadow minister:
I don’t have all the facts at hand, I have to say.
We go then to Senator Abetz, who was asked:
Where do you see these 78 Sri Lankans ending up, Australia or Indonesia?
The answer from Senator Abetz:
I am unfortunately not the government.
Are we picking up a theme here? Then we have a question to the good old member for Warringah by his party confrere, at least in past times, Alan Jones, who asked him this:
He—
referring to the Prime Minister—
could have brought them to Australia to Christmas Island. Are you saying that’s what should have happened?
The member for Warringah said:
No, I’m not, but that’s certainly what he’s been doing up until now.
Then Alan Jones asked:
What are you saying should have happened?
The member for Warringah replied:
Well, I’m not the government.
We have had a similar response from the Leader of the Opposition. But then we have the great source of all wisdom on these questions, the good old member for Berowra, who, as we know, has form on these questions. When he was asked only a few days ago:
What would the opposition do differently to change the nature of things at the moment?
What does the member for Berowra publicly recommend on the record?
I have advised all my colleagues that—
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was not asked about alternative views. The people smugglers want to know what you are going to do.
The member for Cook will resume his seat. Again, to the extent that it was a point of order on relevance, it is not an opportunity to ask an addendum question. The Prime Minister has the call and is responding to the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have that man of constant principle, the member for Berowra, who has always maintained a consistency of line when it comes to asylum seekers over years past. The font of all advice on this, apart from Senator Ronaldson, is as follows:
When asked this question, colleagues, by no means ever answer it.
Never answer the question. What would you have done with a vessel in distress or, secondly, where would you have taken it—Indonesia, Christmas Island or the Australian mainland? They are the two questions which they do not want to answer.
But I do love the member for Sturt almost as much as the member for Murray. He intervened in a particular way in an interview on 29 October, when he was asked:
Would the opposition suggest that the government use force to remove these people or bring them to Australia, because what else could they do?
Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt, said:
Well, look, Kieran, the opposition is not going to let the government off the hook by making ourselves and our position on these issues an excuse for Labor to try and distract the media and the public.
There we go. I am happy to table what the member for Sturt says. It should always be immortalised in the Hansard. You never know when you will need it in the future. What we have here is an absolute pattern of opportunistic behaviour. On the key questions of what should happen with this vessel, how it should be handled, whether it should be rescued and, on top of that, where it should be taken, their answer, consistent with the advice of the good old member for Berowra, is: whatever you do, become a small target. Take no position.
This government’s policy is clear-cut when it comes to asylum seekers. I say to those opposite: their policy in response is as follows. Simply, in four words, their policy is: all fear, no solutions. Our approach is clear; theirs is driven by opportunism.
The Indonesian and Australian governments recognise this is a complex challenge for the future. Oh, would that those opposite recognise that there are practical issues in this concern, which go to people’s lives and the future integrity of the Australian migration system.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the security clearance granted to the Oceanic Viking allowing it to remain in Indonesian waters. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the clearance expires tomorrow? What arrangements are being made to extend it?
Australian officials and Indonesian officials are processing this matter as a matter of course. As far as the presence of the vessel is concerned, I draw the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s attention to one thing. It is as follows: the foreign affairs minister of Indonesia said last night of Indonesia: ‘Indonesia has great patience in handling this matter’—so does Australia. That is the basis upon which the vessel’s presence in the port will be considered in the future.
Mr Speaker—
The Prime Minister has concluded.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the lasting improvements the government is making to Australia’s economic capacity and why this is so important to sustainable growth with low inflation into the future?
I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his question and particularly for his interest in nation-building infrastructure. The government is investing in nation-building infrastructure to support the economy now and also, importantly, to build capacity for the future. Something like 70 per cent of our economic stimulus is being invested in nation-building infrastructure. There is investment in highways, investment in ports such as the Port of Darwin, investment in rail upgrades, investment in hospitals and, of course, investment in schools. These investments are critical to support the economy now but they are also very important to build that capacity for the future so that when we grow we can grow sustainably without the type of capacity constraints that were so obvious during the latter period of the last government.
The need for this investment now has been highlighted by Access Economics in the report today in their Investment Monitor where they talk about private investment activity remaining weak with just nine new projects added in the September quarter, the lowest on record. This is what Access Economics said: ‘The outlook for investment spending, while improving, is also not yet firing on all cylinders. Non-residential building projects, in particular, remain lacklustre.’ Of course that quote and their report underscore just how vital it is that the government maintain its stimulus investment in infrastructure. It is absolutely critical in terms of jobs now, absolutely critical for small business and absolutely critical to fill the gap which has been left by an absence of private demand. This government is absolutely committed to continuing with its nation-building program because it is essential to building productivity for the future.
We are engaged in short-term spending with lasting gains, and I think it will pay to go through the elements of that program: $22 billion in critical capacity building road, rail, port, energy and education infrastructure announced in the last budget; a very significant boost to housing, particularly social housing, a key capacity constraint; investments from the minister for infrastructure across road, rail, ports and so on; and, of course, the largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. This is nation building and this is investment that is required now to support jobs, but it is also critical to leave a lasting legacy to build that capacity I was talking about before.
Of course this investment is supported strongly not just by the business community but also by many prominent economists. Just today we had a statement issued by Mr Peter Anderson, Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who said:
This week’s affirmation by the Prime Minister that investment in nation-building transport, logistics and human infrastructure are key elements in the Government’s plan for managing the recovery is welcomed by industry …
It is certainly not welcomed by those opposite but is welcomed by industry and recognised as the sensible economic plan this country needs, given the circumstances we face. Mr Anderson continues—and this goes to the nub of what the government is doing:
Productivity growth means the economy will be stronger, the Commonwealth deficit can be paid off more quickly, living standards can rise without fueling inflation or job losses, and we can sustain population growth.
That is in essence the objective of what the government is doing through putting in place its economic stimulus and through putting in place its nation-building infrastructure program. Of course, this is supported widely in our community. It is supported by all except by the Liberal and National parties who sit opposite. It was they who, when in government, ignored something like 20 separate warnings from the Reserve Bank about the fact that capacity constraints in the economy were fuelling inflation and putting upward pressure on interest rates. The end of that sorry tale was inflation at 16-year highs and 10 interest rate rises in a row—all under those opposite. This government is determined to investment in nation-building infrastructure, to deploy the spare capacity in the economy now to invest for the future and to make sure that we can have the sustainable jobs of the future with sustainable growth and with low inflation.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that cash payments will not be made to the 78 Sri Lankans as an incentive to leave the Oceanic Viking?
Ms Macklin interjecting
I would say in response to the honourable member’s question—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to withdraw that slur against the member for Warringah, who asked a perfectly satisfactory question.
I withdraw.
The minister has withdrawn the remark. The Prime Minister.
I thank very much the member for Warringah for his question, as it comes straight out of the Ronaldson textbook. The Ronaldson textbook is about this: never debate policy; only get into stereotyping. That is what this debate is all about. The Ronaldson textbook also said—and remember it is issued by the office of the Leader of the Opposition—do not debate policy, because there is no good politics in it; only engage in stereotyping, because there is lots of good politics in that; and also target special interest groups and make good taxpayers angry. That is what the member for Warringah is on about in asking this question.
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I have asked a very simple, very straightforward and very reasonable question and I think it should be answered by the Prime Minister.
Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
Mr Speaker, can I also respond to the honourable member’s question by saying that the individuals who are on the Oceanic Viking are currently on the vessel waiting for processing onshore and their status has not been determined. The honourable member asks whether they are now going to be in receipt of Australian payments. They will not be in receipt of any payments from Australia, as I am advised. Further, I would say to the honourable member and those opposite that under the previous government temporary protection visa holders were able to access many welfare payments. These included: special benefit paid at the same rate as unemployment benefits; family tax benefit paid by the Howard government to holders of temporary protection visas; the baby bonus paid to temporary protection visa holders under the Howard government; the childcare benefit paid to temporary protection visa holders under the Howard government; the maternity immunisation allowance paid to temporary protection visa holders under the Howard government; and the double orphan pension and rent assistance payment paid to holders of temporary protection visas under the Howard government.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What is the government’s response to the report of the Senate Economics Committee on the government’s stimulus strategy that was tabled earlier this week?
I thank the member for Bendigo for his question. Earlier this week the apparently coalition-dominated Senate Economics Committee handed down a report arguing that the government should wind back its stimulus strategy prematurely. This proposition does not come as a complete surprise to the government, given that all along the Liberal Party and the National Party have seriously downplayed the threat of the global financial crisis and the global recession on the Australian economy. They have suggested that really this is all a bit of a minor affair. You may recall the leaflet that I showed the House some months ago—put out by the coalition—about Australia’s economic circumstances, in which the global recession did not get a mention. There was no mention of the global financial crisis. All along the Liberal Party and the National Party have completely downplayed the threat to the Australian economy of the global financial crisis on the recession.
Given that they oppose the government stimulus strategy—and it has become clearer and clearer that that strategy has worked; it has played a critical role in ensuring that growth remains in the positive in Australia and that our economic performance is well ahead of that of comparable developed nations, and thousands of jobs have been saved as a result and businesses have been able to remain open—the opposition has engaged in a desperate scramble for any kind of rationale to justify their position. The most recent version of this is to suggest that the stimulus is excessive, that it is creating inflationary pressures in the Australian economy and that it should be wound back. This position—as it became clear in the evidence put to the committee—is contrary to the position that is adopted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, it is contrary to the position that is adopted by the Australian Industry Group, it is contrary to the position adopted by the Western Australian Liberal government, it is contrary to the view of leading economists such as Rory Robertson and Craig James, and of course it is contrary to the view of the Australian Treasury.
I would like to refer to three critical points here. First, although the Australian economy has outperformed comparable countries, economic growth for the financial year that concluded a few months ago was 0.6 per cent. Therefore the economy is still in a very fragile position and growth is well below normal levels. Second, the stimulus strategy that the government put in place is structured in such a way that it will decline gradually over time in any event and by the beginning of next year it will begin to subtract from growth, as the stimulus is gradually withdrawn. So what the opposition is suggesting should occur is actually designed to occur in a timely way.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it is significant that the total amount of stimulus yet to come is roughly three per cent of all projected government spending for that record relevant time. We may well ask ourselves the question, ‘Why is it that the opposition focuses, when talking about the impact of government spending, on the wider Australian economy?’ They focus on three per cent, or thereabouts, of the total spending picture and ignore the remaining 97 per cent. We saw part of that answer in the Senate yesterday and we saw part of it earlier on. That is, they are calling for spending to be reduced at the same time as they are blocking government savings measures in the Senate. They are blocking the government’s attempts to rein in the cost of the private health insurance rebate by imposing a means test on wealthy people benefiting from that rebate, and now they are seeking to line the pockets of wealthy medical specialists by blocking reform of the Medicare rebate with respect to cataract surgery.
The answer to this conundrum is very simple. They do not want to cut government spending; they want to cut government spending that they do not like. That is really what they are on about. They want to cut back on spending that delivers jobs for ordinary working people in this country and they do not want to cut back on spending that delivers money to wealthy medical specialists and helps to subsidise the private health insurance of millionaires like the Leader of the Opposition. That is the true position of the opposition. They do not have a genuine policy position on government spending as it affects the economy. They are just opposed to government spending that helps working people. What they want to do is protect government spending that benefits wealthy people. That is the true position. That is why they are focused purely on the stimulus strategy of the government.
The government rejects the view of the Senate committee. We believe that the stimulus approach is well timed, it is appropriate, it is critical to sustaining the Australian economy and—contrary to the view of the opposition—we believe it is crucial that we sustain jobs in the Australian economy, when it is still under very substantial stress. We believe it is crucial that we repair the damage to the budget in the medium term by getting significant savings measures, such as those being blocked by the opposition, through the parliament without further delay.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that there are 119 people on board the Oceanic Viking, which is only licensed to carry a total of 75 people? Will the Prime Minister inform the House what arrangements are in place to ensure that the vessel has adequate food, water, safety equipment and medical and other supplies?
They come from the right; they come from the left; they come from everywhere! This was the question which was asked yesterday which carries with it the implication that, because of the capacity of the Oceanic Viking, this country should not have honoured its obligations under international maritime law. That is exactly why it was asked. For the benefit of the honourable member for Farrer, the capacity of the Oceanic Viking is 75. On 18 September the Viking received an exemption to carry up to 120 people. Furthermore, the point is the Safety of Life at Sea—SOLAS—Convention provides that a ship’s master can take on as many persons as required to save lives. That is what international law has to say; that is what international maritime law has to say. Can I say therefore to the honourable member, as she and the member for Warringah and the others all build up to—
The Prime Minister—
the inevitability of the—
The Prime Minister—
‘save Malcolm Turnbull’ censure—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
motion today—
Sit down, Motormouth!
The member for Hume will withdraw.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Hume will withdraw.
Withdraw what, Mr Speaker?
The member for Hume will withdraw.
What? ‘Motormouth’? I withdraw.
The member for Hume will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a).
The member for Hume then left the chamber.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting
I would hope that the member for Mackellar’s sotto voce comment is not directed at me.
No.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can I just bring the Prime Minister back to the second part of the question—
Order! The member for Farrer will resume her seat.
about ensuring the vessel has adequate supplies.
Order! The member for Farrer will leave the chamber under 94(a) for one hour.
The member for Farrer then left the chamber.
Mr Speaker—
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I simply say at least the member for Sturt has the courage to come forward to the dispatch box. There have been a lot of unwarranted comments being made. The member for Sturt.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, earlier in question time I stood to make a point of order during the Prime Minister’s answer and he continued to speak even though you could see me at the dispatch box, and then he said he had concluded his answer. I fail to see how his behaviour then was any different to the situation that has just occurred. I would ask you to reconsider, if at all possible, your punting of the member for Farrer, for want of a better description.
The Manager of Opposition Business is trying to make an analogy out something that I do not see. In fact, I was quite happy that we saved some time in the incident that he raises. If he wants me to delay the proceedings of the House by interrupting answers that are about to be concluded I do not think that that really assists the House, because it does lead to frustration. I make the observation, as I have in the past, that not necessarily should I give tutes on the way in which people should conduct themselves. But I would note the observation that every action seems to have a reaction in this House and I think that we should avoid that.
The member for Farrer asked me about the capacity of the vessel, the number of people on board the vessel, and therefore whether it was capable of discharging its functions. My answer was that the capacity of the vessel was 75 and this was extended to 120 as of a decision of 18 September. I further said that the provisions under international maritime law made it such that, under the Safety of Life at Sea—SOLAS—Convention, masters of vessels may take on as many persons as required to save lives. The honourable member for Farrer was contending I was not answering the question. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that that did constitute an answer to the question. She also went on to ask about the appropriate provisioning of the vessel in the future. Practical arrangements are in hand for all of that to occur in consultation with the Indonesian authorities, as you would expect. But I go back to my point, Mr Speaker: what’s it all about? It is building up to the inevitability of another Thursday censure motion to defend the leadership of the Leader of the Liberal Party as he rallies the Right around the flag to save for another two weeks his leadership, given it has been under such systematic pressure and stress for such a long period of time. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, the good citizens of Wentworth thought better of him.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House movements in interest rates in recent years and the impact on Australian families?
I thank the member for Blair for his question. It is a very important one. Of course I do not speculate about future movements in official interest rates but I cannot say the same for those opposite. In fact, yesterday we had the shadow minister for finance out there champing at the bit for a rate rise on Melbourne Cup Day. This is what she said:
I think it’s a pretty safe bet that the Reserve Bank would be looking very, very closely at a rise of 50 basis points on Melbourne Cup Day.
So I think it is pretty clear that the Liberal Party have already put the champagne on ice, not for cup day but in the hope that rates go up by 50 basis points—and shame on them. Why would they consider celebrating an interest rate rise? Because they think somehow it is going to be to their political advantage whilst at the same time they are maintaining this ridiculous position that interest rates can somehow stay forever at a 50-year low. So that is the proposition: they want, on the one hand, to take political advantage out of a rate rise, which is never comfortable for anyone, but, on the other, they want to maintain that somehow, in a public policy sense, rates can stay forever at a 50-year low. Of course, as the governor has said, rates cannot stay at a 50-year low forever and that as the economy recovers they will begin to move. It is simply ridiculous for those opposite to claim that rates could stay at a 50-year low forever. It undermines any pretence that those opposite would have to any economic credibility at all.
The Australian people are pretty sceptical about these claims because they have seen these sorts of claims from those opposite before. They know that the mob opposite have really got form when it comes to scare campaigns on interest rates. They well remember what they over there did back in 2004 when they went to that election campaign claiming that interest rates would stay ‘at record lows’ forever. At record lows was their claim, and the Australian people do remember what occurred after that fraud that they presented to the Australian people. Interest rates went up 10 times in a row and inflation went to a 16-year high. The Australian people well remember what drove that record high inflation, that 16-year high inflation. It was the inattention and inactivity of those opposite to deal with the capacity constraints in the Australian economy that were fuelling inflation. It was their refusal to invest in infrastructure, it was their refusal to invest in education, and the Australian people did pay a price for that refusal—10 interest rate rises in a row.
They were at it again this week. We had the member for Boothby on the doors saying, ‘We now have evidence that a Labor government meant higher interest rates.’ What planet does this guy live on? What planet could he possibly live on by going out there and saying there was evidence that a Labor government meant higher interest rates when interest rates are currently 350 basis points lower than they were when they were last in government? What hide they have. What front and what economic incompetence resides on that front bench, when interest rates are 350 basis points below their peak when they were last in power, when they did not invest in infrastructure and when they did not invest in education, to go around and pretend that they can somehow keep interest rates at 50-year lows.
Those opposite have shredded any pretence of economic credibility. That is why we on this side of the House will continue to put in place responsible economic management, make sure that we carefully manage our stimulus—that it is carefully withdrawn as we go through next year—and make sure that we support jobs and small business in the Australian economy.
I address my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship just last week established a regional displaced persons task force which has two months to come up with what they describe as ‘ideas on what kind of policies may be effective in stemming irregular migration’? Why was this task force not established before the government decided to soften the coalition’s border protection regime in August 2008?
We all love questions from the good old member for Murray because the honourable member asks questions about internal government processes to look at how to deal with the challenges of migration policy across the spectrum and specifically refugee policies, asylum seeker policies and outflows from within the region and beyond the region in particular.
This government has had a range of policy mechanisms within government at work on this since we assumed office nearly two years ago. What has changed in that period of time is that we have had since 2005 a range of new push factors from major source countries like Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said to those opposite when I recently ran through these figures, if in the last three years you have seen the numbers of asylum seekers from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka go through the roof by between 50, 100, 150 or almost 200 per cent then all countries around the world are going to feel those push factors. We in Australia are no different.
The member for Murray then implies within her question what sorts of responses will be developed by internal mechanisms within the government. One of those mechanisms concerns the proper use of the humanitarian agencies like the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration, who are working with our government and the Indonesian government on the ground in Indonesia, as they have done for many years. The UNHCR is the organisation which the good old member for Murray says we should be doing more with as well. In fact, she said this morning, ‘Surely the UNHCR can be engaged directly to work with these people whether they are on board or not.’ This is the same member for Murray who said earlier this month that the UNHCR was ‘corrupt’. She said:
… it in fact costs you more to bribe the UNHCR to look at your case and assess you for your asylum-seeking status than to pay a people-smuggler.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under the standing orders with respect to relevance, the member for Murray asked a question quite specifically about arrangements within the department. This rant against the member for Murray is not relevant.
Mr Speaker, on the point of order: once again, similar to the member for Farrer, the member for Sturt attempted to use a point of order to make commentary on the Prime Minister’s response. That is—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Order! The member for Paterson will withdraw.
I wasn’t speaking to you, Mr Speaker.
Even on that occasion, if it was being referred to your colleague behind you, I think it was unparliamentary.
Were you offended?
No.
He has not taken offence.
On this occasion, I have. The member for Paterson will withdraw
If you were offended, Mr Speaker, I withdraw.
Order! Under the standing orders, I am obliged to decide what information I require to decide points of order. On this occasion, I am satisfied that the Manager of Opposition Business returned to his seat at the appropriate time. I remind members that the question was multifaceted. On reflection, they would understand that this allows the answer to be relevant to those elements of multifacetism—or whatever the word is! That may have been Bosnian!
Mr Speaker, thank you for that multidimensional answer! I responded to the honourable member’s question, which went to internal government processes in response to push factors around the world over a period of time, when they are established, and therefore their response to given developments over time. The content of my answer was that, since the government have been in for two years, we have had a range of internal mechanisms within the government that serve cabinet committees, that are internal to the bureaucracy, as you would expect, and that deal with a multiplicity of these challenges which come from time to time. That is the normal business of government. Part of the response, of course, which has been developed by officials, is what we should do over time to enhance our cooperation with the UNHCR and the IOM.
I was simply drawing the honourable member for Murray’s attention to the fact that, less than a month ago, in response to the question: ‘So you’re alleging corruption within the UNHCR?’ she said on the record, ‘Yes, I’m saying to you it’s a well-known fact that in some UNHCR offices there is bribery and corruption.’ Can I just say, if you are seeking to represent an alternative government of Australia and you are seeking to deal with international agencies cooperatively, that is probably not the best first thing to say. If you want to get on with them and you go out there and say, ‘You’re just all corrupt,’ I think that is not actually a good way to go.
Our response deals with the global factors which go to the push factors, the transit countries and, of course, countries of ultimate destination, and in dealing with this we are also dealing with the international agencies who are working with all of these countries on a continuing basis. The critical one is the UNHCR. When it comes to that which the member for Berowra dare not speak of—alternative policy—I simply pose the question to those opposite: how can you have an alternative policy if you think one of the principal agencies is corrupt and therefore cannot be worked with?
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the government’s response to recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
I thank the member for her question. The member asked about two terrible terrorist attacks yesterday, that were reported overnight, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Shortly before question time, I spoke to Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Australia and relayed to him the government’s condolences on the terrible loss that has occurred as a result of the attack in Peshawar, which was an attack upon innocent women and children in a marketplace. I expressed to him Australia’s solidarity at a time of very difficult circumstances as far as Pakistan’s security and economic and social circumstances are concerned. I relayed those condolences and that message of solidarity to the Pakistan high commissioner and asked him to relay that to Foreign Minister Qureshi. I know that sentiment will be shared by all members of the House. This was a terrible attack on women and children. The reason for the attack is no doubt because the government, the parliament and the people of Pakistan are taking a stand against extremism and terrorism in the North-West Frontier Province and on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This is clearly directed at intimidating Pakistan and seeking to have it desist in its stand against terrorism.
Australia is a foundation member of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. Recently, at the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister and I attended the leaders’ summit of Friends of Democratic Pakistan, chaired by President Obama, where we made the point to Pakistan that we stood shoulder to shoulder with them. We have substantially increased our development assistance to Pakistan and have also substantially increased the assistance that we give to them for the training of their military and defence officers.
The member also asked me about the terrorist attack in Afghanistan. This was of course an attack upon a UN residence, on UN officers in accommodation. Any attack upon the United Nations is absolutely contemptible. We relay to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon our contempt for this outrageous act and our condolences to the secretary-general and to all officials and employees of the United Nations, and we relay our sympathy to the families of the victims. It underlines a very important point often missed: the International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan is a United Nations mandated force. The United Nations assistance mission in Afghanistan plays a vital role, together with the secretary-general’s special representative, Kai Eide.
They were terrible attacks. I know that the sentiments I have expressed will be shared by all members of the House. Any attack upon the United Nations is contemptible. Our support and sympathy goes to the United Nations today. The attack on innocent women and children in Pakistan is also an outrage. We express and send our condolences to Pakistan at this difficult time for them.
Whilst this will not be a precedent for getting comments across the table, on this occasion it would be appropriate for me to give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brief indulgence.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, the coalition supports the statements made by the foreign minister in relation to these barbaric attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We thank the foreign minister for extending the sympathies of the Australian people, including both sides of this parliament, to the Pakistan High Commissioner and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We extend our sympathies to all affected by these attacks.
Just before giving the call to the Leader of the Opposition—I regret that it is now absolutely too late—we had in the gallery, or we might still have in the gallery, some staff and course members from a Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies group. I think that at this time it would be appropriate to acknowledge them, especially as there are military members from Pakistan within the group.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his refusal in question time today to say whether the national security adviser is reporting directly to him, whether the Oceanic Viking security clearance expires tomorrow and what arrangements are being made to extend it, whether the government proposes to make cash payments to the passengers on the Oceanic Viking in order to induce them to leave the vessel, and what arrangements are in place to ensure that the vessel is adequately and safely supplied. Will the Prime Minister now finally take the opportunity to answer these straightforward, factual questions?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question on those matters which he has just referred to. Taking them in reverse order, the first was about supplies to the vessel. Yes, the vessel will be supplied. That is why we have arrangements already with Australian authorities, in cooperation with the Indonesians, to provide the necessary victualling and other supports for the vessel in question. Secondly, on the question of payments, because they currently have no status under Australian immigration law they are not receiving payments. Mr Speaker, the question was asked about payments to those on the vessel—
Mr Pyne interjecting
Mr Turnbull interjecting
Order! The Prime Minister has the call.
The Leader of the Opposition is so desperate to get on with his censure motion that he now seeks to add to the questions he has just asked. The question he asked just now was: would I answer the question about cash payments to those on the vessel, and what I have said to those opposite is that they have no status under Australian immigration law and therefore they are not entitled to any payments. Secondly, if that status changes under Australian immigration law at any time in the future, consistent with Australian government practice in the past, they would be entitled to a range of supports, as the Howard government provided. But that is entirely determined on the basis of what happens with the future determination of their status.
Thirdly, in respect of any support which is given to them in terms of sustenance by organisations like the UNHCR or IOM and international governments around the world who support those organisations, of course those arrangements would proceed as normal, as they have in all other circumstances. That is the second question, which the honourable member suggests that I have not answered directly.
Mr Turnbull interjecting
Mr Speaker, I dealt with three elements of it. He says that it was not answered directly. Point (1) was payments now, (2) was payments by international agencies and support for those agencies by way of sustenance payments for individuals concerned, and (3)—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is always in search of how you whip it up into a censure motion. The agenda of course is to save his leadership—and it is Thursday, and it is not about the policy in question. Let me go to the third one which he asked, which was about the Oceanic Viking’s diplomatic clearance being extended. My advice is that the normal extension of diplomatic clearances for vessels is a routine matter between governments and, given what the Indonesian foreign minister said last night, we have no advice before the government which suggests any difficulty with the continued extension of the diplomatic clearance which extends to the vessel at present. That is the third one that he raised. And what was the first one, which is now the fourth?
Mr Turnbull interjecting
It is the national security adviser—I just wanted a prompt.
Order! The Leader of the Opposition has made his point.
If the honourable Leader of the Opposition has made a full and complete study, as I am sure he and everyone has, of my first national security statement to the Australian parliament, he will recall from that, given that it was such a scintillating document, that the national security adviser answers to yours truly. That is why he is in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Duncan Lewis also provided advice on security matters to my predecessor, Mr Howard, when he was Prime Minister. He is a professional public servant who has had extensive service in the Australian military. He therefore provides advice to the Prime Minister of the day. In this case it is this Prime Minister. And on the questions which concern—
You should have said that at two o’clock.
Mr Speaker, I would have assumed that the honourable Leader of the Opposition would conclude from the administrative orders the fact that I am the Prime Minister and I have a thing called the Prime Minister’s department. There is a bloke in it called the national security adviser and I have declared publicly that he answers to me and he probably does on this as well. So there you go: (1),(2), (3), (4)—answered.
My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the government doing to support the teaching profession and why is quality teaching important?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question. I know that he is a great supporter of his local schools and the teachers in his schools. A little earlier today I was in the Great Hall, where it was my very great pleasure to award to principals, teachers and support staff the Australian Awards for Teaching Excellence. It was a great occasion, where we celebrated the achievements of some outstanding Australians who have dedicated their lives to education. Tomorrow is World Teachers Day, the celebration of World Teachers Day in Australia. On this side of the House—and I am sure that I speak for the Independents as well—we are great supporters of teachers.
Opposition members interjecting—
I understand that opposition members may be interjecting about that and do not quite share that support for Australian teachers. But we are great supporters of teachers and we are supporting the celebration of World Teachers Day in Australia.
We are also investing in improving the quality of teaching in Australian schools. We know that there is nothing more important to a child’s education than the quality of the interaction between that child and their teacher. That is why we are investing $550 million in improving teacher quality and school leadership. This money is being invested in ventures like Teach for Australia, to bring the highest performing graduates into teaching. This summer the first cohort of Teach for Australia will be in training and next school year they will be in disadvantaged schools that need teachers with enthusiasm, high-performing graduates there working with those kids.
Our quality teaching initiatives also extend to paying the best teachers more to go to the classrooms that need them the most. This is being started in New South Wales, where highly accomplished teachers will be paid $100,000 to teach in disadvantaged schools, bringing their skills to the parts of the country where they can make the most difference. This is to be celebrated. It is a celebration of teaching, but of course we celebrate great teaching because we know what a difference it can make for the education of Australian students.
When it comes to our education revolution there is a linked set of reform measures to make a difference for every child in every school. These are a set of reform measures to lift standards right around the country and to end the spectre we currently have in this country, and have had for far too long, of kids from poorer households not getting the great education that they deserve. We will continue to deliver our measures for an education revolution and, of course, tomorrow we will be celebrating teachers and teaching in this country as part of World Teaching Day.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. As the government considers how to persuade the 78 asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking to leave that vessel, will the government rule out making cash payments to the people aboard for the sole purpose of seeking to induce them to leave the boat? I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that two of his ministers have been asked this question twice today and neither of them has responded with the indignation and venom that he has treated us to in the House.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition’s question goes to this: is the government considering—or has it decided on—the provision of payments to individuals on this particular vessel ‘for the sole purpose of leaving the boat’? My advice is that is not the case. I also add to and reinforce what I said to you before, which is that international agencies—the IOM and the UNHCR—routinely provide sustenance payments to individuals in circumstances like this and they are in turn supported by governments around the world. That is the answer to the honourable gentleman’s question.
But what is quite plain from all of this is that the Leader of the Opposition is again trying to find some ground, a bit of atmosphere, to whip up the old censure motion, because it sort of started to rock a bit last time around. The bottom line is this: if you are going to get onto the business of a censure motion—I assume it is coming, or maybe it is not, as it is Thursday—then it is probably useful to have an alternative policy. Because when you censure a government for doing something you have to be saying what the government should be doing instead. That is it, I think, and I really have not seen much of that so far. But we know, however, from the Ronaldson tactics handbook that it is not about policy; it is all about stereotyping and it is all about those in the tactics room—all 40 of them squeezed in the room, half of the entire parliamentary party and Rabbit’s friends and relations—dreaming up the censure motion, working on the key lines and themes, working on who we can stereotype next time, but not one single word of policy. Our position is clear.
I also draw attention to a media release from the Australian Federal Police dated 29 October stating:
Four Indonesian men who allegedly facilitated a people smuggling venture to Australia in September 2009 were charged yesterday by the Australian Federal Police … with people smuggling offences.
The four men will appear in Perth Magistrates Court today.
I draw that to the attention of the House.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the recent achievements of the Australian scientific community?
Together with the Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research and various other members from this side of the House—and I hope there were some from the other side of the House—I attended last night in the Great Hall the annual awards for the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science. This is a great gathering of the Australian scientific community because you bring together not just scientists at the pointy end—that is, those out there in laboratory land doing all those interesting things in white coats, which most of us in this room have no idea about—
Speak for yourself!
The Minister for Education says, ‘Speak for yourself!’ What was also really impressive about the gathering was the concentration of teachers of science—that is, primary school and secondary school teachers—who were properly recognised and rewarded for their achievements. We had a primary school teacher there who was legitimately proud of what he had done with kids a couple of hours north of Perth. He was working with those kids to get their minds fired and inspired with the wonders of science. Similarly, a secondary school teacher also received an award because of the work he has done in a secondary school re-entry facility in Adelaide. He told me that there were four such facilities in Adelaide. For people who have not made it through to year 12 and go off and do a few other things in life and come back, he is instilling a real passion for science in those folk who come back to do their year 12 equivalent.
This was a great gathering and it was a great opportunity last night to see people appropriately recognised for their scientific achievements. The winner of this year’s Prime Minister’s Prize for Science was Dr John O’Sullivan of the CSIRO for his contributions to astronomy and to the invention that made wireless computing a part of our everyday lives. What a great scientific innovation from Australia. This is a great piece of good news for the country. Dr O’Sullivan was not looking for a major breakthrough in information communications technology at the time. In fact, he was looking for something called ‘black holes’. He was out there in astronomy land.
That’s where they are on the other side.
Yes, he found Liberal policy on the way! In the process of working in laboratories, he developed a real passion for how he could deal with the whole problem of wireless computing. He worked with colleagues around the world to bring this invention to fruition. Their invention is now enshrined in international standards and built into computers, printers, smartphones and other devices used by hundreds of millions of people every day. It is a great example of how basic blue-sky research can lead to very practical benefits. The Science Minister’s Prize for Life Scientist of the Year went to Professor Michael Cowley from Monash University’s Faculty of Medicine for the advances he has made in understanding and treating human obesity and the ailments that go with it, including diabetes and heart disease.
The Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year went to Dr Amanda Barnard, from the CSIRO, for her achievements in modelling nanoparticles. This is a key to unlocking the benefits of nanotechnology, which promises us everything from better medicines to more efficient solar panels. And last night I was introduced to a new term called ‘nanodiamonds’. I do not know what a nanodiamond is, but it is good and it is being worked on at the moment by our great legion of nanotechnologists and nanoscientists!
Mr Turnbull interjecting
The Leader of the Opposition knows what a nanodiamond is, he tells me. The Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools has gone to Mr Alan Whittome, from the Badgingarra Primary School in Western Australia. I ask my WA colleagues: have I got the pronunciation right?
Mr Haase interjecting
Got it. His secret is to show his students that science is a part of life and not just something to be done at school. The Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Secondary Schools has been awarded to Mr Len Altman, from Marden Senior College in Adelaide. Mr Altman, as I said before, is leading a renaissance in geoscience teaching in South Australia. These are great achievements.
A few weeks ago there was another significant development for Australian science: Australian born and educated biologist Professor Elizabeth Blackburn was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine. What a great achievement for Australian science. What a great achievement for an Australian woman scientist. This is a fantastic achievement for the country. She is Australia’s first female Nobel laureate—period. Professor Blackburn stands in great Australian company alongside the likes of Sir Howard Florey and Professor Peter Doherty. The prize was awarded for her work on chromosomes. I called Professor Blackburn personally to congratulate her on her outstanding achievement. I am sure that everyone in this House will join me in acknowledging Professor Elizabeth Blackburn for receiving the Nobel Prize for Medicine. It is an achievement of which Australians can be proud.
This government is proud of Australia’s science community. We are proud of our science teachers in primary schools, in secondary schools; we are proud of our science lecturers through the universities; we are proud of what those in the laboratories are doing now. This country punches above its weight when it comes to the scientific community, writ across all the disciplines. This is why the education minister and the industry minister are so actively supporting research, innovation and science at the schools level, at the university level and at the research institute level across the country. This is good for the country’s future. If we are going to build long-term productivity growth, part of that productivity growth lies in building a culture of innovation and of invention, of which science must be the core. I commend the winners of these awards.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following remarks made by Paul Howes, the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union and a member of the government’s Future Manufacturing Industry Innovation Council. He is reported as saying:
We’re talking about (78) people on a boat. When you compare that to 50,000 visa overstayers, I reckon a lot of those visa overstayers are white …
And I reckon there’s not much concern about those visa overstayers because they are white.
Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the implication that Australians are racist is offensive? Will he disassociate himself from those remarks?
First of all, I have had a few things on today and I have not seen his remarks, but he is—
Opposition members interjecting—
No, I am just saying that I have not. But, secondly, if they are correctly paraphrased—
Opposition members interjecting—
I am just saying I have not seen his remarks. I am being completely straight with you. I have not seen what he said. It does not surprise me what the given individual might be saying in any public policy debate on any given day. He has a habit of expressing his views in his own way.
My own view is that in Australia there is a strong, fundamental tradition of racial tolerance and inclusion, of which all Australians are proud. It is not my view that there is a racist sentiment in the Australian society. It is my view that this country is built on a culture of tolerance—one which embraces our neighbours; one which seeks to include people from different ethnic origins; one which seeks to embrace properly, through our orderly refugee program. It is a culture in which we can say to those who come here from offshore: your future in this country can be part of the nation-building program of Australia’s 21st century. Ours is a nation which brings all peoples from the world together in one and forges our one Australia. That is the one that I believe in.
My question is to the Leader of the House. Can the Leader of the House advise what procedures have been put in place to enable members to participate in the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? What challenges are being encountered in implementing these procedures?
I thank the Chief Government Whip for his question and indeed for his role in facilitating the participation of members of parliament in this critical debate that is before the House—for a second time. Indeed, this side of the House has gone out of its way to consult and put in place mechanisms that were asked for by the opposition to maximise the participation in the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We were in fact asked to give guarantees that people would not be gagged, that people would have the opportunity to represent the range of views that are across the other side on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Because of that, we put in place mechanisms of the House to facilitate those arrangements. Indeed, I was given leave by every member of the House to move a resolution that was adopted unanimously, by every member of the House, on Tuesday to allow for an extension of time for debate last night, when the parliament sat until 11 pm, and again this afternoon, beyond the normal adjournment time of 4.30. Indeed, as late as this morning the opposition was adding names to the list to speak on these bills, names such as the member for Sturt, the member for Berowra, the member for McPherson—they do not want to hear from you, Member for McPherson!
They then came in here, having agreed to arrangements, having asked for extra time to have the debate, and moved a guillotine—on their own speakers! The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in the House:
… last week, we proposed a set of common-sense amendments to the scheme and we are currently engaged in good faith negotiation with the government on them.
There has not been much good faith in the procedures occurring in this House. A request was made by the opposition. It was agreed to by the government. Procedures were put in place to ensure that agreement could be delivered. But it is not about good faith; it is about the division in the Liberal Party. They will do anything to avoid the final decision on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. What the opposition have to do is guarantee that they will not filibuster in the Senate to avoid a decision being taken on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition to pull his ramshackle of a party together and ensure that they genuinely support these good faith negotiations. We have already seen the Nationals say that they will vote against the CPRS.
The member for New England has amendments to the CPRS legislation that he is entitled to move and to have considered by the House. Similarly, the member for Dawson, the member for Page, the member for Chifley and the member for Shortland are entitled to make their contribution before this House. If the opposition are truly ready and keen to vote on this issue, they should give a commitment to vote on this legislation this year. Their stunt today was consistent with their strategy, which was outlined by the Manager of Opposition Business on Channel 9 and which is that they will consider their options. We know that in their tactics room they have considered moving a motion in the Senate to not have this legislation considered this year. We know that is on their agenda and their stunt today shows their absolute hypocrisy on this issue.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Given that the Prime Minister has refused to rule out cash inducements for the 78 asylum seekers to leave the Oceanic Viking, will the minister inform the House whether he, his office or his—
I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is out of order. It is not in order for the shadow minister to verbal the Prime Minister in a question.
There is no point of order.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Given that the Prime Minister has refused to rule out cash inducements for the 78 asylum seekers to leave the Oceanic Viking, will the minister inform the House whether he, his office or his department have canvassed this option?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The fact is that we are dealing with a very difficult issue. We are dealing with the Indonesia authorities to ensure the safe transfer of the passengers on the Oceanic Viking to Indonesian territory. That is what we are doing. In relation to that, we will continue to work with the Indonesia government pursuant to the agreement that was struck between the Prime Minister and the President some time ago. As we know and as the Indonesian foreign minister said last night, we are dealing with 78 human beings here. We will continue to ensure a humanitarian response to this issue.
I can confirm that the Prime Minister was correct in informing the House that this matter has not been canvassed by the government. The matter that was referred to in the question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not referred to by the government. I can say to the House that we will work patiently and calmly with the Indonesian authorities pursuant to the agreement that has been reached. While I am on my feet, I thank—and I am sure that all members of the House would like to do so—the crew on the Oceanic Viking for their good work. This is a very difficult situation that they are confronted with. The care that they are discharging and the concern that they are exhibiting for these passengers should be commended by this House. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and resolve this matter to the satisfaction of the agreement reached between the two countries.
My question is to the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of the level of interest in the government’s Small Business Online program? Will he update the House on the online information that is available to small business?
I thank the member for Moreton, a good friend colleague and neighbour—he is the member for an electorate neighbouring mine. I know that, through all his work before he was elected and, since that, he was dedicated to supporting the small business community of the south side of Brisbane. This is the 27th question that I have received from the government side of the chamber on small business matters. I want to thank each and every member of the Rudd Labor government for their interest and support in small business. It is my melancholy duty to advise the House that it is now 517 days since I last got a question from the shadow small business minister, which is two days longer than the siege of Leningrad.
In the May budget, the Rudd government allocated $10 million to help small businesses go online to take full advantage of the opportunities that will be offered by the National Broadband Network. I thank the Prime Minister for his support for that initiative. Indeed, there has been very strong interest in the delivery of this program, with more than 300 applications having been received for that funding program. We expect to announce the successful applicants by the end of next month. I am asked also about existing online information for small businesses. I can advise the House that the government website business.gov.au is proving both popular and very effective. A recent survey of users found that last month there were 472,000 visits to that website and that it helped achieve median savings to businesses of $325. So that is good news.
business.gov.au, however, is not the only website providing information to small business. In fact, the shadow small business minister operates his own website and it provides criticism of the government’s small business policies. We expect that from the coalition—just criticism, no constructive comment. But on a related website the shadow small business minister urges local residents ‘to get behind my alcohol-free October to help raise money and educate children about the dangers of drugs and alcohol’. That is good. On 27 September the Gold Coast Bulletin reported on this good initiative, and said that the shadow minister, in promoting an alcohol-free month of October—called ‘Ocsober’—had ‘signed up to stay sober for the entire month’. That is good. But today the Gold Coast Bulletin has run a story headed, ‘Ciobo busted drinking in Ocsober’. That is bad.
I rise on a point of order on relevance. I am not going to take a lecture from this boozing bully from the Holy Grail—
The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat. I do not know whether the member for Moncrieff will appreciate the way that I am going to be charitable to him, but I will allow him to remain for the rest of the answer.
He did want to go but he has the MPI. In excusing his transgressions the shadow minister explained that he bought leave passes that allowed him to have a drink. When asked how many leave passes he had bought for the month of Ocsober, he answered, ‘Four.’ Four leave passes! The paper quotes him explaining today:
“If I had not been able to purchase leave passes, I probably would not have participated.
“It was a crucial part of the deal.”
So the deal was, ‘I’ll pretend I’m sober but I’ll get drunk on four occasions, or at least have a few drinks.’
I suggest to the minister that there is a limit. I suggest the minister settles down a bit and is a little careful about how far he uses the material. Up until now it has probably been taken in good nature but he is starting to overstep the line.
Thank you for that advice. I accept your advice as always, Mr Speaker. I am in the home stretch now. It seems that during Ocsober the shadow minister has been off the wagon almost as much as he has been on it, but the good news—
I rise on a point of order. How can this be edifying to the national parliament and be relevant at the same time?
Whilst it is relevant to the question, as I indicated, there is a limit as to how far it should be taken. The minister should bring his answer to a conclusion.
Indeed I am. The good news for the shadow minister is that there is only two days left in Ocsober, which means he can have a drink and—
Mr Speaker, on that elevating note I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Most grievously, Mr Speaker.
I am a little shocked, but the member may continue!
In response to a question today the Treasurer selectively quoted and misrepresented me. He referred to a doorstop interview which I gave last Wednesday, 21 October. In that doorstop, referring to two stories that were in that news on the day, I said:
Before the last election we warned the Australian people that electing a Labor government would come at a cost. And the two areas that we identified were higher interest rates and more inflexible industrial relations. And today we’ve seen evidence of both. The Reserve Bank is now clearly worried about inflation.
I went on to talk about ‘the story today in the Australian which talks about a secret deal between Julia Gillard and the CFMEU’. That is the context of the doorstop. I am surprised that the Treasurer has misunderstood it and misrepresented it.
Order! The member for Boothby has explained where he has been misrepresented.
Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate on 6 September 1984 and the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984, I present my report Access to committee documents.
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 8 of 2009-10 entitled The Australian Taxation Office’s implementation of the change program: a strategic overview.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
That the House take note of the following documents:Aged Care Commissioner—Report for 2008-09.Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited—Report for 2008-09.Australian Customs and Boarder Protection Service—Report for 2008-09.Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 2008-09.Australian Public Service Commissioner—Report for 2008-09, incorporating the report of the Merit Protection Commissioner.Department of Defence—Reports for 2008-09—Volume 1—Department of Defence.Volume 2—Defence Materiel Organisation.Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2008-09.Family, Community, Housing and Youth—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Who cares …? Report on the inquiry into better support for carers—Government response.Future Fund—Report for 2008-09.Indigenous Business Australia—Report for 2008-09.Privacy Act 1988—Report on the operation of the Act for 2008-09.Productivity Commission—Report for 2008-09.Workplace Authority—Report for 2008-09.Workplace Ombudsman—Report for 2008-09.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Moncrieff proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact the Government’s reckless spending will have on future levels of interest rates for small business.
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—
I am pleased to rise this afternoon on this matter of public importance to highlight the government’s hypocrisy when it comes to their promises. The Prime Minister said, when we saw him shrouded in all the imagery of the last federal election campaign, that he was going to be an economic conservative. We saw time and time again the Prime Minister, the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy—who is at the table—and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in various fora across Australia, on various campaign advertisements and in various brochures talking about how they would be a government of economic conservatives. We heard only moments ago the minister for small business—the two-stroke lawnmower of this parliament—stand up and say that the Labor Party are the party of small business. I note that the minister for small business claims to be one of the great examples of past small business men and women in the Labor Party from his time as a consultant with, from what I understand, one or possibly two clients in the form of the Queensland government.
I rise because this government has right in its sights those 2.4 million small businesses who employ around 3.8 million Australians. The reason that small business is the target of the Australian Labor Party is this government’s track record as one of the biggest spending governments in this nation’s history. There are consequences that flow from such reckless economic policy as that put forward by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Treasurer and the minister for small business. The consequence of this reckless spending, of this government’s failure to adhere to their pre-election promises to be economic conservatives, is that interest rates will be driven up. As interest rates are driven up, we know that small business is going to be the one that feels the pinch. This government and this Prime Minister are spending some $58 billion more than they are earning.
The former coalition government had a proud track record. We never ran away from the fact that when we were in government we had a number of key objectives. The first key objective was to keep the Australian economy growing and to keep it growing strongly, and we succeeded in that. We knew that there were two fundamental aspects to ensuring strong and sustainable growth in the Australian economy. The first was to keep the budget in balance or in surplus, and the second was to pay down over time the massive $96 billion debt that the Labor Party left from their previous 13 years in government. They were the two key objectives that the former coalition delivered on, and delivered in spades. The consequence of our delivery on that key economic policy was that the Australian small business sector were able to do what they do best: grow, generate wealth and generate employment for those nearly four million Australians that are employed in Australia’s small business sector.
But all that is out the back door, as the Prime Minister would say. All of that legacy of the former coalition government is washed away. It has been washed away by this big-spending Labor government. In typical Labor form, we know that the Labor Party has come in and, in a matter of only two years, turned a $22 billion surplus into a $58 billion deficit. This Labor government, after we spent 12 years paying off their $96 billion debt, has now put this country on track to reach $200 billion of debt. And the Labor Party carries on as if nothing is going on. Time and time again the Treasurer stands up with his little chest puffed out and says how, under his stewardship, the government has ensured that this nation has the lowest level of debt. It would almost be amusing if it was not so ironic. This government having the lowest debt in the developed world has nothing to do with the economic policy settings of this government and everything to do with the former coalition government paying off $96 billion of debt. If we had not payed off that debt, our debt forecast would not be $200 billion, as it is under the Labor Party’s forecasts; it would be something like $400 billion. For all we know, this government’s constant and consistent attempt to spend as much money as it can, as quickly as it can, on as many political spin projects as it can is going to cost Australian small businesses in the future.
The fact is that the government refuse to make the hard decisions, to reign in their reckless spending to help keep downward pressure on interest rates and to help make it more sustainable and easier for Australia’s 2.4 million small businesses going forward. Labor are frantically borrowing billions of dollars from abroad only to squander this money on cash splashes and Julia Gillard memorial halls across the country. There is nothing meaningful in terms of assistance for those 2.4 million small businesses—nothing that will help Australia’s small businesses. If you read an MYOB survey or the NAB small business survey, one clear and consistent message comes across. When these times are upon small business—when we have depressed economic conditions, international economic tumult and uncertainty about the future of small business conditions in this country—there is one loud and clear message from Australia’s small businesses. They say: ‘We need assistance with cash flow. Cash flow is our single biggest problem.’ Ninety-three per cent of Australia’s small businesses report cash flow as their biggest problem.
What did the Labor Party do? What was the pinnacle of Labor Party support to Australia’s 2.4 million small businesses? They announced a tax-effective investment scheme. We saw the Labor Party trot out there and the minister for small business travelling around the nation highlighting how great this policy initiative from the Australian Labor Party is. From the outset I questioned the wisdom of this policy. I said the coalition would be supportive of it but we really questioned how many of those 2.4 million small businesses Labor’s policy would actually assist. The answer, as has been played out in the various surveys, is not many at all—the reason being that Labor’s policy requires a small business to have a dollar in order to spend it. Labor’s policy says: go out and spend money on plant and equipment and we will give you tax-effective reasons why you should do that.
If you are in small business, as many from this side of the chamber have been, and you understand small business, as many from this side of the chamber do—more than just wandering into one to have a cup of coffee, as most on that side of the chamber do—then you would know that small business cannot spend money on plant and equipment unless they have money. When 93 per cent of small businesses are suffering with cash flow problems, it is no good saying to them, ‘Go out there and spend money; help to boost the economy,’ because they will look at you and say: ‘What money will we spend? We’ve got a cash flow problem.’ That is why we have seen that the only meaningful expenditure from the small business sector has been on vehicles. So it has hardly been the great economic boost that the Treasurer and the small business minister claim it to be—in fact, it has largely been a flop.
We also know that there has been widespread criticism of the government’s policy settings with respect to their reckless debt and deficit policy. Professor Ross Garnaut, who chaired the government’s climate change review, said:
But once there are signs that the economy is recovering faster than had been anticipated, then it’s appropriate to pull back that stimulus at a faster rate.
… … …
If growth is stronger than Treasury had been anticipating at the time it was put in place, then it will be appropriate to bring it back faster.
I do not think many people in the Australian community would have much grief with that statement. Let us analyse that statement. If we cast our minds back a year or two, the world was placed in a situation where there was a lot of uncertainty about what the future held. There was widespread concern that the world might in fact have gone into an international depression equivalent to the depression that we had in the 1920s and early 1930s. At the time, this government threw tens of billions of dollars out into the Australian community as economic stimulus. The coalition at the time put forward a policy that said the government should exercise some restraint: ‘Let’s wait and see a little bit. Spend money on stimulus, absolutely, but let’s just ensure that it is properly targeted and that it’s not too much.’ But the government were sounding the alarm bells. The government said that as much money had to be spent as possible, as quickly as possible, to ensure the economic recovery of this country.
What we have actually seen is that the Australian downturn was not nearly as bad as was forecast by Treasury and not nearly as bad as the government predicted it would be. In light of that fact, when we find out that, thanks to the good work and the strong economic fundamentals of the previous coalition government, the downturn in this country was not as great and we weathered the storm so much better than was anticipated, you would really have to question why the government remain hell-bent on spending as much money as they possibly can as quickly as they can.
We know that the Prime Minister likes to roam around and claim that 70 per cent of these tens of billions of dollars is being spent on infrastructure, but we also know now that that is not entirely accurate when it comes to actually spending on important economic infrastructure. The cat was belled when the Business Council of Australia published their report which showed that, out of the tens of billions of dollars that Labor were spending on so-called stimulus, only 14 per cent—one dollar in every seven—was actually being spent on productive economic infrastructure. The rest of the money is being spent on a raft of projects across a raft of Labor electorates so that they can stand up in front of the people and say: ‘Look at how great we are. Here we are, taking more money off you in tax and borrowing record amounts of money from overseas in order to fund our deficit and giving it back to you in non-productive infrastructure.’
Australian small businesses recognise this. They speak to me and to members on this side of the chamber and say to us: ‘Please get the government to get their reckless spending under control. Please get the government to provide more support to Australia’s small businesses.’ There are groups on Facebook, for example, with thousands of members saying, ‘Why isn’t there any economic stimulus for small business?’ People stop me in the street or when I and other members do walks through small business centres talking to small business owners, and they say, ‘What are the government doing?’ They are wasting so much money but they are not actually nurturing those 2.4 million small businesses that are providing employment and generating wealth and are the key path for Australia’s economic recovery. That is the difference between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber. That is why, as a core and fundamental alternative policy for this nation, we put forward a clear pathway for economic recovery predicated upon nurturing and helping those 2.4 million small businesses.
These people who make a difference in the community, who roll up their sleeves and bend their backs in their small businesses, are doing what they are doing not only for themselves but because they recognise it is part of making this nation a better nation. They recognise their work makes a real contribution. They stand by those nearly four million Australians that they employ and recognise that the employment of those people in their businesses also has hiding behind it a family, more often than not, and a mortgage repayment that needs to be made and that they are responsible for keeping those people in a job. That is why this side of the parliament is absolutely committed to looking after those 2.4 million small businesses.
I make a prediction: in 12 or 24 months from now, when interest rates continue to skyrocket because of this government’s reckless abandonment of sound economic policy in favour of short-term, populist politics so that Labor members can run around the country standing in front of school halls and cutting ribbons, and interest rates continue to skyrocket as a result of the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt that this Labor Party has gotten us into, the Australian people will recognise that it is going to take decades to pay off the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt that the Labor Party has once again gotten us into and they will not be thanking the Australia Labor Party then.
They will not be thinking that Labor were economic geniuses and they certainly will not be thinking along the lines of the Treasurer, who, if you were to listen to him, likes to trumpet that he is the greatest Treasurer this country has ever seen. That mantle rests with the sound economic policy of the former coalition government, which paid off $96 billion worth of debt, which got record low levels of unemployment and which helped to ensure that this country had a sound economic footing going forward. Labor’s reckless spending, their mountain of debt and deficit, will be an absolute millstone around the neck of Australia’s 2.4 million small businesses and will ensure that, unfortunately for small business, absurd policies like Labor’s dogged pursuit of modern workplace reform will possibly be in the long term the straw that, for many of them, broke their economic backs.
I will seek to clarify an earlier statement made by the shadow minister for small business: that my background in small business may have related to one or two contracts with the government of the day. The government of the day was the National Party, Borbidge government when I was in small business, and I did not have contracts with the Borbidge government. I do not think we ever applied for one. We had contracts with the major gas-producing companies of Queensland, with international gas-producing companies and with electricity-generating companies, so I do profess a background in small business. That is not the most important part of this debate by a long way.
The shadow minister for small business referred to government cash splashes in the most derogatory terms, which is consistent with the approach that has been adopted by the opposition in relation to the cash payments of December last year and of the early part of this year. Those cash payments were welcomed at the time by business organisations, large and small. They were very grateful for the fact that those cash payments were timely, targeted and temporary and that they certainly played a role in keeping the Australian economy out of recession. Of course, recessions are very destructive of small businesses and it is very disheartening to hear the coalition arguing that those cash payments should not have been made. After the initial welcoming of those cash payments by the Leader of the Opposition, who said, ‘We will not quibble with them,’ it took him only one day to start quibbling with them and then to reverse the position to oppose those cash payments.
What did the payments do in the retail sector, which employs 1.5 million working Australians? Of course, they provided such a welcome boost that retail sales in Australia from that period of around October last year to now have been very strongly positive overall compared with negative retail sales in just about every other developed country in the world. It has been said that this has only benefited the large retailers. In fact the growth in retail sales was stronger for small businesses and for smaller retailers than it was for large retailers. So the derogatory term ‘cash splashes’ hides the fact that the coalition did not and has not given any support to policies that were vital in keeping small businesses afloat and in keeping the economy out of recession during that critical period.
Then the shadow minister for small business went on to criticise what he described as ‘Julia Gillard halls’. Here is a great example of hypocrisy. It is true that they voted against the entire $42 billion stimulus package, but it is really hard to find any of them in their local electorates saying, ‘This school should not have been supported; this infrastructure should not have been put in place,’ and many of them have turned up to be photographed. So they have supported the package in their local electorates and condemned it in the House. In condemning the greatest school modernisation program in Australia’s history and voting against it in the House, they have voted against and condemned measures which have supported the tradespeople of this country.
There was a time under the previous government when it pretended to put out its hand to the independent contractors of this nation. It brought in a ‘you beaut’ Independent Contractors Act saying that they were the party of independent contractors. What do we have now? In 2009 we have a coalition, a Liberal Party, who would betray the interests and indeed the very livelihood of independent contractors in this country—the electricians, the plumbers, the plasterers, the carpenters, the builders and all of those people who are building the greatest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. What do we get? Nothing but criticism for this government’s support for tradies, independent contractors, small businesses and apprentices. Businesses now have a limited capacity to put on apprentices, which is very important for those young people leaving school and for the nation’s future.
The shadow minister for small business referred to surveys. In going through his speech bit by bit we find that he said that the surveys do not really prove anything and are not very supportive at all. Let us have a look at the National Australia Bank quarterly business survey released two days ago, which said that the business conditions index recorded the first positive reading since June 2008. Well, that is good news, isn’t it? I thought it would be welcomed by the shadow minister for small business. Indeed, the business confidence index also increased to levels last seen in early 2002. That is saying that business is confident in the support that this government has provided to all businesses, large and small.
Let us now turn to small business in particular. The Sensis business index of small and medium-sized enterprises was released on 17 September this year, and it showed that small business confidence rebounded strongly and had the biggest rise in the survey’s 16-year history. We heard from the shadow minister for small business that he goes around the country—and I think he said that he uses Facebook and lots of other websites—and hears people say they do not support the government’s policies which are supporting them. But the Sensis business index says that support for government policies, which included cash payments and tax rebates for business investment, rose strongly in the past quarter. I do not know who the shadow minister is talking to, but the Sensis business index records a very big increase in support for the government because of the cash payments—which the coalition condemns—and because of the tax rebates for business investment. Indeed, those same small and medium enterprises are reporting growth in capital expenditure.
One of the reasons for that growth in capital expenditure is the very tax measure that the shadow minister for small business has criticised—yet again—today and this is the small business tax break. I wrote it down . He said that has proved it has largely been a flop. Really? I do not know who he is talking to on Facebook and Twitter but he is certainly not talking to the small businesses who have taken to that small business tax break with gusto. They think it is terrific. He said that all they have done is buy a few cars.
Let the record show that the shadow minister for small business does not support the Australian automotive industry, including the production industry and the distribution and retailing industry. And who does that? A very large part of that work is done by small businesses. It is done at the retail and distribution level by small businesses in areas such as Moorooka on the south side of Brisbane. This affects real people with real jobs and real families. These businesses are trying to support them, and we have the shadow minister for small business saying it is a flop and all they have done is spend a little bit of money on cars!
What about all the component manufacturers in Victoria? I see that a number of Victorian and South Australian Labor MPs are here. They are always barracking for the component manufacturers of Victoria and South Australia, a vital industry in supporting jobs in this country. But they are just makers of a few cars, according to the shadow minister for small business. He said that this has been a flop, that it has not really been taken up. More than a third of small businesses, according to surveys, have availed themselves of this small business tax break. It has been supported on television by companies who obviously see opportunities for economic stimulus through that measure.
But it is not the only measure that is designed to support small business. We have worked with the tax office to reduce tax liabilities. We have provided an upfront discount for small businesses to directly deal with this issue of small business cash flow. The pay-as-you-go instalment was reduced by 20 per cent at a critical period for small business so that it could keep more of the money that it earns, so it did not just flow straight into the Treasury. That was a very good measure. I have not heard the shadow minister for small business saying that it was a good measure—other than he thinks that he created it, which he did not.
It was our policy!
He says it was his policy. It was not your policy at all. It was our policy, but let us move on.
It is a flop today and you know it.
Your policy would have been a floparoo, buddy; that is a fact. I will give credit to the shadow minister for small business. Compared with other shadow ministers, he has actually put a couple of policies up on his website—like paying a proportion of the superannuation guarantee payments of small businesses for a period of about two years, and the carry-back of tax losses. The estimated cost of those two measures, on top of everything that we have done, is $6.2 billion. Here we have the coalition saying, ‘This is a big-spending government, they are spending too much, let’s add $6.2 billion to the bill!’
This opposition said that the government is taking more money in tax. The highest-taxing government in Australia’s history was the Liberal government, the coalition government, the Howard government of which the shadow minister for small business was a member. I went through the budget papers and they show that, in just about every year of this decade under the previous government, tax, as a share of GDP was at record levels. During the Hawke and Keating periods it was lower, so the coalition broke the record as the highest-taxing government in Australia’s history. Now they have the temerity to say, ‘You’re taking too much tax.’ Well you took a hell of a lot of tax and you took a hell of a lot of tax from small businesses. You know, this has been a day when the matter of hypocrisy has been raised once or twice.
We have a matter of public importance debate where the small business shadow minister comes and says, ‘Look, the government is spending too much.’ And what is the coalition doing right now in the Senate? It is blocking budget savings measures. So on the one hand they are saying we are spending too much, and when we have measures in the Senate designed to reduce government spending what does the coalition do? It opposes them. Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal. That is the problem. You have the opposition leader with every possible position so that he can look back at the records and say ‘I had that position.’ Well he probably did have that position. He had every possible position. The stimulus is too much. The stimulus is too little. He said the stimulus is ineffective. It is not supporting jobs. Then you have the shadow Treasurer saying, ‘Well jobs after all were not the top priority.’ He was asked about that—remember they were running around saying, ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs.’ Then, when the first crack of light appeared and there was a suggestion of a possible interest rate rise, the shadow Treasurer said, ‘Well, it’s interest rates, it’s not jobs’, when he was asked. So is jobs the top priority? No, it is interest rates. They abandoned the Australian working people just like that. Why? Because there was an opportunity for them to switch their attack, to say it is all about interest rates. Okay, if you do not care about jobs let us talk about interest rates.
The previous Prime Minister of this country said in the 2004 election campaign, ‘We will keep interest rates at record lows.’ It was across the lectern. Do you know what he said when he was brought to account for that? He said, ‘I didn’t say that.’ What happened? Interest rates went up 10 times in succession under the coalition government. So if you are looking for a political party that is the party of high taxes, just go no further than the Liberal Party. If you are looking for a political party that has promised to keep interest rates at record lows—but they went up 10 times—go to the Liberal Party.
That is why I say, ‘Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal,’ because you are always saying one thing out of one side of your mouth and something else out of the other side of your mouth. The fact is that this government has consistently supported small businesses. I thank the very many members of the government side who expressed a genuine interest in small business in their local communities by inviting me to their local communities and who had enough interest in small business to formulate a few questions about small business and come into this parliament and ask them. The only way the shadow minister for small business can get to the dispatch box is by either taking a point of order or having an MPI, because the chair of tactics, the member for O’Connor, Wilson Tuckey, will not give him a guernsey. That is the problem for you. Now you have had this debate and you have said we should be reducing taxes and we are the high-taxing government. But yours was the high-taxing government. Yours was the government that falsely promised that you would keep interest rates at record lows. You have had every possible position on economic stimulus. Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal.
It is a pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance and once again follow another rant from the member for Rankin in his regular appearances here. The member for Moncrieff is quite right. What did you call him—a two-stroke mower?
Yes.
But that just then was more of a whipper snipper performance. In all of the contribution that the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy made, not once did he address the issue of the level of Labor’s spending and the level of Labor’s debt and their relationship to interest rates and the effect that has on small business. In the world of the minister for small business there is no relationship whatsoever between the level of government debt and deficit and interest rates. That is a truly horrifying prospect for the nearly 2.4 million small businesses in this country: their minister, the one charged with looking after their interests, thinks that the level of debt from reckless spending has no impact or bearing on interest rates. Interest rates, as the member for Moncrieff outlined, are the vital indicator that signals the health of those 2.4 million small businesses. You need only ask them about that.
The minister, the member for Rankin, talked about his visits to small businesses made with those who are on the government backbench, some of whom are here in this chamber. I suggest that the next time he goes on a visit he should ask small businesses about the impact of interest rates during the last time Labor was in power. There are two great visual images from the Keating recession. The first is a queue of people looking for a job outside a restaurant in Melbourne, and it stretched for hundreds of metres. The other is of those vacant shops in every main street in every town all over Australia. We on this side of the House have met those small business men and women who suffered because of Labor’s reckless economic policy, many of whom went broke. Only in the last few years have they begun to find their feet again. This minister for small business thinks that it does not matter how high the debt is or how big the stimulus package is—it is at about $40 billion, in the minister’s mind, but I am not sure whether it is $80 billion or $160 billion—as none of that would affect the level of interest rates. This is the fantasy world in which he lives. What is truly horrifying is that I am convinced he actually believes that.
We know that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation do not believe that. We know that from what they have said in the past. We know—and those opposite who have a skerrick of economic understanding know—that the higher the debt and the more reckless the spending policies the more pressure is placed on interest rates. They know that, but they do not want to take the member for Moncrieff’s word or my word. Well, they can take the Treasurer’s words from 2006, when he was the shadow Treasurer. He said this of the former government:
This government have to accept some responsibility. They were always out there claiming credit when the figures were good. They said it was their magnificent economic effort that produced a low inflation, low interest rates environment. Suddenly, when it turns into a high interest rate, high inflation environment, it has nothing to do with them at all.
At the start of 2008 we had the Prime Minister make this point in his keynote address on tackling inflation. In this address that he gave in Perth he outlined a five-point plan. He said:
It should make the job of the Reserve Bank easier not harder.
That is why the government is committed to strengthening the budget position as well as improving the quality of public spending.
That was his task. But what he knows and what most of those opposite know is that their economic policies are making the job of the Reserve Bank harder. They are doing that today. The minister for finance said this in May last year, at a period of time when they were talking about the inflation genie being out of the bottle and they were still Kevin’s economic conservatives in those days:
There has been one important area, amongst the various factors involved in those interest rate increases, where the former government had direct control over, negligently failed to deal with and, as a result, has contributed very significantly to the increase in inflation and the increase in interest rates, and that is government spending.
So he thought the one thing that the former government—which he chastised after it had paid off $96 billion of debt and been running a budget surplus of around $20 billion—had control over that would ease the pressure on interest rates was government spending. This is a straight economic fact. The fact is that the more pressure the government places on fiscal policy—so the more reckless it is with fiscal policy—the more pressure it places on interest rates.
Things have turned out not to be as bad as forecast, as the member for Moncrieff said. Eminent economists like Professor Garnaut make the obvious point that once there are signs the economy is recovering faster than it had been anticipated then it is appropriate to pull back that stimulus at a faster rate. The minister for small business and those opposite can attack us and chastise us but, every time they do, they know they are saying Ross Garnaut does not know what he is talking about. They are ignoring the growing chorus of economists making the point that if fiscal policy is too stimulatory monetary policy has to do more work and that means that interest rates which are rising will rise more than they otherwise needed to and stay higher for longer than they otherwise needed to. To argue otherwise is to say it does not matter how high the debt goes. That would be to argue it never matters how high the debt or the deficit is.
Next Tuesday is Melbourne Cup day. There will be a lot of bets placed. One of them will not be whether there will be an interest rate rise, I think we can all safely assume, but there might be a bet about how high that rise is. There will not be a bet about whether there will be future interest-rate rises. But what those 2.4 million small business owners know, because they have lived through Labor’s economic irresponsibility before, is that however high rates go, however many rate increases there are, they will go higher than they need to and they will stay high longer at those higher rates than they needed to because of the fiscal irresponsibility and stubbornness of this government.
As the member for Moncrieff pointed out, the government’s response for small business has not been first-rate. The primary measure in their stimulus package, as he said, on its own was not a bad measure but it would not be the first policy you would deploy given the circumstances in February. Now we are faced, months after that, with a circumstance where we have a contest between the Treasurer’s and the Prime Minister’s vanity on the one side and the interests of small business on the other. For those sitting here on the back bench with their speaking notes that have the word ‘decisive’ inserted at every 25 words, I would say ‘do your job in the caucus and represent your small businesses’.
The absolute hypocrisy of the Liberal Party, to come here and lecture us about interest rates when we had the promise in 2004 of keeping interest rates at record lows! What is the reality today? Interest rates are 350 basis points lower than they were when we came into government.
The member for Casey is particularly good at going back and talking about the past, the glory days and he looks through rose coloured glasses on the Howard era. It is one of his favourite topics—how wonderful things used to be in the past. It reflects the Liberal Party through and through. It is a party that always looks backwards, not a party that looks forward. It is not a party that is prepared to meet the challenges of the global financial crisis but one that harks back to the way things used to be in the good old days. The one thing I got out of his contribution was that he actually mentioned the word that the Liberal Party does not like to mention much these days and that is ‘jobs’. He actually let that out of the bag when he said jobs were something he remembers from the Keating era as being a problem.
These stimulus packages are about jobs. That is what they are fundamentally about. Without these stimulus packages we would be in a much worse position in terms of employment and we would have much longer job queues than we have at the moment. That is why the Liberal Party no longer talks about this issue—they know the stimulus package is cushioning small business in terms of being able to hold on to employees, making sure that they have a job and making sure that they can continue to work.
The member for Moncrieff’s contribution in terms of policy development was interesting. He let the cat right out of the bag. You do not look at the advice of the IMF, you do not look at the advice of Treasury, you do not worry about the RBA and what they have to say, and you do not look at what Rory Robinson, Craig James or other leading economists around this country or around the world say what needs to happen in terms of the global financial crisis—you base your policy on what someone may tell you on Facebook. What a revelation we had today. We have a Liberal Party who are having their policy designed by Facebook. It is no wonder they are such a rabble. That probably explains why they have so many different positions on the global financial crisis. You can just imagine them sitting there looking at the computer and saying, ‘Oh gosh, there is a comment there on my Facebook page that we should perhaps look at some particular aspect that I haven’t thought of before.’ It is just crazy for the opposition to be admitting that their economic position and their policy are being determined by Facebook.
Let us look at what the package actually did. I want to look at it through the eyes of a backbencher on the Central Coast, what it means for my community and what effects it has had. On the Central Coast, retail is the biggest employer. As we all know, when there is a downturn retail is an area where jobs are shed and the hours that people work are reduced. This economic stimulus package was aimed at jobs and at supporting retail, and that is exactly the effect it had. It had that effect in my electorate and it had that effect right across Australia. That is why we are one of the few countries where, since that first economic stimulus package was delivered, the retail sector has not done too badly. They have had some growth.
Compare that to what has happened in the United States and the United Kingdom. We stand out in relation to what has happened there. For the people of Dobell, the people of the Central Coast, that stimulus package meant they kept a job. It meant they had a job, because the largest sector of employment in our community is in relation to retail. On the Central Coast, the largest occupation group is tradespeople. Of course, the major part of our economic stimulus was in relation to infrastructure delivered by the building industry, to make sure we are creating employment as well as building much needed social infrastructure in terms of schools. In my electorate we have had over 673 projects, totalling $107 million.
Looking back, as the member for Casey always likes to do, to the days of the Howard government, not only were they spending like drunken sailors but they were not spending on infrastructure. They were neglecting areas that needed money. They were warned about this issue. They were told by the Reserve Bank on 20 occasions, ‘You need to spend on infrastructure.’ But what did they do? ‘No, we’re not worrying about that. We’ve got this mining boom. We don’t have to do anything. Let’s just keep the tax money coming in. We don’t care that we’re the highest taxing government in the history of the Commonwealth. We really don’t have to do anything. We’re asleep at the wheel.’ Whereas this government, faced with the global financial crisis, say, ‘We need to act and we need to act quickly and decisively.’
In fact, the IMF made the comment:
We welcome the quick implementation of targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus.
It noted that the Rudd government’s stimulus:
… provides a sizeable boost to domestic demand in 2009 and 2010 that will cushion the impact of the global recession.
Let’s forget about the IMF; let’s go back to Facebook, because there are going to be some great contributions on the member for Moncrieff’s Facebook site that will help him determine what sort of policy the Liberal Party actually has.
In terms of some of the infrastructure for schools, I want to talk very briefly about Tacoma Public School, which is a school that is getting a $2 million hall. This is a school with 130 students in an isolated community in my electorate. The hall does two things: it provides a community hall that will be used by that particular community—the whole community of Tacoma is very grateful for that as it provides the social part of the infrastructure—and, most importantly, it provides jobs. It provides local jobs for local people living in my electorate. The building company on that site, Stevens, are a local building company. They are employing 60 people and all of them live in my electorate. All of them live there and are getting jobs because of this stimulus package. That is what this stimulus package is all about: making sure that jobs would be provided so that we can cushion ourselves from the worst of the global financial crisis.
On that building site is an apprentice who was employed a little over a month ago. He was out of work. He was in his fourth year of carpentry, did not have a job and was not going to complete his trade. That was going to be bad for him, quite obviously, but also bad for the economy as we come out of the global financial crisis, when we will be faced with skill shortages—things that those on the other side did not care to address during the mining boom. This young fellow, Rob, has been employed on this site. He is one of three out-of-work apprentices who are now employed through the stimulus package. This is just one school out of 673 stimulus projects happening in my electorate, and it clearly highlights just how important it is for these projects to be in place—to make sure that jobs are created to stimulate the economy and that business can continue to operate.
I would also like to talk very briefly about the rebate available for small business. While it has been grudgingly supported by those opposite, they say it is not the first thing that they would do. I would like to talk about Ceri Aubrey, who is a contract window cleaner in my electorate. He was finding it very difficult to expand his business, create more jobs and move ahead with what he wanted to do with his business. As soon as this rebate was put in place, he bought not only a vehicle—a van—but also equipment for which he was able to claim a deduction. He has increased his workforce. He now has 20 people working for him. It is becoming a medium-sized business, grown from a small business, because of the support that he has got from this government.
This is a government that cares about small business. This is a government that cares so much about small business that we are prepared to act to make sure we put in place policies that are going to affect small business and make sure that there are jobs so that the economy is supported. You see that on this side of the House. On the other side of the House you see policy driven by Facebook. This is a government that is acting in the best interests of Australians and small business to make sure the economy is better affected in terms of their business—(Time expired)
I acknowledge my colleague on my other side, the member for Dobell. I am terribly concerned about his isolated communities on the Central Coast. I wonder whether his definition of isolation is that you are more than 100 yards from the F3. I am just a little concerned. We have areas in my electorate the size of the Central Coast and they are known as horse paddocks, but we will move on from there.
The government’s stimulus spending is having a dramatic effect on small business in my electorate and it is not positive. Right from the start, they are the people forgotten by this government. For a start, there is the amount of correspondence I got from people when the initial $900 stimulus spending came out. Who did not get it? I will tell you who did not get it: small business owners. Do you know why they did not get it? Because the previous year they did not make a profit. You actually had to have an income. If you were on $60,000 a year, you got $900. If you were in a small business and had not made a profit for the year, you missed out.
Government members interjecting—
You on the other side might scoff, but I can tell you that I have plenty of people in my electorate who had the same issue. Sometimes I think that the other side is living in some sort of virtual monopoly world and in some sort of high school economics class; they get up and, because they say it is so, therefore it is so. I know that we do not want to go into the past, but the other side has form on this.
In my first venture into business on my own in 1988 we purchased a property. We borrowed the money at 12 per cent. Within 10 months we were paying 22 per cent. That was in Paul Keating’s recession that we had to have. It took 10 years of making interest payments and not being able to pay the principal back, so I come to this place with a little knowledge of what financial mismanagement from governments, particularly Labor governments, can do to small business.
The stimulus package has had an overall negative impact right throughout my electorate. With the dollar at US92c any positive impact that it could have made has been gobbled up. The majority of my small business owners are in the primary production sector. They have got grain prices at record lows not just because the government abolished the orderly marketing system that wheat farmers had in place but also because, with the dollar at US92c and interest rates going up, we now have financial institutions starting to wind up, closing up on loans and foreclosing on small businesses because money is tight.
We have businesses that are trying to get started in a practical way, demonstrating a desire to overcome the emissions of this country. I have providers of alternative sources of energy. I have wind farms, proposals for solar farms and a gas fired power station. The impediment to their schemes is the inability to get finance. The government is gobbling up all the borrowings at such a rapid rate to meet its massive borrowings and its spending—its useless school spending—has taken out funding at a rapid rate.
Mr Craig Thomson interjecting
You scoff when I mention school spending.
Honourable members interjecting—
Talk to the guy next to you.
Parliamentary Secretary, you go and speak to the people at Collarenebri, a most disadvantaged school—80 per cent Indigenous. When there was the $1.7 billion overspend, where did the money come from? Was it schools in your electorate? Was it schools in Parramatta? I will tell you where it came from. It came from Collarenebri, Mungindi, Gulargambone, Binnaway and Bingara. They have had all their money taken, so do not talk to me about good stimulus spending. Did any local contractors get work for the piddling amounts there were? No, they came from elsewhere. So my electorate has been completely dudded by this government. They will have generations to come paying the interest on this debt. I hope the apprentice from the Central Coast enjoys his three weeks of work, because when they have to pay back the debt he will be out of a job.
The member for Parramatta.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke.
Go easy on him!
I am going to go easy on him because, fortunately, I have been out of my electorate often enough to know that the vast majority of people in the electorate know what absolute nonsense that is. A couple of days ago I attended a meeting with the climate change scientists and they made a remark which was incredibly relevant to today, and I am just going to report back on it. One of the members of the opposition asked a question about whether climate change was real and suggested that over a particular 10-year period, which was quite recent, the temperature had not risen and therefore that proved climate change was not real. The scientist responded that, if you went a year earlier or a year later, it would prove that climate change was actually occurring, and that would be as silly as suggesting that a quarter per cent interest rate rise meant there had been no global economic crisis. On this side of the House we laughed a little, knowing that it was only a matter of time before that argument was actually made in the House, and here we have it, of course, being made right now. It is a case, yet again, of the Liberal Party trying to simplify the argument down to areas that people are afraid of and working as hard as possible with the most simplistic concepts to frighten people.
In my electorate I do between eight and 10 mobile offices every month. I doorknock between 500 and a thousand houses—
A hardworking member!
I am a hardworking local member, actually, and my local businesses are hardworking too. I would like to share with you the way people were feeling back in October last year when the global financial crisis first emerged. I can tell you that there was an absolute collapse in retail spending in my electorate, and retail is a major part of Parramatta because of the Westfield shopping precinct. There was a collapse in construction; it had essentially dried up and, again, construction is a major part of the work in my electorate. Car yards were in danger as well. There was an incredible amount of fear back in October.
When I talk to them now about the time between then and now, they tell me the stories of what the stimulus package has done for them. I meet tradies and small construction companies that had no work back then, and the only work they have had in the last six months has been work on the stimulus package. I meet retail people that tell me they would have been out the door at Christmas if it had not been for what the opposition calls the ‘cash splashes’, which was the early spending designed to stimulate retail in the early days of the crash.
I can tell you again, because I was out two weeks ago doorknocking businesses in my area, that business knows that the only reason interest rates would stay at three per cent—which are emergency-level 50-year lows—is because the economy was still tanking. They know that interest rates will rise as the economy begins to recover and they also know that, if the economy does not recover or if we had not spent the stimulus money, we would be looking at business closures and unemployment at a far higher level than we are now. They know absolutely that that downward spiral that takes place when people start to lose their jobs would have been their future if this government had not taken the action it took with that stimulus package late last year.
I want to talk a little bit about the argument that the opposition continues to make about government continuing to spend while interest rates are rising. I have sat in the meetings of the economics committee and listened to the Governor of the Reserve Bank and I have read the transcript since and there is nothing in what the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said that supports the Liberal Party proposition. When the economy started to slow so significantly, both the Reserve Bank and the government put our foot on the accelerator. Both of our feet are still on the accelerator, but both of us are easing back. Interest rates are still at extremely low levels and we are gradually pulling the stimulus package back. We are both working in exactly the same direction. We have eased off a little but both of us know that the growth rate in this economy is still only 0.6 per cent. It is still incredibly low. We are nowhere near the kind of recovery that we will need to start to see interest rates and fiscal policy return to normal levels. We are still in a position where we need to care for the businesses in our economy.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.
I present the first report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
As I said earlier in the day when speaking on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and cognate bills, the Labor Party is the miners’ friend; it always has been and always will be. We have a commitment and a mandate from the people of Australia to cut carbon emissions. That is what we were elected to do and that is what we will do. We will create thousands of new energy jobs—green jobs reducing carbon going into the atmosphere, making coal clean so that it can be exported, and exported with confidence knowing that it will not be blocked by high tariffs by the European Union, the United States or anywhere else in the world. That is why we must have clean coal. In my seat of Dawson there are something like 38,000 miners who rely on the coal industry and the mining industry in general for their livelihoods—to look after their families, their homes and their children.
So let us have no more deceit from the other side of the House saying that cutting emissions will cut jobs. I want to say to everyone who sent me an email with that title in it: this Rudd Labor government is committed wholeheartedly to producing more coal to send overseas in our exports. We will create thousands more jobs, and I have evidence of that, because the local Daily Mercury often gets the message just right about what is going on in our community. The one I am holding, which is dated 3 October 2009, has an article ‘Port power! Port growth could jump’, which states:
DALRYMPLE Bay Coal Terminal has unveiled an ambitious $4 billion plan to expand by 80 per cent and create 1000 new jobs.
Do you think that this government would do anything to jeopardise that? No, absolutely not. We are in the business of increasing productivity and increasing new opportunities for mining companies to export to help the bottom line of this nation.
So let us not hear any more from the other side—or from the Australian Coal Association, with their scare campaign. They are earning multibillion dollar profits and they are saying to us, ‘You’re going to cut emissions but you’re also going to cut jobs.’ What a load of rubbish. We are in the business of building up this nation and making it a nation that is productive and fulfilling for the people who work in it. I want to make that very clear.
The towns of Mackay and particularly Bowen will boom. I have to say, Bowen is definitely a place in the seat of Dawson that is going to boom. It is going to boom big time. The Queensland Labor government of Anna Bligh have just announced that they are doing a public-private partnership with two coal companies to build the 69-kilometre missing link. What is it going to do? It is going to double productivity from 50 million tonnes a year to 110 million tonnes a year. Do you think this government is going to do something which is going to jeopardise that productivity, which will add to the bottom line of this nation’s wealth? Absolutely not. The Rudd Labor government is committed to expanding the nation, to building the nation and to increasing the nation’s productivity. That is what we have set out to do, that is what we have the mandate to do and we are going to do it.
We signed the Kyoto protocol. That is the first thing that we did. Then we said sorry to the Stolen Generations. Then we got rid of Work Choices. There was a bit of legislation that was going to cut jobs and drive hardworking families into the ground, earning a pittance because the laws of the land created by the other side of politics were driving working people down, down, down. The wages were going down, and if you did not accept your cut in wages you would lose your job. What bad laws they were. We had the mandate of the people in November 2007 to get rid of Work Choices. We kept our promises. That is what we did. We are in the business of giving workers security, stability, a good lifestyle, a good home, a good education and a good health service. That is what we are committed to doing, and that is what we are doing. We are getting on with the job. We are building this nation. So let us not have any more tittle-tattle from the other side of this House saying that CPRS is going to cost jobs. It is not. We are going to build the nation. We are going to build the wealth of the nation, we are going to work hand in hand with the international community and we are going to reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere.
I think it is very important to get that right off my chest right now, because I have had enough of all these scaremongering tactics from the other side, making good working people in the mining industry in the Bowen Basin frightened for their jobs. It is typical. That is what you did with Work Choices and that is what you are trying to do with this CPRS scare email campaign. I have never heard anything like it. It is absolutely disgusting. You should be working in a bipartisan way to build this nation, to build the wealth of this nation and to look after the good of the atmosphere of this global world. We are working with everybody—
Order! The member for Dawson will address his remarks through the chair.
I say through the Deputy Speaker to the other side of the House—I deflect it through you to the other side, Mr Deputy Speaker—that we are working hand in hand with the international community, absolutely. That is why at the G8, when our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd went there, there was an agreement for 20 CCS—that is, carbon capture and storage—projects. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I were on the primary industries committee when we brought down the report, Down Underaptly named by you, Mr Deputy Speaker! We looked into a wide range of evidence that this is a feasible project to reduce carbon through capture and storage. We can take carbon out of coal, we can put it underground and we can lock it into the natural vaults beneath the earth, which have held carbon naturally for millions of years. It is proven. It is happening off the coast of Denmark. There are case studies there that are in the report Down Under, which the other side can go and refer to. We are world leaders in these new technologies, but the other side of politics wants to jeopardise that leadership. We can be world leaders in carbon capture and storage.
I want to remind the other side of politics exactly how serious climate change is and how serious the science is. Last night was the Prime Minister’s science awards night. I was honoured to be there to see the incredible minds that we have at work in this nation. We can be truly proud of the smartest and brightest people and the way they want to inspire our youth to get a hunger for science and research. It was fantastic. I was also there last year. Professor Penny Sackett, the Chief Scientist, made this very clear statement. She said:
If we just continue on and do nothing, if we just do business as usual and do nothing about carbon emissions into the atmosphere, the sea level will rise one metre by the year 2050.
That is if we do absolutely nothing. What did the other side, the coalition, the naysayers, the flat-earth believers say? For 11 years they did nothing. And that is their policy until 2050—to do nothing. You know the results and the consequences of that—the sea levels will rise by one metre.
We had another report come out this week from the parliament, a bipartisan report about the effects of climate change on our coastline around Australia. If you were to apply that scenario of a one-metre rise by 2050 you would find out very quickly that climate change is a very real phenomenon. In the South Sea islands—PNG, the Solomon Islands—already there is social migration from islands which are sinking because of climate change and rising sea levels. Not only do the sea levels rise but the temperature of the sea changes. As the temperature of the sea changes, conditions of air convection change as well.
We have seen more incidents recently, particularly off the coast of Queensland, such as Cyclone Hamish. I happened to be in Mackay the night that Cyclone Hamish came within 200 kilometres. It was on a Saturday night. For the first time ever, the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Mackay issued an evacuation alert warning. This was because Cyclone Hamish was a category 5 cyclone, one category higher than Hurricane Katrina, which caused so much devastation in the United States of American in New Orleans. The locals are very familiar with the routine of getting ready for cyclone evacuation. We are very well drilled and very well prepared. I commend the four councils in my seat of Dawson, the Townsville Council, Burdekin Shire Council, the Whitsunday Regional Council and Mackay Regional Council. They do a fantastic job every year making people aware of the need to have water, torches, batteries, cans of food and dry and waterproof containers for important documents such as birth certificates, passports and other important documents like qualifications and the like. They do a fantastic job.
But everybody is saying in the seat of Dawson that things are not like they used to be. The weather events are more severe. This House will remember the floods of Mackay in February 2008. We had more rain in an overnight period than has ever been seen before. It was unbelievable. It knocked out 8,000 homes. That has a direct relationship with climate change. We have never seen anything like that before. So we need to take climate change very seriously indeed. I just do not see the other side of the House doing that. It is irresponsible for people to say there are two views of the science. The fact is that the ice caps are melting, the sea is rising and things are changing.
Climate change will put jobs at risk and it will put industries at risk unless we act to protect jobs. How do we do that? We have our greatest export, coal—there is also aluminium and uranium—that we mine and then sell overseas. All mining activities need to be cleaner. They need to be cleaner so that, if members of the international community, such as the EU, say, ‘If your coal isn’t produced in a clean way or it isn’t cleaned up, we’ll put on extra tariffs’, and then our coal and our minerals become less competitive on the world market. That is why we have to act. That is why we have to have leadership from the industry associations as well as from the unions.
I would like quote the senior vice-president of the CFMEU mining and energy division in Queensland, Stuart Vaccaneo. He says that coal mining industry employment will continue to grow over the next 20 years; it will not decline. Tony Maher, also from the CFMEU—the national president of the mining and energy division—said:
This scare mongering is purely a cynical bid of mining giants to squeeze more money in compensation out of Australian taxpayers.
Let us just remind ourselves: the mining companies are doing very nicely out of the Australian economy. They are doing very nicely indeed—multibillion dollar profits. We want to see those profits enhanced, because it does add to the bottom line of this nation.
On the issue of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the evidence, we need to remember that this is one of the hottest and driest continents on earth and that Australia’s environment and economy will be one of the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we do not act now. This legislation is absolutely essential to safeguard mining jobs. Yes, we need to cut emissions and we need to the legislation to do that—because it will save jobs. It will not lose jobs; it will save jobs. The Rudd government is taking responsible and decisive action immediately to tackle climate change by introducing this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will also reduce carbon emissions and ensure that we increase our investments in industries like renewable energy—solar, wind, geothermal—in the future, creating thousands of new businesses and jobs. Just yesterday it was an honour to be with the Hon. Martin Ferguson, the Minister for Resources and Energy, and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, and Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy, upstairs at the launch of the Australian Centre of Renewable Innovation. This is just fantastic news. This is another billion dollar investment to get the best knowledge, the best minds and the best ideas to work for the wealth and the security of energy for this nation and for our people. Then we will be able sell those technologies overseas. We can help people in developing countries with our technologies. So it was wonderful to be a part of that. It is powering up North Queensland, which is so important because we have so many mineral deposits there which we need to export.
There are also schemes around the world operating in 27 European countries and 27 states and provinces in the USA and Canada. They are introducing emissions trading schemes to reduce carbon pollution, as is New Zealand. Passing the CPRS legislation before the end of this year will give Australian businesses the certainty that they need about the future. That is why business groups like the BCA and the AiG want it voted on this year. Business needs predictability in terms of costs, expenses and incomes. That is how you can manage and steer a business five years, 10 years, 20 years and 50 years into the future. Those in the business world need predictable outcomes.
There are many people on this side of the House in the Labor Party who like me have run small businesses. I spent 14 years in small business and I know about expenses, incomes and predictability. You need to make an educated guess as to what the future is going to hold. So it is with multibillion dollar mining companies. They need to have certainty as to what they are up for in the global and national economy. That is why this is important. That is why business groups like the BCA and the AiG want it voted on this year. They want to get this settled and they want to get it done so that they know how they are going to manage their businesses. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will help us tackle climate change in a way that will ensure the future of our kids and future generations.
The National Party just do not want to know. Senator Barnaby Joyce thinks we should go drilling for oil in the Antarctic. Enough said! He does not care, for one minute, that there might be a climate change problem. They are a divided house on the other side—divided completely on their science and on their beliefs—and a divided house always falls. That is what we are seeing at the moment. We see confusion and division, and they will fall.
While our legislation has been available since March, the Leader of the Opposition is now going to put forward a very rushed, last-minute change. They are chopping and changing: ‘Which way is the wind blowing? Okay, perhaps that’s what we should do. What’s the latest public opinion? That’s a good idea; let’s go with that.’ They really do not have core beliefs. Their core beliefs are split in half. The opposition is divided in half.
For 12 years the coalition—and, more recently, Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition—failed to act on climate change. They would not even sign up to Kyoto. That was the first thing we did. This Rudd Labor government is serious about reducing carbon emissions and serious about building the bottom line of this nation—saving jobs, creating jobs and making sure that we have an energy system that is sustainable well into future generations. I totally and utterly commend these bills to the House to save the working miners’ jobs in the seats of Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn. And don’t anyone ever say that we are not the miners’ friends. We are. The Labor Party has been and always will be.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills and to outline the significance of the scheme to the people of Australia, and specifically the hardworking people in Solomon. This scheme strikes the right balance between supporting growth and jobs now and delivering carbon reduction. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will ensure Australia invests in industries of the future like renewable energy, solar energy and wind farms and in jobs using new technologies like clean coal and geothermal energy, which will create thousands of new, low-pollution jobs. We on this side of the House have been very mindful of the potential impact on jobs, particularly during these difficult economic times. That is why we have taken responsible action by delaying the start of the scheme for one year and committing to a fixed-price phase from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012.
Our government, through the fantastic work of both the Minister for Climate Change and Water and the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, is delivering strong action to tackle climate change. The Rudd government is committed to creating low-pollution jobs for the future as part of our comprehensive approach to combating climate change. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will see, for the first time, a cost put on carbon pollution, which will encourage major polluting businesses to lower their emissions. Funds raised will assist households to adjust to the scheme, making sure Australian families do not carry the cost of climate change. Through us tackling climate change, Australia will see the renewable energy sector grow to 30 times its current size by 2050, creating thousands of new jobs—green jobs, smart jobs.
With that in mind, we have committed over $13 billion to programs that will increase the demand for low-pollution jobs, products and services. As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her speech to celebrate National TAFE Day, last night:
In all the desperate debate that’s occurred over climate change, something has been forgotten. It’s about jobs.
Treasury modelling shows that Australia can continue to achieve strong trend economic growth while making deep cuts in emissions through the CPRS and that almost all industry sectors across the economy will continue to grow. From an employment perspective, all major employment sectors will grow over the years to 2020, substantially increasing employment from today’s levels. National employment is projected to increase by 1.7 million jobs from 2008 to 2020 at the same time as our carbon pollution falls. Jobs will be created in new and established industries alike and will be spread throughout Australia. We have introduced the CPRS legislation back into the House of Representatives. This is the first step. We are determined to pass the legislation this year. Australia has waited too long for action on climate change.
I got our wonderful people in the Parliamentary Library to do some research for me, and I would like to commend Ann Rann and Chris Lawley for their contribution to my speech. I asked them to have a look at all the parliamentary committee reports on climate change that had been made during the period of the last government, because what the opposition have been trying to do in this debate—and I listened closely to a lot of speakers today—is to give the impression to the Australian public that this is something that has just crept up on us. It is as if it has only just occurred since 24 November 2007. That is when this climate change thing started! I heard one member from the opposition saying that we should be going around Australia and consulting on climate change. On 24 November 2007, the consultation was done with the Australian public, when they decided—after 12 long years of denial and of the then government saying that climate change did not exist—to throw the Howard government out of office. The consultation had been done. Let me tell the member for Bowman, who brought that up: the consultation was done.
The opposition go on with the scare stuff. We also saw today a member bringing in loaves of bread and cartons of milk and wanting to know how much the prices for them would go up. Members were looking up into the gallery and saying, ‘Your kids will not have jobs.’ All this was scaremongering, like the sort of stuff they used about Work Choices and about things that you are going to buy at the shopping centre. That is their way of doing business. They also do it with regard to asylum seekers. It is their way of doing things. So I had a little bit of research done for me by the good people in the Library, because I believe that climate change has not snuck up on us. I believe that there have been some reports done in the past. What have we got here? It is a list of House of Representatives standing committees. The first one was an interim report, Regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions. That was tabled on 23 November 1998. That was 10 years ago.
Who was in power?
That was when the Libs were in power, but I will not go through who was the chair and who was on that committee. They had a second inquiry. The report was called Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geo-sequestration. That was tabled on 13 August 2007, just prior to the election. Then there was Sustainability for survival: creating a climate for change, tabled on 7 September 2007. The fourth one was Sustainable cities, a report on the inquiry into sustainable cities, tabled on 12 September 2005. Then there was Australia’s uranium—greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world. That was a ripper. I do not have a date for that one—they might have just put it in the bottom drawer! The next one is The heat is on: Australia’s greenhouse future, tabled on 7 November 2000, nearly nine years ago. The seventh report was on the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Bill 2003 [No. 2]. As we know, that was never ratified by the former government. That was tabled on 25 March 2004. The eighth report was on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007—a fantastic inquiry—and was tabled on 6 September 2007. Then there was the report of the inquiry into the energy white paper, tabled on 16 May 2005. The final one was the joint committee’s Report 38: the Kyoto protocol—discussion paper, tabled on 4 April 2001.
The opposition come into this place with their scaremongering campaigns on climate change, wanting the Australian public to believe that this has crept up on them just now under Labor, since 24 November 2007: ‘Suddenly Labor have decided to put climate change on the agenda. They’re going to have these ghastly taxes and everything’s going to go up in price, and Labor haven’t given us any time to prepare for it.’ Well, there are heap of different reports that have come through this parliament. One of the real challenges for the parliament is that we have the reports and the research—the parliamentarians have standing committees, go to all these meetings and take in evidence—but we then need a conduit that takes that to where the policy is formulated. All these reports are an absolute waste of time unless we actually react to what they are saying.
Mr Bidgood interjecting
That is right. I will briefly touch on the amendments that have been put forward by the good member for Groom. He is a good fella; he is a good friend of mine, actually. I have his amendments in my hand. It was said during this debate earlier today that we have not read the amendments—that we all just come out and read the script as it is delivered, straight from the Prime Minister’s office. What a load of rot. People on this side of the House actually have a bit of passion about climate change. Just because I am based in Darwin, it does not mean that I do not have feelings for those families that live in Flynn, Dawson and Capricornia—I do. We on this side take a holistic approach to being in government. I worry about the people of Page, and I see the good member for Page in the House this afternoon, because she cares about the climate change issue. There is only one person from the opposition here and he is on duty. I respect that he is, I suppose, on quorum duty for their side, but there is not another one in here. If they really cared about challenging it they would not have gagged their own debate as they did this afternoon—they were unbelievable.
So those opposite have no credibility whatsoever on this. They are broken into four groups. The first is the hesitators, the guys that sit on these reports for 10 years and do nothing. The hesitators are sitting back and waiting for some leadership to be shown on this issue. At the moment they are looking to East Timor, Tonga, Nauru or maybe the Solomon Islands: ‘Can we get them to show a bit of leadership on behalf of the Pacific? We in Australia want to sit back and do nothing.’ That is what the former government used to do: ‘Why should we go ahead and show leadership on this issue? Why shouldn’t we just sit back and wait?’ They are the hesitators. Then there are the imitators. I love the imitators; they are a good group. They are the ones who, when they are out in their electorates, are a little bit left of centre: ‘Yeah, climate change is a really big issue. I’m really worried about the future of the planet.’ Then, when they come in here, they do not say a word; they just sit there. They just leave it to the hard right. The hard right are the terminators. They are the terminators because they cut down anybody that has an opinion on climate change in the opposition party room. Bang!—they are cut straight down. So they have the hesitators, the imitators and the terminators. That is what they have on their side of the parliament. There is another bloke I will not mention who is right out there by himself in the way that he thinks of climate change. I will not even mention him.
This is a serious issue that was delayed for too long under the former government. What really annoys me about this is that they want to lead the Australian public to believe that we have just snuck up on them and put this out there, when I have just listed 10 different reports that were tabled—and I will table those—over the life of the former government that talked about climate change, the Kyoto protocol, carbon emissions and all the things that this debate is about.
As I see it, the reason it is vital that we take a position to Copenhagen is that we can fight for our high-emitting industries, fight for the coal industry and fight for the agricultural industry. We are in the room and we have our position. There is no need for us to wait any longer. We as a country should be showing leadership on climate change. We should be going to Copenhagen in a positive manner to say: ‘This is what we are doing for our industries, for our people, for our biodiversity, for our sustainable cities and for our coastal areas that have been eroded by the rising of the sea. And we are going to show leadership.’ That is what good leaders do. That is what our Prime Minister has done, not only on this issue. He is a leader on this issue but he is also a leader on the global financial crisis.
The parliament welcomed a visiting ambassador from a European country during the week and a question was asked of him by those opposite regarding the ‘global financial downturn’—I think that was their phrase. This individual said that they had to bail out one of their banks to the tune of $60 billion, which is a little more than a downturn. Another member opposite thought he would throw a question out about ‘this climate change stuff’. This guy rattled off a few things and said, ‘Our snowfields are melting at 4,000 feet and, actually, we tried to get Australia to ratify the Kyoto protocol.’ Bang, bang!—two knockout punches there. That country will get crossed off the list. They will not support the opposition’s position on climate change or the global financial crisis, so we will cross them off the list. The hesitators, the imitators and the terminators—that is all they have over there.
Scientists agree that carbon pollution is causing the world’s climate to change. This change is resulting in more extreme weather events, higher temperatures, more droughts and rising sea levels. In Darwin, there used to be an average of one category 5 cyclone every 1,000 years. Three categories 5 cyclones have come through our area in the last 10 years, so there certainly has been a change in extreme weather events. We saw what happened with the bushfires in Victoria in early February this year—another extreme weather event. These events all have significant consequences for people in my electorate.
Scientific research tells us the Top End is likely to become hotter and wetter and the Centre hotter and drier. The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones or storm surges are likely to increase. Rises in temperatures could lead to the loss of 80 per cent of freshwater wetlands in Kakadu. Rising sea levels, increased frequency of tropical cyclones and extreme weather events are likely to significantly impact on biodiversity, critical habitats, tourism and food and cultural values important to traditional landowners. Science suggests that uncontrolled climate change could see real threats to coastal housing and infrastructure, with tropical diseases becoming more common, particularly amongst the elderly, and more people suffering from heat related illnesses and death. That is why everyone needs to do their bit to tackle carbon pollution.
Australia is one of the hottest and driest continents on earth. Our environment and economy will be one of the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we do not act now. Leadership from the developed world encourages other countries to join the global fight. That is such an important point. It has to come from the developed world. The First World needs to lead the way for the developing world to make sure that we address climate change. Only yesterday the Minister for Climate Change and Water travelled to Spain for three days of ministerial talks on climate change. Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen highlighted the meeting as an opportunity to kick-start the last remaining week of formal United Nations negotiations prior to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. With Copenhagen only weeks away, these meetings are an important opportunity to make progress on key issues central to achieving consensus. Australia is actively participating and has put forward a framework proposal. By enacting this legislation, Australia will be a part of the solution and not part of the problem. We will actually be in the room and not sitting outside—we will be in the biscuit tin, unlike the parrot sitting on the outside.
The world will come together to attempt to reach a new global agreement on climate change later this year. Australia must go to Copenhagen from a position of strength, with strong targets we know we can deliver through the CPRS. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will help us tackle climate change, to ensure our kids and future generations are not left to clean up the mess. We have a responsibility to the Australian people to act on climate change. The business community, environmental groups and the Australian people expect the parliament to do the right thing and pass the CPRS this year.
The passage of the CPRS will provide business certainty. The Australian government has a responsibility to ensure that our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is tailored to our national interest. The Australian Industry Group, Shell Australia and a range of other businesses are calling for certainty on the CPRS so they can plan investments. Russell Caplan, chairman of Shell Australia, said, as quoted in the Business Review Weekly on 6 August 2009:
… we believe a far greater risk is that Australia misses the opportunity to put a policy framework in place to deal with this issue. This would create a climate of continuing uncertainty for industry and potentially delay the massive investments that are required …
Heather Ridout, CEO of Ai Group, said on Sky News on 5 May 2009:
Business also needs to be making very big decisions if we are going to be able to make the transition and to do that they need certainty. Uncertainty is death for business.
It is in our national interest to pass the legislation this year, not wait around as some of those opposite suggested today and yesterday. Tackling the problem will not be easy—we know that—and there will be costs, but the longer we wait to act the higher those costs will be.
I know that the opposition have put amendments forward and I am glad we are negotiating with them. In the 12 long years of the Howard government, not once did they look to take on proposals by the opposition; not once did they talk to the Labor Party. They negotiated with the minor parties, but they did not once come to the table with us. This is an important issue. It cannot afford to wait any longer. After 12 long years it is time to act, so I suggest that the opposition act in the best interests of the Australian public and the planet rather than in the best interests of the Leader of the Opposition. I commend the bill to the House
I thank the member for reminding us of the Arnott’s biscuit tin. The member made mention of tabling some documents. Does he seek leave to do this?
Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
In 2007, when I stood for election with the Rudd Labor team, we had a plan. That plan was to tackle climate change. It was a 10-point plan, a holistic approach to the challenge of climate change. It was a plan that would protect our jobs, protect the environment and the economy in the here and now, and take us into the future. It was a plan that rose to the challenge. Since I came into this place—since the Rudd government was elected—we have all worked to implement that plan. Since the election we have had the appointment of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, the green paper, the white paper, draft legislation, and wide consultation and deep consultation with communities, industry and interested groups on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which brings in the emissions trading scheme and its implementation. It is one of the biggest consultation processes that I have seen.
When we went to the election, the people of Australia said: ‘We want you to do something about climate change.’ We are doing something about climate change and we will continue to, but that has been thwarted by the coalition—the opposition. The coalition were and are divided on climate change. They do not talk about solutions and responses. Their view of climate change prevents them from coming to any reasonable let alone reasoned response. It just seems to me a crazy way to do business. They say that they are interested in jobs and, you know, they are—it seems the key job they are focussed on is the Leader of the Opposition’s job and other aspirants coming up behind him. It is in their base political interest to drag it up. That is what I see and that is what people in the electorate see. That is the reality. Their coalition partner, the National Party, has nine members in this place and five in the Senate. The only jobs they are interested in are their own. It is like natural attrition; they are going the way of the dinosaur.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: standing order 92 goes to your responsibility to prevent quarrelling between members.
Is this a point of order?
Yes, under Standing Order 92. I have sat here for an hour and I have heard government members—
What is the point of order?
The point of order is that I want you to ask the honourable member to stick to the contents of the legislation. All this extra argument—
You have made your point of order. I am going to rule on the point of order. This has been a very wide-ranging debate and there have been similar comments from both sides. I would remind members, though, that we do have legislation before the House and I ask them to be relevant to it.
I will be relevant to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] but relevant to the context of the legislation that is being debated and discussed in this place and with us in the community. My comments are contextualising the debate around the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the emissions trading scheme. I have had some of the National Party members trail through my electorate and they talk about it being a tax. No, it is not a tax. It is a cost on what always should have been costed and factored into our economy. It is not a tax.
But enough of that sort of political madness from the other side. What the Rudd government is doing—what we said we would do—is tackle climate change with the 10-point plan, a plan for our future, to ensure that we and our kids, their kids and their grandkids, will have a future. It is a plan that will save jobs. I will turn to some facts on that a little bit later. ‘Protect the environment, protect the economy’ is ultimately what we have to do. It transitions us to a low greenhouse gas emission economy and a renewable energy economy and society. That is a challenge and the Rudd Labor government is up to that challenge, and it is actually doing it.
The thrust of the emissions trading scheme is to place a market price on carbon pollution. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will start to reduce emissions. The Rudd government also has three pillars of action on climate change. We know what they are—it is pretty straightforward. The first is to reduce Australia’s emissions. That is what we have to do. That is what we are committed to do. That is what the electorates want us to do and that is what we are attempting to do. No. 2 is to adapt to the effects of climate change that we cannot avoid. We have an adaptation program and policies in place to take us there, across all sectors of society. No. 3 is playing a strong role in the global effort. I note that Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has become ‘friend of the chair’ in Copenhagen, which is quite an honour and responsibility. It demonstrates the role that we are playing not only domestically but internationally.
What amazes me is that some people, and I hear it in this place on the other side, say climate change does not exist. They are climate change deniers. Climate change does exist. It is a naturally occurring process plus it has been exacerbated by human activity. Climate change exists; it is a fact. You cannot deny it. People might debate where and how and all of that, but it exists. We know that it is a fact. I find the denials quite incredible. Again, the other side says the science is not clear. I do not know how much clearer they want the science to be. The science is in. You read the science and it is really clear that climate change is happening in our time and human activity has accelerated that, and there are negative impacts. Today I heard the member for Tangney talking about having an inquiry into the science—an inquiry into an inquiry! How many inquiries do we have to have? Twelve years and then another two years; it is just bizarre.
I also hear a few scientists join the fray. They join the fray not as scientists but as citizens with their opinions like everybody else, but they do it under the guise of the academia and being scientists. You have to listen. I did listen to some speeches today. I have been in this place for two years, but today was the most consistent compilation of ignorance I have heard since I have been here. It really was quite breathtaking. I think if the scientists were listening—and I am sure they are not tuned in to us today—they would have been quite amazed at some of the things they would have heard from the other side.
Last week Mark Dreyfus and Dr Mal Washer organised with Climate Works some very eminent scientists to come here. A number of colleagues from all sides had lunch with them. Over sandwiches we were able to chat about climate change. It was a real treat. It was not long enough. When we were having that discussion we were able to ask any question or raise anything. Those of us who have been in the teaching profession often say: ‘It is all right. You can get up and ask a stupid question.’ We were able to do that. As I was talking with some of those scientists I wished that every member of our communities had the same opportunity. It would be enlightening for them to have that conversation, but I know that is not possible.
Members of our communities have to rely on their local members to communicate with them about climate change. I find incomprehensible what the member for Tangney and some other members on the other side share with their electorates. My mind boggles. Senator Joyce in the other place talked nonsense. He said a leg of lamb is going to cost $100. That is absolute bunkum. I have never heard such rot in all my life. He represents Queensland. Poor Queenslanders have to listen to that sort of tripe all of the time.
My community is quite green. Targets have been set, yet quite a few members in my community would like us to have the ultimate targets for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. My green community knows that Australia’s climate is changing, and it is not for the better. The changes are observable to us and measurable to scientists, and scientists bring some meaning to that. It behoves us to listen to what they have said.
People regularly look at the Bureau of Meteorology’s website—or BOM, as we call it. Farmers use that website. In my area, which has a lot of hail, storms, floods and fires, we all regularly go to that website. Staff wondering when they should drive home, because there is a big storm coming, will look at that website. We all look at it. That website has credibility. Under the heading ‘Australia’s climate is changing’ it states:
It is the Bureau’s responsibility to provide decision makers and the general public with accurate observations and information about our changing climate.
Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. Rainfall patterns have also changed—the northwest has seen an increase in rainfall over the last 50 years while much of eastern Australia and the far southwest have experienced a decline.
In the language of the scientists:
Observed changes in climate, especially in temperature increases since about 1970, cannot be explained solely by natural causes such as solar activity—
that fact is really clear—
Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1000 years indicates that this recent warming is unusual and is unlikely to have resulted from natural causes alone.
That is the language of the scientists—it is ‘unlikely’; 99.9 per cent, beyond reasonable doubt, to put it in lay terms.
The earth is heating up. We are experiencing more catastrophic events. We have had 12 of the driest years on record. We live on the driest and hottest continent on earth. We do not have a lot of water. About 80 per cent of us live in coastal communities and see the coast and the rivers and think we have a lot of water, but we do not. It is a real problem. The scientists say that the current global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is approximately 380 parts per million and the rate of increase has been exponential in the industrialised period. Again, that tells us something.
The Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change gave a ministerial statement in this place on 12 August. It is worth restating some things he said. It was called ‘The scientific imperative to act on climate change’. It is important that we keep restating the scientific imperative because that is why the Rudd government is doing this. He stated:
This science has been thoroughly tested and verified—
I agree—
These statements are based on careful analysis of hundreds of papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature—
I agree; I have read a lot of it. He continued:
Publication in newspapers and blogs—
which we all see and have plenty of—
is not a substitute for the careful processes of scientific rigour.
… … …
The basic physics of the greenhouse effect have been well understood for more than one hundred years.
This is not a new thing. I am often surprised when the tenor of the debate is as though we were learning something new. We are not. This is not new. What is new is the action that is being taken, because there has not been any action taken in terms of mitigation and adaptation. That is the problem. The statement continues:
Burning of fossil fuels, destruction of forests and agricultural practices have caused carbon dioxide concentrations to rise by 37 per cent, methane by 150 per cent and nitrous oxide by 18 per cent. Most of this increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has occurred during the lifetime of those sitting in this House.
That is a fact. The Department of Climate Change website states:
The Government has committed to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution to 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million CO2 equivalent or lower. This will maximise Australia’s contribution to an ambitious outcome in international negotiations at Copenhagen this December.
That is nearly upon us, and it is really important that we work towards that.
Last Saturday in my electorate, various climate change groups—and there are a lot of them, including at every high school; we have many and they are very active—gathered at what we call the North Coast national show at Lismore. They had a few events there, one of which was presenting me with a quilt. It was called the 350 Climate Quilt, because 350 parts per million is the ideal target for emissions reductions that some people—people who are really active about climate change—have set globally. They wanted me to present the quilt here today, and I did present that symbolically to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change today. There is also a youth environmental society, and I am going to read from an email they sent me, because they also had an event at the show. They got on their pushbikes and rode them around the ring, which was a bit different, because it is usually horses and all sorts of other animals. But they got on their pushbikes and rode around. They are a great group of young people, and I was with them on the day. The email reads:
2009 has been named the year for action on Climate Change. In Australia alone a number of events have happened, are happening and are being planned for the distant future. This is also the case for the international community. Saturday the 24thOctober has been named the International day of Climate Action. On this day the international community will come together and take a stand for a safe climate future. Scientists say that the 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere is the safe limit for humanity.
The Northern Rivers Youth Environmental Society has organised a “350” event giving our local community the opportunity to take their stand on their climate future. This event will involve local participants participating in a bike ride through the show grounds as part of the parade. There will then be a photo taken of all participants outlining the 350 symbol. Gordon Fraser-Quick will then address the audience with a few words on climate change, 350 and why we have taken a grass roots action demanding that international leaders take a hard stance on the issue of Climate Change.
As a local politician, we recognise the power you have in influencing our leaders and Australia’s stance on Climate Change.
They are very hopeful for me in their comments!
They’re very accurate.
Indeed, Chief Government Whip! The email continues:
We recognise that you can report back to our leaders the issues that are important to us.
And indeed I have done that.
Because of this we would like to extend a special invitation for you to attend to our 350 event.
They went on to say that their action would be one of over 2,000 actions in over 120 countries and one of over 150 actions in Australia. The email ended:
Yours Sincerely,
Emi Christensen
on behalf of the Youth Environmental Society
Very good.
Yes, very good. The quilt was made by people from Kyogle, Lismore, Dunoon, Clunes, Corndale, Cawongla and Nimbin. (Time expired)
I am rather pleased to follow the honourable member for Page. Indeed, she is correct: she is a very influential member of the government, even though a backbencher; she is always harassing our ministers and does so very effectively! I am sure that her intervention, along with that of others, has contributed to the government taking this monumental step in relation to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills.
I wanted to start my speech with some history. I am sure people remember that in the mid-eighties a scientist told us we had a real problem with the ozone layer; in fact, there was a hole developing in the ozone layer and it was increasing quite rapidly, as ozone was depleted. I think it is fair to say that ordinary people understood that this was serious—that we were doing permanent, irreversible damage to our planet and we had to do something. I am pleased that substances like the refrigeration gas CFC, which was the cause of the depletion of the ozone layer, were banned. In 1989, Australia ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. No-one suggested we should put an umbrella over the hole, or a shadecloth over the hole, or try to patch up the ozone layer! As individual citizens and as countries we had to take action to reverse this terrible thing, and indeed we did.
The Montreal protocol is widely considered as the most successful international environmental protection agreement. Its achievement of universal ratification in September this year makes it the first international environment treaty to have universal participation. The most recent scientific evaluation of the effects of the Montreal protocol, which took place in 2006, states:
The Montreal Protocol is working: There is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and some early signs of stratospheric ozone recovery.
Isn’t that fantastic news? Isn’t it fantastic news that, with a problem that is so debilitating and that affects everyone, scientists report on it, ordinary people understand it, governments take action and we implement the changes? These were not easy changes to make but, with the goodwill and support of business and ordinary citizens, we have made a difference. We have started to reverse the terrible damage that we caused. I applaud all Australians—ordinary Australians, the business community and the industries that were directly involved in generating this gas and that had to move away from its use—for what we have been able to achieve by working together. An air-conditioning business, Tempest, in my own electorate had to stop using this gas. They did it and I congratulate the management and their workers for doing that.
We are at the same point with climate change. Ordinary people understand—as the member for Page was outlining—that something is going on with the climate. We have glaciers melting. We face the real prospect of glaciers melting in Greenland, Alaska and the Himalayas because of climate change, and this will cause catastrophic problems. We know that Australia is a ‘funny’ continent in that we can have bushfires in one part of the country, drought in another and floods somewhere else. But, even so, everyone understands that something fundamental has happened with the climate. If you talk to farmers they understand that. They absolutely understand that something fundamental has happened with climate change.
I do not normally quote Senator Heffernan, let alone praise him, but to give him his due he has made some radical suggestions in response, in his words, ‘to whatever it is that is happening’—because he acknowledges that it is. He says that we have to do something; maybe move agriculture to the north. I do not dismiss his ideas. I think he is making a very serious contribution. Senator Heffernan acknowledges that we have to do something. If I talk to the school children and the parents in my electorate, they tell me that they are concerned about what is happening with our climate, and they want us to do something about it. That is why I believe in the Rudd government taking action; it is doing something.
Throughout this debate there have been a number of distractions from the main issue. These are: our targets are too much or too little, we are moving too quickly or too slowly, we are providing too much compensation to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries or we are not providing enough compensation to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. Should we be taking action before Copenhagen or should we wait and see what other nations do? Should we commit to a CPRS while India and China continue to pollute unabated? These are not silly questions and they are entitled to be asked in this forum but, on the matter of this debate, they are no more than distractions.
What might confuse many ordinary Australians about the CPRS—that is, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—is that it is not a debate about the environment. Sure, there are environmental benefits if we proceed with the scheme and environmental risks if we do not, but the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a debate about the most significant change to our economy since World War II. Those who are opposed to the introduction of a CPRS rely on a number of untruths to argue their point. For starters, they claim that Australia is going it alone on emissions trading and in a race to do it. That is simply not true. Similar schemes are already operating in 27 European countries. In the United States and Canada, 27 states and provinces are introducing emissions trading to reduce carbon pollution, as is New Zealand. Although there are similar schemes operating throughout the world, I still believe that our position is one of leadership and that it is something we should not shy away from. Australia has too much to lose if it fails to secure emissions trading reductions on a global level.
Climate change is projected to increase the severity and the frequency of many natural disasters such as bushfires, cyclones, hail storms and floods. Projections for Australia include increases in the frequency of heatwaves; increases in the frequency and length of drought conditions, especially in the south-west; increased hail risk over the south-east coastal areas; increases in the proportion of intense tropical cyclones; and a substantial increase in fire-weather risk in south-east Australia. These projections are all from the CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Australia’s World Heritage properties report, released in August this year, highlighted the vulnerability of Australia’s natural icons and tourist destinations to climate change. These include the Great Barrier Reef, the wet tropics of North Queensland, Kakadu National Park and the Tasmanian wilderness. The Great Barrier Reef alone attracts around two million tourists each year. It supports tourism across the region, generating over $4.9 billion and employment for around 60,000 people.
If we are going to convince other nations to move in this direction, we have to do so from a position of leadership, from a position where we have already acted. Yvo De Boer, the chief executive of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 August 2009 as saying:
I think it helps Australia’s credibility to say this is the target Australia is willing to commit to and this is how we are going to achieve it—that will be good for the country’s credibility.
Even the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, used to believe in Australia leading the way on climate change.
What happened?
Beats me, but there you go. In a Herald opinion piece back in 2008, Mr Turnbull wrote:
… our first hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiations aimed at achieving an effective global agreement.
Surprise, surprise! That is exactly what the government is doing, but we do not seem to be able to get the support of the opposition. Another untruth which those opposed rely on is that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will price fuel and electricity out of the reach of average Australians. Again, I refer to the great contribution from the member for Page who pointed out the lamb chops costing an astronomical amount of money.
Barnaby Joyce and his leg of lamb.
Barnaby Joyce’s leg of lamb.
He’s a right pork chop, isn’t he, really?
He is a bit of a pork chop on this one, as has been pointed out by my colleague. I think I need to get on with my speech. All these things are falsehoods and rely on scare tactics trying to frighten people against the reality of what needs to be done. We need to bear in mind that the purpose of creating this scheme is to challenge each and every one of us to rethink how we use energy and how large a carbon footprint we leave.
Those who decry the cost to consumers often fail to acknowledge the government’s plan to compensate consumers, particularly the most disadvantaged in our community. The government has committed to a 2.5 per cent increase in the age pension. This is not the recent increase, which was quite historic and dramatic; this is an additional increase, an up-front concession increase for self-funded retirees. For ordinary families, there will be increases in the family tax benefit and a dollar for dollar reduction in fuel tax to assist motorists. This compensation will be paid for from a cost charged to polluters for buying carbon permits. The sale of the permits will raise $11.5 billion dollars for the Australian government in 2010-11. Every cent will be used to help households and businesses adjust to the scheme. In other words, yes, the government will be getting $11.5 billion in but it will not be keeping a cent. It will all be going out to businesses and most especially to families, pensioners and self-funded retirees.
Some detractors on the other side would argue that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will only punish industry and cause them to go out of business—another untruth. Australian industry is much more resilient than that. Look how well we are doing in this global financial crisis. Australian industry will be ideally positioned to lead the world in innovations that will achieve carbon abatement. In fact, the longer we delay, the greater we hold up industry. The longer we delay, the more we miss out on opportunities not only for R&D and for design but for manufacturing and having a smooth transition in our economy.
New technologies for reducing carbon emissions which come about as a result of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will then be able to be sold around the world as part of a global solution. Treasury modelling projects that by 2050 the renewable electricity sector alone will be 30 times larger than it is today. A 2009 Climate Institute study shows that $31 billion of clean energy projects are already under way or planned in response to the government’s climate change policies. These will generate around 26,000 new jobs, mostly in regional areas,.
A number of factors will drive this innovation. First among these will be the need for government incentive and, secondly, the price at which carbon permits are set. These will encourage research and development in new technologies. Rather than hurt jobs, as many opponents have suggested and as we have heard in this place, this scheme is designed to help support the jobs of today while putting in place a scheme which will help create the low-pollution jobs of the future. A target of opposition untruth is the coal industry and how the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will impact on them and on jobs within their industry. The government recognises the importance of the coal industry to our economy and local jobs. That is why we have designed a CPRS—to ensure that assistance is provided to the mines which need it most during the introduction of the scheme. The Australian Treasury has undertaken a comprehensive economic modelling which shows that the coal industry will continue to grow and is projected to increase by more than 50 per cent by 2050. Hurting jobs? That is not a sign of hurting jobs.
It is important to note that a large majority of coal mining is not emissions intensive. Half of all coal production in Australia will have a liability for their fugitive emissions of 80c or less per saleable tonne of coal. Given that coal is currently selling for around $70 to $150 a tonne in export markets, it is misleading to suggest that a carbon cost of this magnitude will lead to decisions to close mines. Would you close a mine if you had an impost of 80c per tonne and you were getting $150 per tonne? I do not think rational or sane businessmen, or even accountants, would recommend that. The government has recognised, however, that the most emissions intensive mines, which represent about 12 per cent of Australia’s coal production, will face a material cost under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The government has allocated $750 million in targeted assistance over the first five years to these mines. This assistance will allow emissions intensive mines to investigate and implement abatement opportunities and will ease their transition to the introduction of a carbon price.
In conclusion, I will finish where I started off: what a wonderful example the Montreal protocol is of international action, national action and ordinary people understanding we have a problem. I think that ordinary people well understand that governments need to act, and act now. And if we want to get the rest of the world to act, we cannot take a back seat: we need to have this scheme introduced and proceeding to implementation before that most important international conference at Copenhagen. We need to set an example for others to follow. I strongly support these bills.
I commend the member for Chifley for his fine contribution to this debate and the very strong words on which he concluded his contribution. I am rising, as all the other speakers have in this debate, to talk on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills, but before I commence my contribution there is something I must say first. Reluctant though I am to put this on the record, I must. I was absolutely disgusted when, just before question time today, the Leader of the Opposition tried to gag this debate. He tried to prevent me and all the other people who have spoken this afternoon from making a contribution to this debate. Not only did he try and gag members of the government, he also tried to prevent members of the opposition speaking—so he himself was one of the people he sought to gag.
For a number of years in this place I was a member of the opposition and I used to get very upset when I had prepared a speech, I was ready to present and I would be walking down to the chamber to give my speech when, the next thing I knew, the government of the day decided that the debate should end. It seems to me that those on the other side of this parliament have not learnt from being in opposition. The people of Australia want to hear what the members of parliament have to say about this piece of legislation. Trying to gag the debate shows the Australian people, the people we represent in this parliament, that we are not taking them seriously. Thankfully, members of the government joined together to ensure that all members who wished to speak in this debate could do so and, as such, I am making my contribution now. Hopefully, some of the members from the opposition will now feel they are able to pull their speech out of the drawer and come down here into the House and make their contribution.
We on this side of the House believe that climate change is a real fact of life. We believe it is a great threat to our very existence. We believe that unless we act—and act now and act quickly—we will end up in a situation where the consequences of not acting will both be very expensive and have an enormous impact on our way of life. It is because we take the issue of climate change so seriously and because we recognise that climate change needs to be acted upon globally that the first act of the Rudd government was to sign the Kyoto agreement—unlike the Howard government that buried its head in the sand.
Following that signing, the Rudd government commenced the process of looking at the best way to address climate change. That process started with the Garnaut report, which found that the current emissions trend would have a severe and costly impact on our economy. It would affect agriculture, infrastructure, iconic environmental assets and tourism destinations such as the Great Barrier Reef which are very important to our way of life and our economy. The report concluded that the cost of inaction would have a greater impact on jobs and the economy than taking responsible action on climate change. What we have before us today is legislation that does just that: it puts in place a blueprint for responsible action.
Australia has adopted a three-pillar approach to climate change: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to climate change we cannot avoid, and helping shape the global solution. The Rudd government believes that a CPRS is the most effective way to reduce carbon pollution whilst minimising the impact on businesses and households. We believe that you have to have the strength to put a CPRS in place.
What we have seen in this parliament over the last month or so is an opposition that does not have the strength to address the issue of climate change. What we have seen is an opposition that is divided and a government that is united in its intent to address the issue of climate change. We have an opposition that is more intent on fighting amongst itself that it is on addressing the most pressing issue facing Australians today.
We believe it is in the nation’s interest to pass this legislation and to immediately address the issue of climate change. Every sector of our society—be it businesses or environmental groups—looks to the parliament to act, to create certainty so we can move on from this impasse we are currently at. The legislation, put simply, places a limit, or cap, on the amount of carbon pollution industries can emit. It requires effective businesses to buy pollution permits. The mandatory obligation under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will commence from 1 July 2011 and will encourage action to reduce carbon pollution from 2010.
The scheme includes greenhouse gases included under the Kyoto protocol. Emissions from stationary energy will also be covered from the start of the scheme. The scheme will cover around 75 per cent of emissions. Assistance in the form of administrative allocation of permits will be provided to new and existing firms engaged in EITE activities. Permits will initially be provided at a 90 per cent rate for most emissions-intensive activities and a 60 per cent rate for activities that are moderately emissions intensive. The global recession buffer will apply to allocated baseline emissions per unit of output for activities. The scheme recognises voluntary action, and a household assistance package is covered by the legislation before us today.
I will now move away from the details of the bill, which is being discussed at great length by a number of people in this parliament, and address some other issues that have been raised during the debate. Members on the other side have emphasised their belief that this legislation will cost jobs. I would argue that there is plenty of information available to show that it will not cost jobs. Rather, it will face the economy in a new direction and lead to the creation of many, many new jobs and many new industries.
On Tuesday there was a climate change forum in Newcastle. At this forum we had speakers like Sharon Burrow, ACTU President, who talked about one million new jobs that would be created in the energy revolution; Don Henry, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, who talked about strengthening the economy and cleaning up the planet; and Tony Maher, president of the CFMEU—that is the mining union—who spoke about ‘the future of coal: fact and fiction’. I have heard Tony Maher speaking on ABC Radio in the Hunter. He has emphasised that he does not believe that this legislation will lead to a loss of jobs in the coal industry. There was also Clare Martin, from the Australian Council of Social Service, who talked about a clean energy future and how it can create opportunities for low-income and long-term unemployed Australians.
Whilst I am referring to Clare Martin and the contribution she is making to this debate as CEO of ACOSS, I note that she wrote an article for the Newcastle Herald. In the article she emphasised that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing our society and our nation. She went to great lengths in the article to say that major climate change risks will escalate unless we move towards a low-carbon economy. As with other people who have made influential contributions to this debate, she has emphasised that if we do not act now—if we do nothing—the cost to our nation will be enormous. She emphasised the need to act locally and globally. From a local perspective, it is imperative that this legislation is passed so that when we go to Copenhagen we have something on the table.
Unlike those on the other side of this House, we do not believe that if you sit back and wait and see what the rest of the world is doing then everything will be okay. We believe that we need to act now and that we need to be leaders, not followers. In her article in the Newcastle Herald Clare Martin emphasises that the CPRS is an important mechanism, a critical step towards a low-carbon economy.
I cannot understand how those on the other side of this House cannot grasp the concept that it is a critical step and that we need to move that way. We cannot afford to amend the legislation to an extent where it is useless. The opposition must settle differences, they must calm the climate change deniers and they must recognise the fact that 90 per cent of the scientists worldwide accept the fact that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
By investing in technologies for the future and in green, clean jobs we will set ourselves up as leaders and we will develop new technologies. This legislation will allow appropriate assistance for regions and industries. It will provide assistance for low-income earners and for the industries that it affects. This legislation will foster investment in organisations such as the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle and the University of Newcastle. These are great assets and this investment will place the Hunter, the region I come from, at the forefront of this new age. That is what I like to think of it as—a new age with green, clean jobs. But at the same time this legislation will not in any way destroy existing jobs. It has been emphasised that this legislation could lead to the creation of between 4,000 and 10,000 new jobs in the Hunter. The sceptics, the deniers on the other side, say that all it is going to be about is losing jobs. It really shows that those on the other side of this House are more interested in fighting with each other and protecting special interest groups than they are in looking at what is best for the future of Australia and our planet.
I will address again the issue of the coal industry because the coal industry is very prominent in my region. When Tony Maher, the General President of the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division, was speaking at the climate change forum on Tuesday, he emphasised that this legislation will not destroy the coal industry in any way. That shows that many of the arguments put before us by those on the other side are superfluous. They are arguments for doing nothing except keeping the peace in their party.
I will touch on a couple of the costs of inaction. In the last 10 years, inflows to five of the eight catchments in the southern Murray-Darling Basin have been around or worse than the CSIRO’s worst-case scenarios for 2030. That is incredible.
Wow: it’s happening now?
Happening now. Globally, 13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2008. That figure comes from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the UK. We listen to those on the other side of this House saying that is not true. The facts and figures are there. The record is there to be examined. We can see that everything that the opposition is saying is a furphy. The average temperature in Australia increased by 0.9 degrees Celsius between 1910 and 2007, and is projected to increase by one to five degrees Celsius by 2070, compared with 1990. The implications of that are enormous because a small increase in temperature will cause widespread changes in the climate and will lead to increases of diseases such as Dengue Fever moving south and the possibility of even malaria and other diseases beginning to impact on Australia. It will have an enormous impact on agriculture. Climate change will also result in storm surges and rising sea levels, putting at risk over 70,000 homes and businesses around our coastline. You have only to refer to the report that was brought down by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts this week—
Hear, hear! Terrific report.
As the member for Chifley says, it is a terrific report. It highlights the challenges that are being faced by coastal communities. As a representative of a coastal electorate I know just how important it is to address the issue of climate change. We need to ensure that we can preserve our way of life. This legislation gives certainty, it gives us something to go to Copenhagen with and it will absolutely act now to ensure that the future of our nation and our planet is taken care of.
Debate (on motion by Mr Byrne) adjourned.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: during question time I said in part, ‘So the deal was, “I’ll pretend I’m sober but I’ll get drunk on four occasions, or at least have a few drinks.”‘ At no time did I mean to imply that the member for Moncrieff had got drunk or does get drunk. I sought to correct that statement by adding ‘or at least have a few drinks’, but I apologise for the remarks and I withdraw them. They were made in a good-natured way but it is possible that sitting on the record they may not look very good for me, for the member for Moncrieff or for the parliament, so I withdraw them unreservedly.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: in the spirit of full cooperation I certainly accept the apology from the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. I accept his good grace in coming to the dispatch box to issue the apology, but I also acknowledge and confirm the good-natured banter. I know that in the hurly-burly of politics we sometimes say words that we do not mean. I fully accept and am grateful for the minister’s leadership.
I thank the minister and the member for Moncrieff for their approach to this matter. I think that from time to time we all learn lessons, but I appreciate the spirit in which this matter has been dealt with and I thank them.
I have spoken in this House before of the late Cliff Dohle, a former constituent of mine and Vietnam veteran. I first spoke in this House in 2006, when I called for a re-examination of the Long Tan medals issue. Cliff was one of the great heroes of the Battle of Long Tan. He was a helicopter pilot who risked his life, defied orders and replenished the Australian troops in the middle of that battle. Without his action, the story of Long Tan would be a very different one today.
Cliff died in February this year. This week the government announced that it was accepting a recommendation of its new tribunal to award Cliff the Distinguished Service Medal, the contemporary equivalent award of the Distinguished Flying Cross, the original award for which he was recommended in 1966.
Cliff Dohle is one of the great stories in history for Australia in the Vietnam conflict. It has been a difficult period in history for all of those who fought in the Battle of Long Tan. Today I wish to confine my remarks to Cliff’s role. I got to know Cliff very well. He was very keen to see this issue resolved. I know he would be very happy with the outcome for himself, but of course he would be very concerned about the outcome for all people who were in the Battle of Long Tan. That was a pivotal battle and it is the battle after which Vietnam Veterans Day is named.
Cliff was one of the quiet heroes that you so often see. He lived a quiet life in Lilydale. His wife, whom I spoke to yesterday, was very happy with the result. It gives the Dohle family some closure on the issue and it closes a chapter that has been open for a long time. He served this nation with distinction. He was very proud to serve this nation. The Australian nation needs to celebrate the contribution of Cliff Dohle and that entire generation who fought in Vietnam on our behalf and who endured such difficulty on their return.
I would like to endorse the eloquent remarks made by the member for Casey on that matter.
It is a great pleasure to be able to speak today about the Narre Community Learning Centre, a great learning centre in my electorate, and its annual high achiever awards. I had the honour a few weeks ago of attending these awards. The Narre Community Learning Centre is an organisation that provides new pathways of learning and provides alternative opportunities in life for people who go through those pathways. Headed by its chief executive officer, Wayne Hewitt, Narre Community Learning Centre helps people to undertake vocational training in areas like computer courses for over 50s, certificates in business, aged-care work, first aid, and health and wellbeing courses.
The centre employs a number of full-time and part-time staff in Melbourne south-east, which is one of Melbourne’s largest growth corridors, as well as its trainers and assessors, and it is ably supported by its many volunteers. It is a registered training organisation that provides a very valuable and needed service to the whole electorate. The centre also has programs for adult learners, such as certificates in adult education, that have later-year high school equivalence. In this context, the Australian government was able to provide just under $1.5 million recently for the Narre Community Learning Centre to construct new educational facilities and additional training space to meet the high demands that the centre experiences.
I want to focus on a very extraordinary young person that I met at the high achiever awards, a young constituent of mine called Emily Kilpatrick. She was awarded the 2009 Courtney Park Memorial Youth of the Year award, which is named in honour of Courtney Park, a 70-year-old who died in 2006 after suffering from an asthma attack. Emily’s mum was also at the awards. Emily was enrolled in the year 10 equivalent certificate II course in adult education at Narre. This young person, at 16, is about to become a mother, and she has endured significant other difficulties and hurdles in her life. But, due to the quality and incredible strength of this young woman, she has never used the challenges that she faces as an excuse to neglect her education. She shows great maturity, great strength and great courage and determination in her approach to life and to her studies, and as a result has completed her certificate II in adult education.
Emily is a wonderful example of what can be achieved by a young person. She is a wonderful young person with a tremendous work ethic, a work ethic that has been very pervasive, rubbing off on her classmates, among whom she has formed a reputation as someone who is always willing to lend a helping hand. Even through pregnancy and illness, Emily has strived to ensure that she is educated and she is setting up opportunities in her life. What an exceptional young individual I met at those high achiever awards. (Time expired)
I rise this morning to speak up on behalf of the St Gabriel’s Hear the Children early intervention centre, which is an important component of the St Gabriel’s School for Hearing Impaired Children, in my electorate of Mitchell, at Castle Hill. This institution, which I have spoken about before, was established 87 years ago by the Christian Brothers and has provided tremendous support—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 9.38 am to 10.18 am
I want to put on the record and call attention to an event which took place on Saturday, 10 October this year. On that day, the governments of Armenia and Turkey reached agreement about future diplomatic relations. The two governments signed a protocol in Zurich and, while the details have aroused controversy on all sides, I am quietly hopeful that we may see the beginning of a more normal bilateral relationship between Turkey and Armenia. It may be that we are at a point in the 21st century where the two parties can begin the long, hard process of reconciling what happened during the first two decades of the 20th century.
I know that everyone in this place will be familiar with the tragedy and misery faced by millions of Armenians and others during and after the First World War as the Ottoman Empire collapsed and modern Turkey was created. Indeed, so serious were the mass killings and deportation of Armenians that 20 countries around the world have officially recognised these events as genocide. I have heard firsthand accounts from members of the Armenian diaspora in my electorate. Invariably the stories are from older Armenians now settled in Australia, desperately sad tales of loss of homeland and family. The pain is in their faces, in their language and in their songs, and each year, on 24 April, Armenians gather for what to them is one of the most important days to remember past wrongs.
But now, with the October protocol, there is the hope—just the hope—of something different. It is an agreement to start internal political consultations in two areas: the establishment of diplomatic relations and the development of bilateral relations. Significantly, Armenia and Turkey also agreed to form a historical commission which will investigate the tragic events of World War I. I welcome this first step in what has been a long history of tragedy and hostility. I say that, but at the same time I recognise there has not been any universal welcome for this protocol. I recognise and deeply respect the concerns of many Armenians and Turks—both here in Australia and overseas—about the signing of this agreement. The events of 1915 cannot be erased.
But I note in particular the comments of the Turkish foreign minister who said in the Turkish parliament only a short time ago:
We aim at reconciliation between Turkish and Armenian communities in the diaspora and at opening healthy communication channels through the elimination of exploitation based on historical sufferings.
I note as well the comments of Armenian President Sargsyan, who said just prior to the signing of the protocol:
It’s important that our nations are able to establish normal relations.
This protocol has the support of the Australian government, as well as the United States, the EU, France, Russia and Slovenia. The protocol sends a message to the world that understanding between peoples burdened by tragic pasts is possible, and I hope that this dialogue of resolution between the Turkish and Armenian government continues with civility. (Time expired)
Today is World Stroke Day, which is an ideal opportunity to increase the awareness of stroke and highlight how we can recognise and remember the signs of stroke. Stoke is an interruption to the blood flow to the brain, which then prevents that section of the brain from receiving a continuing supply of oxygen, which in turn damages that section of the brain itself, preventing it from controlling the particular area’s body function. Stroke is Australia’s second-biggest killer and a leading cause of disability which costs the health system approximately $2.14 billion each year.
The theme for World Stroke Day 2009 is ‘Stroke, what can I do?’ This is an important question as 60,000 strokes are expected to occur in Australia in 2009—one in every 10 minutes. The theme has been developed to encourage everybody in the community—individuals, groups and governments—to take action against strokes. Lives can be saved by learning the signs, knowing what can cause a stroke and what can be done to reduce the possibility of a stroke. So today in Parliament House you can assess your risk by getting your blood pressure checked, and I would encourage all members to do so.
I would also take this opportunity to mention the efforts of the Bunbury and Districts Stroke Support Group within my electorate of Forrest. The group provides important and very much appreciated service and support, helping stroke survivors regain self-confidence and fills the need for carers, family and friends to learn about adapting to the new situation that arises after strokes. The group achieves this by sharing experiences, learning how others cope with various problems, actively helping each other and making each other laugh—so important. I endorse the work of the Bunbury and Districts Stroke Support Group in support of World Stroke Day, which urges everyone, including members of this House, to take personal action to reduce the devastating impact of strokes.
I also take this last minute to recognise a very dear friend and wonderful community person in my electorate Jenny Fry, who suffered a stroke in recent times. Jenny, a very articulate, confident person, very active, has had to deal with a number of challenges in recent months. She has done this with extreme dignity. She has taken this, as she does with everything, full on. She is giving it her best shot and she is really working overtime to try to manage the effects. She can no longer articulate; she is incredibly frustrated by the fact that she cannot articulate the thoughts in her mind and make them come out in the way that she intends. She is a very brave woman. I encourage her and her husband, Peter, and all of those not only in my electorate, but around Australia who have and will suffer stroke, the very best of support in your efforts to regain your quality of life after you have suffered a stroke.
I rise today to speak in praise of Derryn Tal, a Sydney artist who won the Trevisan International Art Award in Ferrara, Italy, on Saturday last. Derryn’s success is no small achievement. Her exhibit was one of 80 presented by a very competitive field of artists from all over the world. It is interesting that many Australian artists often have to win prizes overseas before their talent is recognised here in Australia. Yet Derryn’s triumph in northern Italy does not surprise me. Derryn has rapidly been making a name for herself in the art world. As an abstract contemporary artist she specialises in mixed media painting. Her media ranges from acrylics to oil glazes to bitumen. As well as painting, Derryn’s creativity spans photography, collage, sculpture and rug design. She has also illustrated children’s books and calendars. Furthermore, Derryn has explored the use of petals and leaves in her art to create a range of delicate flower prints. Many people around this country know of her creative designs with rugs. Her husband’s very well known business, Designer Rugs, has very famous rugs throughout this building and many of the famous hotels in this country. Their designs in no small part are due to Derryn’s creativity.
As well as Derryn’s other creative interests, she specialises in Jewish art and has a diverse range of truly unique Jewish prints. People who visit my office will see the very gracious painting that I received from the Tal family as a wedding gift. It is one of the examples of the art that I was just talking about. Derryn won the Australian International Youth Year stamp competition as well as the photographic competition with her horoscope photogram prints. Derryn is exhibited in both Sydney and Melbourne, and I am sure her award in Italy is the first of many international awards. I attended her Melbourne exhibition, which was a great success, and I celebrated her success in Italy with my dear friend Mr Yosi Tal, her husband, with whom I have been friends since university; and with her children, Alon, Rami and Shani, who are outstanding achievers in themselves, Alon being school captain of Masada College. We all look forward to Derryn having further exhibitions all around the world. The success in Ferrara is great credit to her, to Australia and to her art, and I hope it brings her the further recognition in this country that she duly deserves.
I rise today to speak about a constituent of mine, Virginia Walters—a wonderful person in my community, a lovely young lady who finds herself, as a single mother through no fault of her own, trying to cope with raising four children on her own. The ages of three of her children are 17, 13 and nine. She has a young son called Michael. Michael is disabled. He is seven years old. Michael has cerebral palsy. He is also vision impaired, is totally reliant on tube feeding, has cataracts in both eyes and, finally, has neuropathy.
I wish to speak to this House about her because she is in desperate need of a motor vehicle which can allow her to transport her family around and which has wheelchair access. I raise this issue in this House because there are so many people who try so hard to make a go of things in their life, but it seems like they have bad luck on their side and they have so much difficulty trying to get the support of various government departments. Virginia is such a person, one who has fallen through the cracks of the New South Wales state government’s health system. Unfortunately, she is seemingly unable to qualify for any financial support in this regard. Consequently, she is battling on.
She has gone back to university and she is trying to study law because she wants to be able to make a difference to other people who find themselves in the same position. She walks to the university each day. She organises for carers to help her out with her family at her own expense. She does her best to try to make ends meet, to try to survive and to try to do the best for her family, but unfortunately, she cannot do it alone. I am working as hard as I possibly can to try to raise some funds for her so that we can get her a motor vehicle that has wheelchair access, but I cannot do it alone. I need the support of my constituents and of the wider circles and I need a sympathetic ear from government to look at where we fail in our policies, both in New South Wales and even federally, for these people who are trying so hard just to survive from day to day—people who do their best to try to make others’ lives a little bit better. As I mentioned earlier on, through no fault of hers Michael was born to Virginia and she is doing her best to try to make his life the best that she possibly can. But unfortunately, it is not easy. So I call on the federal government and the state governments alike to work together with the health system in New South Wales to try to improve it for people like Virginia Walters.
It is my pleasure today to congratulate the 15 students of the QUTeach@Redcliffe program who graduated on Tuesday night at Redcliffe State High School. Eleven of the students who graduated that night were from Redcliffe State High School, with two from Clontarf Beach State High School and two from Deception Bay State High School. The QUTeach program is a fantastic program. The program is directly aimed at students wanting to become teachers. This program allows their university studies to commence in year 11. QUTeach@Redcliffe is part of the students’ senior education and training plan and contributes two advanced credits per semester towards their Queensland Certificate of Education. The students study at Redcliffe State High School after school, two days each week, rather than having to travel elsewhere as earlier early-entry pathways required. Redcliffe High teachers are the tutors for the QUTeach program and are supported by Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Education staff to deliver the course.
The program is run in a class format as opposed to being individually targeted. This ensures that the students have support from their peers as well as their teachers. Students attend the Queensland University of Technology campus for one day each semester to get a feel for university life. This provides a transition for students as they enter university knowing they have successfully completed three course units and understand how university operates. QUT have waived all tuition fees. Students pay only for print materials. Students have a QUT student card and they have access to all the facilities of QUT and receive all their lectures and tutorial notes online.
The 15 students who graduated this week have completed three semester units of their teaching degree. All of these students have received guaranteed entry into any QUT Start course—an exceptional achievement. These students started university in year 11, a significant achievement. By studying at Redcliffe State High School, these students have not had to face the barrier of transportation to university. Although the school’s teachers and QUT lecturers have supported these students, they have completed the real university course just like any other university student. I am sure that their parents are extremely proud of their achievements, as are the principals: Redcliffe State High School’s Shona McKinlay, Clontarf Beach State High School’s John Bray and Deception Bay State High School’s Jim Box. The program is so successful that they have received a $50,000 grant from the NAB Schools First Impact awards to enhance the program. I congratulate all of the schools for being involved, and of course a special acknowledgement goes to Shona McKinlay and the teachers of Redcliffe State High School for establishing this program and getting students and parents engaged. The opportunity to start an education degree in year 11 is a fantastic one and it deserves to be acknowledged in this House.
I rise today to speak about a significant milestone in an election commitment I made on behalf of the Rudd government to the community of Cooktown and surrounding communities including Hopevale, Wujal Wujal and Lakeland Downs. These communities have been working for over 10 years to secure funding for a community events centre and to have it located on Airservices Australia navigation beacon land. The former Cook Shire Council, led by Bob Sullivan, was active in working to this end, as have been the new mayor and council led by Peter Scott. In the lead-up to the last election, I was proud to have been the first to make a federal election commitment of $1.5 million towards this project. This issue of the Airservices Australia land, though, had never been able to be resolved by the former Liberal member.
One of the first things I did on getting elected was to contact the council and secure previous correspondence between the council, the former member and Airservices Australia, who owned the land where the community wanted the centre built. I set to work to understand what had happened in the past and began working with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, with Airservices Australia and with the Cook Shire Council to secure the land for the community. Following on from this there were very constructive negotiations between the council and Airservices Australia and the site was secured. This was a significant achievement as previous councils, federal members and Airservices Australia could never secure a deal, although there had been plenty of discussions and correspondence. I would like to thank Mayor Peter Scott for the constructive way in which he worked with me and Airservices Australia to secure the land for the community. I would also like to thank Minister Albanese, his aviation adviser Antony Sachs and Airservices Australia for the support that they have given to me and the community.
I was very pleased to announce this week that the beacon has now been moved so that work can begin on the centre. There was still a shortfall of money for the centre, so, working again with the council, we were able to secure another $1.5 million from the Rudd government’s Jobs Fund toward the project. In the search for more funding, both the mayor and I discussed with Jo Townsend, principal of the Cooktown State School, the possibility of the school becoming a partner in the project through a commitment of $2 million from the Rudd government’s Building the Education Revolution funding. The site is adjacent to the school, and the school desperately needs a good multipurpose hall. I can now confirm that the Rudd government has approved this. The federal government is now committing $5 million towards this project: a $1.5 million election commitment, $1.5 million from the Jobs Fund and $2 million of funding from the Building the Education Revolution. The state has committed $3 million—and I congratulate the state member for Cook, Jason O’Brien, for the work that he has done on the project—and the council $1.5 million, bringing the total project to $9.5 billion.
I want to congratulate the community for the work they have done over the past 10 years to bring this project to fruition. It is a credit to past and present councils and the broader community. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Peter Scott, the Mayor of the Cook Shire Council, and his point person, Sian Nivison, who has been working for many, many years for the council to bring this facility to fruition. And of course I thank Jo Townsend, the principal of Cooktown State School, for becoming a partner in this project.
I am looking forward to the start of construction next year on a fantastic community facility. Cooktown and the region can finally have a world-class community facility that will be a multipurpose hall, training centre and cyclone shelter. It goes to show what can be achieved when all levels of government and the community pull together to work towards a shared vision.
I take the opportunity to place on record my deep thanks to the Rudd Labor government for selecting Liverpool as one of the six locations to establish an early autism development centre. When we started looking at the issue of autism in our communities, I had the opportunity to work with a lot of my local organisations. I discovered that, in New South Wales, 50 per cent of families that live with autism reside in the south-west of Sydney. I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with our water supply or the air that we breathe. I think it is probably more to do with the property values, because people who live with autism do it pretty tough financially, and, as a consequence, issues of property values and living in more affordable areas of Sydney become quite significant.
The other very tragic thing that I learnt about living with autism is that very few families survive it. Most of the families I see that live with autism are single-parent families, and the single parent is most often the mother. Indeed, a woman I had the opportunity to employ in my office, Vicky Meadows, has a profoundly disabled daughter. It is one of those things that I think is important for all of us members. When we are elected into this place we do not exactly take matters from people off the street, only if it concerns federal Constitution based issues. Something that Vicky brings to my office is a sense of caring for all people with disability. It is not simply bringing sympathy into the equation; she genuinely empathises because she lives it day in and day out. So I am one of those very fortunate members who have the opportunity to have a person like Vicky Meadows working for me.
The community in Western Sydney has very strong autism advocacy these days, and I pay particular tribute to Grace Fava and what she has been able to achieve in the south-west of Sydney. Grace and her husband have two boys who suffer from autism. I see what they go through and I appreciate the time that they put in not only on their own behalf but on behalf of all other members of the community who are similarly suffering the effects of autism, which are significant. My grandson suffers from autism. He is a very bright and able young kid, but from time to time he has an episode which throws a classroom out of its routine. We need to come to terms with these things. We need to assist not only those who live with autism but those members of our community who care about it. On behalf of the community members of the south-west of Sydney, I am very pleased to be a member of a government that is able to take the initiative and show leadership in autism in the south-west of Sydney.
I rise to raise an issue of some concern to me. Over the past week I have received countless emails from parents, teachers and school chaplains regarding the future of the National School Chaplaincy Program. I know it is a widespread feeling across the community that schools are among our society’s key institutions. We recognised this as the former government, and that is the reason why we decided to support the National School Chaplaincy Program, because we believed that it was crucial to instil in young Australians, in our children, a sense of value and wellbeing and to nurture their spirituality.
Over the past 2½ years, federal funding has been in place to support schools in this regard with the National School Chaplaincy Program. In my electorate alone, 12 schools have received funding totalling some $720,000 to support the vital work that school chaplains do in nurturing young Australians on their path to adulthood. Ten of the 12 schools that received funding from the coalition are government schools, which emphasises the popularity of this program in the public sector as well as in private schools. Among them are schools that are non-denominational in nature, which just underscores the broad support for the School Chaplaincy Program.
The three-year funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program is scheduled to end at the end of this financial year. I am concerned that, as a result of this, school communities, including chaplains, teachers, parents and students, have been left in the dark with no guarantee that the chaplaincy services program will continue beyond 1 July 2010. This is concerning because of the fundamentally important work that school chaplains do. Figures show that 97 per cent of school principals who have engaged a chaplain strongly support the program and recognise the benefit for their school communities.
On behalf of my community, I implore the Rudd Labor government to stand up and deliver some leadership and to provide funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program. This program does deserve government support. It is an important program that makes a real difference in young people’s lives. The fact that so many public schools, including non-denominational schools, have embraced the National School Chaplaincy Program simply underscores the important role that it plays in providing a clear direction forward on what is acceptable in terms of community values but also in nurturing the spirituality of Australia’s young people. That is fundamental for Australia’s young people going forward.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Shorten:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak in support of the range of measures contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009. Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, I know you are particularly interested in this legislation. The bill implements a number of improvements to Australian tax law. I will move quickly through the first few amendments, which are largely to close loopholes and address unintended consequences in our tax system. I will then discuss the amendments which will have a real and direct impact on all Australians and on some special sectors that I am particularly sympathetic to—and that I think member for Werriwa will be particularly interested in, in light of his earlier comments about autism.
Firstly, this bill retrospectively amends GST law to ensure that a representative of a failed company is liable for GST transactions. In December last year, the Federal Court determined, in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Developments Pty Ltd, that a liquidator is not liable for the GST on transactions that occur during the liquidator’s appointment. The court said that the GST liability is with the company in liquidation. The court decision is at odds with the policy and administration of tax law since July 2000 and it puts at risk around $655 million of GST revenue. The bill amends the GST law from 1 July 2000 to ensure that the law achieves what was intended and what is logical. The change to the law will not affect taxpayers but will protect the government’s GST revenue. Obviously incapacitated companies would generally be unable to pay GST. The intention of the law has always been that liquidators are liable for the GST collected during the period of their appointment.
Secondly, this bill reverses the changes to the PAYG instalments system. It overturns recent changes to the taxation of financial arrangements which had the unintended consequence of potentially reducing PAYG instalments paid. These amendments address this unintended outcome. The government will develop a more appropriate method for dealing with PAYG and TOFA in consultation with industry. The bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to extend eligibility for exemption from interest withholding tax to debt issued by the Commonwealth.
This brings me to the aspects of the bill that will improve tax outcomes for some Australians, many of whom, I imagine, are doing it particularly tough. As the member for Werriwa said, people are often going to face extra costs if they have a child with autism. This first measure will deliver a better outcome for regional and remote Australian families who have a child with autism spectrum disorder. I declare a particular interest in that my great-nephews Leroy and Jamie Doran, from Roxby Downs in South Australia, and their parents Christine and Sean Doran; Christine is my niece. I am sure that Leroy and Jamie will be particularly keen to look at Hansard and see their names mentioned. They are the closest I have come to family members with autism, although in my 11 years as a school teacher I definitely taught kids with autism. Perhaps, early on, kids were not diagnosed because the DSM-IV, as I think it then was, did not list autism spectrum disorder and it was not as well-known, certainly in the teaching area.
The bill before the House will exempt payments made under the Helping Children with Autism package from income-tax. The payments help families access early intervention and education services for children who have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. It is important to exclude these payments from income tax to ensure that these families receive the full benefit for their children. It also ensures that they will not receive an unexpected tax bill when they lodge their return.
In a similar way, this bill also supports those who receive payments under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. This bill will ensure that payments made under this scheme are exempt from income tax. This scheme helps individuals with the costs of continence products and ensures recipients have the flexibility they need to choose the products that suit them best. In a former life as a health adviser I had quite a lot to do with the medical aid subsidy scheme, which is the state-based equivalent of this. It is amazing how a little bit of support can change someone’s life, provide dignity and allow them to be a member of the mainstream community with just a little bit of help and support. With an ageing society this will become even more of a problem. I note that the first baby boomers will be retiring next year; they will be hitting 65 years. I think I am either at the end of the baby boomers or at the start of the next generation. We need to do what we can to ensure that as many people as possible have dignity when it comes to incontinence.
Finally, this bill ensures that the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund Independent Advisory Panel has greater scope to support rebuilding efforts. Currently the panel is doing great work but is limited to spending appeal funds in a way that is restricted to what the law considers charitable—based on the legal precedents on the definition of charity from cases under tax law. The Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund Independent Advisory Panel and all charitable organisations need to adhere to these strict criteria when administering appeal funds, to uphold the integrity of the system. However, the Victorian bushfires were unprecedented in their damage and devastation and the panel needs greater flexibility to adequately support affected communities. This bill will allow the Red Cross to transfer donations to the appeal fund without losing its charitable status. As a Red Cross convener, a regular Red Cross blood donor and having close connections with the Australian Red Cross—its CEO, Robert Tickner, is a respected former member of this House and its General Manager, International Operations, Donna McSkimming, happens to be my cousin, this is just a coincidence—I am very supportive of this initiative to make sure that the Red Cross is able to do as much as possible in the areas affected by the Victorian bushfires. This bill will allow the funds in the appeal fund to be used for a broader range of purposes and will also ensure that charitable donations are used appropriately.
These allowable purposes include any purpose that is currently allowed under the Australian disaster relief category, any public benefit purpose that meets certain criteria and other allowable purposes, including: providing long-term assistance to orphan minors; reimbursing individuals or organisations who have paid for disaster relief or public benefit activities; providing support to individuals who have lived in transitional housing because of the bushfires; and assisting individuals who are primary producers. The appeal fund will be able to make grants of up to $10,000 to farmers to repair their farms. The appeal fund will also be able to provide assistance to families whose owner-occupied principal residence has been destroyed or damaged.
I can still recall my disbelief at the magnitude of the destruction I saw, safely in Queensland, as I watched footage of the Victorian bushfires beamed into my lounge room in February this year. I am sure that you as a Victorian, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Andrews, would have experienced the horror so much more. The Red Cross bushfire appeal fund raised more than $380 million to support individuals and communities in towns and suburbs affected by the 2009 Victorian bushfires. It showed that all Australians are able to dig into our pockets when times are tough. The Victorian bushfire appeal fund independent advisory panel has done a remarkable job in helping to rebuild communities and will do much more. Obviously there is much more to be done. This bill will ensure that they can do what needs to be done while ensuring the integrity of the charitable donations that have been received through the Red Cross.
On a related note, I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his efforts to ensure that donations made to support relief efforts following the typhoon in Taiwan are tax deductible. I know you have a particular interest in that country. I know the Taiwanese community in my electorate have given generously to this relief effort, and tax-deductible donations ensure that this generosity goes that bit further. I support the range of the amendments in this bill and commend it to the House.
I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009. While there are a number of provisions being put forward in this legislation, such as clarifying the GST law and extending the exemption on interest withholding tax to debt issued by the Commonwealth, today I want to give particular focus, as other speakers have, to the amendments made in relation to the Helping Children with Autism package. Why? Because it is a program I advocated and supported in government and one that makes a considerable difference in addressing the special developmental needs of autistic children, supporting their families and reinforcing the proven fact that early intervention produces the best possible outcome for diagnosis in children. It cannot be stressed enough that early intervention is crucial to children with this autism condition.
As we have heard, this legislation makes tax-free the outer regional and remote payment under the Helping Children with Autism package. This one-off $2,000 payment assists families living in regional areas to manage the additional costs of accessing early intervention services, including travel and accommodation. Schedule 3 makes payments made under the package exempt from income tax, applying retrospectively to payments made in the last financial year. This is an important amendment and one that makes the difficult lives of our families coping with a child with autism slightly easier. I must at this point point out why this is important. In the past autism has not received the attention it should have because it was a not recognised as a syndrome but more as a condition and it did not get the funding or attention it deserved. This is actually promoting it to the status it should have.
The Helping Children with Autism package was an important coalition initiative and it is not surprising the Rudd government had the sense to carry it on. Autism is not a partisan issue, as we have heard here this morning. It is about giving children the best opportunities, addressing their special needs and supporting the different developmental needs. No party at all has a trademark on this epidemic. It is a national issue that needs national support. Autism spectrum disorders include autism, obviously, Asperger’s syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder. It is characterised by impaired social skills, poor communication and restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests. The distress of parents realising these early signs is heartbreaking.
Autism has grown to astonishing levels in the last 15 years. Around one in 160 children in Australia are now diagnosed with some level of autism spectrum disorder. An American bureau of statistics study showed that autism has increased by 870 per cent in the last 10 years. Parents of children with autism face immense challenges. Aside from the care of their child, the resulting stress is enormous, and studies show that up to 80 per cent of marriages where there is an autistic child fail. I myself have seen many times the pressure it puts on marriages and relationships. Unfortunately, there is no cure, so we must continue to invest in support and research to make sure families and children cope the best they can.
At the cornerstone of the package is, as I said, early intervention. Funding to assist children up to the age of six and their families gain access to better support, education and early intervention services is crucial. Autism-specific playgroups encourage learning and development, and childhood autism advisers help families find the best services to meet the needs of their particular child. Assistance is also provided in the form of Medicare funded services to diagnose autism; workshops and information sessions for parents with school-age children with autism; and professional development for teachers, schools and staff. It is so important that teachers, schools and staff are now getting workshops to help them cope. They play a vital role.
Securing additional services to assist autistic children has long been on my agenda. It was as a special needs teacher at a school in Perth, the Gladys Newton School in Balga, that I saw firsthand the impact autism has on children and their families and the difficulty many children have in coping in everyday surroundings. In fact, as a young school teacher at the Gladys Newton School my first impressions of autism—I can picture him now, one autistic boy—were that it was quite strange; I had never seen anything like it before. My heart went out to that boy’s mother in those days because I knew the difficulty she was having. She had just been abandoned by her husband as a result of the stress placed on their marriage.
Over a number of years I have supported a group in my electorate of Canning called the Unique Group of Mothers, a support group of families with autistic children. I will take this opportunity to talk about my friend Dermott Barnard, who adopted me through the Adopt a Politician scheme. Dermott is now 11 and was diagnosed with autism at three. In fact, if this program had been in place he might have been diagnosed much earlier. Since then, his mother, Lynne, has battled to make sure that her son’s needs are met. Most of the time she must feel as though it is a constant uphill battle but you never hear her complain. In fact, Lynne is a very brave and courageous lady.
I do not want to go into all the details, but Lynne has suffered so much sickness and ill health herself that we thought we had lost her several times. I suspect what keeps her going is the fact that she needs to care for Dermott and his sister. She has had constant surgery, including muscle transplants. As a single mother—who by the way is fighting to get family payments from her ex-partner—she really does it hard. I know what a tough and strong lady she is and I congratulate her for fighting through all this.
Dermott’s autism is relatively severe and, like many autistic children, he has several other conditions. He has dysphagia, intellectual disability, asthma, serious behavioural problems, as well as epilepsy. I have not caught up with Dermott as often as I should but I have watched him grow up over the years. Dermott is great with electronics, putting things together and taking them apart. That is part of his repetitive behaviour. We actually sat down and set up a car track and a computer together. Lynne does an outstanding job of coping as a single mother, as I have said. Obviously, Dermott’s condition puts great strain on her. Just to make matters more difficult, along with her poor health of late, she also has a younger daughter who suffers from several conditions herself. So she has two children with huge issues.
Lynne has fought battle after battle but always puts a smile on her face. There have been ongoing clashes over Dermott’s entitlement, for example, to aid time at school, and I am pleased to say that I have been able to help. Ensuring that Dermott has adequate and intensive support at school is imperative to his progress. Dermott requires assistance in the classroom and supervision due to fears for his safety. He requires monitoring at mealtimes, because if he did not have that he would choke because he has trouble swallowing, and at bathroom breaks
Lynne was among the thousands of parents who welcomed the program, particularly relating to early intervention. At the time, she said:
It’s a great package because it is designed to integrate autistic children into general schools and programs. We don’t want to return to the days of ‘special’ centres.
In fact, it is not that long ago that they used to call the centres for these children ‘slow-learning centres’, and they were isolated from the rest of the school population. Now they are integrated into the school program, as they should be because it helps their development progress and it also helps the other children in the classroom to show compassion and understanding for children less fortunate than themselves.
The sooner a diagnosis is made the sooner early intervention can get underway, so this program is outstanding. In Perth, a new early-learning and care centre for children with autism spectrum disorder is underway. In a partnership with the Autism Association of Western Australia, Curtin University and Jellybeans Child Care Centres, the centre will be staffed by trained professionals and will help children to develop structured social skills. In turn, this will give them confidence and make the transition to school significantly easier. These centres will also provide parents with greater peace of mind and support and will leave them feeling less isolated and frustrated.
One of the things that have not been addressed yet, and I know that parents are desperate for it, is respite care. The ability to organise respite care at short notice is crucial to these parents. If you book a child in for, say, a fortnight’s time that is one thing, but when the parent or the carer is absolutely at their wit’s end they need immediate respite. We have heard of tragedies in this country where some parents have not coped and they have done away with their child. It is a fact of life and it is very sad. That is why they need emergency respite. That is not being done yet but, hopefully, this is something we can build on after this program is initiated.
There is a lot more I could say about this issue but I will move on. I briefly note a couple of other important provisions in this legislation. Giving greater flexibility to the distribution of Victorian bushfire appeal funds can only help the rebuilding process. Schedule 6 of the bill allows the Victorian Bushfires Appeal Fund to use donations in ways that would not generally be deemed as being for a charitable purpose. The amendment means that the Australian Red Cross Society will not risk losing its charitable status as a result of undertaking this wider variety of work. This is a practical amendment and it makes sense. When it comes to rebuilding towns, you are basically starting from scratch. People have donated money for this purpose and agencies should not be restricted by bureaucratic red tape. No-one can question the motives behind this amendment to give long-term assistance to orphans, provide assistance to individuals whose homes were destroyed by bushfires, provide up to $15,000 to individuals living in transitional housing and provide up to $10,000 in financial assistance to primary producers. I am sure that many Canning schoolchildren and families who generously donated to the appeal would support their money going to any of those purposes.
This past weekend I was in Dwellingup to celebrate the centenary of the pegging of the town. I mention this because the devastating Dwellingup fires of 1961 virtually destroyed the town and brought its thriving timber and milling industry to a complete standstill. Everything was burnt to the ground except—can you believe it?—the local pub. As I understand it, this happened in Marysville or one of those towns recently. As I said on the weekend, somebody has a rare sense of priority.
For Dwellingup residents the memories of the fires remain, and they sympathise with the victims of the Victorian fires. Out of the ashes of Dwellingup they banded together and started again. The fires burnt out 1.8 million hectares and 160 buildings and cost $35 million in lost homes, businesses and livestock. Today Dwellingup is a picturesque town which thrives on being a very enviable destination for tourists, so it has moved from being a timber town. It still has a couple of smaller boutique timber mills, but it is moving towards being a tourism town, including for ecotourism.
Finally, I am pleased that the legislation also provides an income tax exemption for payments made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. The coalition invested heavily in the program, doubling it in 2007, because it provides financial support at a basic level for thousands of Australians with incontinence due to neurological conditions, such as paraplegia, multiple sclerosis or spina bifida, and also the parents of disabled children. Incontinence has physical, social and economic ramifications for people of all ages, for carers and for the community as a whole. I want to mention a certain multiple sclerosis sufferer, athlete et cetera. I particularly want to mention the MS Society champion Betty Cuthbert, who lives in my electorate. I know that she has been a big advocate for this scheme because it has been extremely expensive and her carer has come to me on a number of occasions regarding the incontinence pad situation for Betty. With all that, I commend the bill to this House.
I am happy to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009. I am pleased to speak in support of it because it makes some very important changes to our tax law which go to the heart of helping people who are suffering from disability and disadvantage for reasons that are not their own fault: parents, particularly, who have children with autism or men who are suffering from prostate cancer and have the shame and embarrassment of incontinence. It is sorting out a system whereby the taxpayers are not disadvantaged by the seemingly inexplicable decision by Justice Logan in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Developments Pty Ltd, commonly known as the PMD decision. Another irregularity that needs to be changed results from the amendments made in the Tax Laws Amendment (Taxation of Financial Arrangements) Act 2009. The final thing is a very sensible change that gives greater scope to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund Independent Advisory Panel to support communities affected by the devastation in Victoria from the bushfires earlier this year, which claimed the lives of so many Australians and which devastated the communities and family life of rural Victoria.
These amendments by way of schedule, whilst seemingly unglamorous in many ways, really make a difference in the lives of so many Australians. Many times people listen to parliament or watch TV and see politicians speak or be interviewed but do not realise that we often work together to achieve good outcomes which make an appreciable difference in family and community life. Whilst this legislation, on the surface, seems to have a strange and very uninteresting title, the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill, it really goes to making a big difference in the lives of so many people.
The first thing that I want to talk about is schedule 1. Schedule 1 arises out of a decision that was made in relation to GST and how it should be treated in terms of a debt arrangement in circumstances where a company goes belly up and creditors are chasing funds. Having been a lawyer for a long time, I was involved in winding up lots of companies over the years. Certainly, the commercial lawyers in the firm were often amazed that I actually knew something about commercial law, having practised extensively in it when I was much younger. I am aware of the travails and difficulties for creditors and liquidators, if not the receivers and managers as well, who look after companies in these circumstances where the creditors are trying to knock down the doors, particularly the artificial barriers of incorporation.
The decision made by Justice Logan in the circumstances is contrary to the stated policy of the government. It is a strange decision; I had a look at it and it really is a situation where he has declared that GST is a post-liquidation debt, and in the circumstances it really results in not enjoying the kind of priority we would hope it would get. As a result of that decision, if debts are owed to the Commonwealth government that money would not come back to the Commonwealth government and the taxpayers’ hands—into consolidated revenue, if you know what I mean. It would really be at the mercy of creditors. The decision there means that hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds could not be taken out of the winding up and given back to consolidated revenue. It is not a revenue debt that gets the priority that it should. It is a strange decision, and I am puzzled how he came to that decision in the circumstance, but I am pleased that we are changing it. In a media announcement in February this year, the Assistant Treasurer made that point.
Many times when companies go belly up the result is debts owed to many people. I strongly believe there should be a priority in relation to taxpayers’ funds so that the integrity of our tax system is maintained and money comes back for redistribution amongst the Australian community. I think there is a need for priority in these cases, so I am pleased to support that. I think it is important and I think that the PMD decision, where it found the liquidators not liable for the GST arising from the transaction occurring during the period of the liquidator’s appointment is simply a wrong decision, and I am pleased we are overturning it. This is changing the GST law, effectively retrospectively backdating it to 1 July 2000 to make sure it has achieved what we think is our objective.
There are other changes I want to talk briefly about—and I will not really go into the bushfire one—particularly the autism changes. Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the assistance we give to families, particularly to those who are struggling with having a child suffering from autism. This was brought home, starkly, to me not long ago at a mobile office I did at Karalee Shopping Centre. A woman came up to me with her 12-year-old daughter, who suffered from autism. She shared with me, with tears in her eyes, the difficulties that she faced with integrating her child into the education system and the difficulties she faced looking after that child. I invited her to a disability forum in Ipswich, where the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction was present. She came, and very eloquently and passionately, talked about the challenges that she faced and how hard it was for parents. I commend her for doing so, and I could see by the look on people’s faces that she really touched people in that forum at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus last Friday.
Schedule 3 makes changes which are important. The government is contributing a lot of money and assistance to children and families suffering from autism. The Australian government is committing $190 million for four years up to June 2012 to help families under its Helping Children with Autism package. Following diagnosis they can get access to an autism adviser in their state or territory. Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the $2,000 payment which can be given to them if they live in outer regional or remote areas. My electorate of Blair has a very large rural component, so those people who unfortunately have a child who suffers from autism will with this amendment legislation have extra money in their pockets because we are exempting the payment from tax. We are saying to those people, ‘We want to help you.’ We are saying to them, ‘We understand the difficulties that you face every day.’ We want to show a degree of compassion and humanity towards them and help them
Schedule 4 deals with the assistance we are giving in exempting from income tax those payments made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. The difficulties of this were brought home to me by my own father’s personal circumstances. He suffers from prostate cancer and cannot walk, he is in a nursing home in south-west Brisbane and his own personal circumstances are very difficult. I applaud the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia who have made much of the need for men’s health to be given a strong focus. Incontinence is often a consequence of the kind of treatment that men absolutely need in the circumstances. I was bewildered and amazed by Catalyst on the ABC recently in relation to this issue which seemed to, by implication, advise men that they really did not have to do much about it in some circumstances.
Men who experience incontinence following their treatment suffer distress, worry, anxiety, embarrassment and shame. Giving men who get, by virtue of this payment scheme, extra dollars in their pocket to help them is really a fair and just thing to do and it is a compassionate and humanitarian thing to do. There is a minister of religion in my community who has talked to me on numerous occasions about the travails and troubles that he personally has experienced in relation to incontinence and I commend him and so many other men in the Ipswich and West Moreton communities for their determination.
There is a Prostate Cancer Foundation support group in my community, Len Lamprecht is the chair, and he does a great job in trying to get men to get their PSA checked, trying to get men to see doctors in the first place and trying to help men who have gone through this process to share their experiences and get counsel and assistance. The changes that we are making in exempting from income tax those payments made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme is important because men who suffer from these problems need continence products. They need a greater degree of discretion, not simply being told that this is the product that they have to use but income to have the freedom to choose the products that they want to use so that they can live a life of abundance, fulfilment, joy and happiness.
There are other changes in the amendments in this legislation. There is a change in schedule 2 which simply amends the PAYG instalment provisions to address a problem that arose from amendments in the Tax Laws Amendment (Taxation of Financial Arrangements) Act. It is not a particularly big change but it is going to remedy the situation that has arisen by virtue of that amendment bill. There is another change, as I say, in relation to the bushfire situation and I will get on to that in a minute, but schedule 5 does make a change in relation to Commonwealth issued debt to make sure they are exempt from interest withholding tax.
The Assistant Treasurer has on many occasions talked about the fact that we want Australia to be a financial hub. We want investment from overseas. The exemption here will provide Commonwealth debt, state debt and private sector debt with the same kind of exemption from interest withholding tax. It will mean that Commonwealth debentures, effectively Commonwealth issued securities, will be more attractive. It will mean that in all likelihood we will have more people purchasing those investments; it will mean that we treat our Commonwealth government securities as other Western countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom do, and that is important if we want to make sure that we are a financial hub in Asia and compete with the likes of Hong Kong and Singapore.
The changes in relation to the Bushfire Appeal Fund are sensible. The member for Canning said it overcame bureaucracy, and I agree. There is rigidity and eccentricity in relation to this and it overcomes the problems. It means that money may be expended for allowable purposes, broadening the scope for which the money can be used. It is clear that community projects can be undertaken and local people can effectively have more of a say in what happens with respect to the local reconstruction. I support this legislation. It will make a difference in the life of my community, to individuals in my community and in Victoria as well.
I want to thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 5) Bill 2009. Schedule 1, the GST and representatives of incapacitated entities measure, will protect GST revenue in the light of the Federal Court decision which found that the representatives of an incapacitated entity are not liable for the GST consequences that arise during their appointment. This measure will amend the GST law with effect from 1 July 2000 to restore the policy intent stated in the explanatory memorandum to the law introducing the GST. In particular, it will ensure that the representatives of incapacitated entities are liable for GST on postappointment transactions that are within the scope of their authority. This measure will also address the uncertainty faced by insolvency practitioners in the application of the law following the Federal Court decision.
Schedule 2 amends the Pay-As-You-Go instalment provisions to address unintended consequences arising out of the amendments to those provisions contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (Taxation of Financial Arrangements) Act 2009, the TOFA Act. Consultation on a more appropriate method for dealing with the interactions between the Pay-As-You-Go instalment system and the TOFA Act will be undertaken.
Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the outer regional and remote payment made under the Helping Children with Autism package. This is a payment of $2,000 to assist parents of children with a diagnosis of autism who live in outer regional and remote Australian areas to be able to access services which might not be present in their immediate vicinity by assistance with costs. This exemption will ensure and provide the recipients of this payment with certainty as to the tax status of these payments. The payments, as I said, are for families with children and are to assist with their costs, not create circumstances where they have to pay tax.
The Helping Children with Autism package is the first attempt by any federal government to fund early intervention services for children diagnosed with autism or Asperger’s syndrome along the spectrum. We know that early intervention and quality therapies provided by psychologists, occupational therapists and speech therapists can improve a child’s wellbeing and their ability to benefit from learning and education throughout the course of their schooling life. As members would realise, raising a child with an ASD is a challenging and often isolating experience for parents. I am pleased to say the package has helped 4,104 families with the cost of therapies and 460 of those are living in regional and remote areas. The payment acknowledges the difficulties that families can face when there are not the qualified health professionals available in remote and outer regional Australia.
Schedule 4 exempts from income tax the payments made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme. These payments assist eligible recipients with permanent and severe incontinence to meet some of the costs of their continence products and allow recipients greater choice in the range of products. This replaces the existing Continence Aids Assistance Scheme, which currently provides subsidised continence products to eligible recipients. Providing an income tax exemption for the receipt of this payment will ensure that no recipients are disadvantaged under the new scheme. Schedule 5 will help improve the neutrality of the tax system and bring Australia’s tax treatment of Commonwealth government securities into line with the treatment of government securities in other nations by the removal of interest-withholding tax on Commonwealth government securities. This important measure will increase the attractiveness of Commonwealth government securities in global financial markets.
Finally, as we all know, after the Victorian bushfires devastated communities on 7 February—and there were other fires in that month—a joint appeal fund was established by the Australian Red Cross Society, supported by the Victorian government and the federal government, to help fire affected communities. I am pleased to say the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund has received donations in excess of $386 million. Recognising the extraordinary and tragic circumstances and the quite remarkable and unprecedented generosity of Australians and indeed people from overseas, the amendments in schedule 6 permit the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund independent advisory panel to use the donations in the fund for a broader range of purposes than the tax law traditionally considers charitable, without jeopardising the charitable status of the Red Cross.
As I have said, the February bushfires generated a wave of generosity almost unprecedented in Australian history. I believe, through working with the bushfire appeal fund directly in my responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction, that those who gave to the fund—and this is in excess of 600,000 people—had an expectation their donations could be used to help all of those genuinely in need as a result of the fires. These changes will allow the fund to fund a wider range of community projects and broaden the number of people eligible for assistance. Some of the changes which have been underway since the minister announced these amendments have seen farmers being able to receive payments for fencing and seen destroyed community projects and community infrastructure able to be replaced with funds from the Red Cross.
These changes have been requested by the fund, first chaired by former Governor Landy and now chaired by Mr Patrick McNamara, former Deputy Premier of Victoria. The fund has done a great job. In fact, it has done an exceptional job in wisely distributing the donations it has received. I place on record my congratulations to all the directors of the fund. The allowable purposes for which donations made may be expended are, however, restricted to provide assurance to donors that their charitable gifts will be used appropriately. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Review of the Defence Annual Report 2007-2008. Any review of defence activities in the period 2007-08 or indeed to the present time would have to acknowledge at the outset the very heightened tempo of activity with which the Australian Defence Force is engaged at the moment. Deployments abroad and commitments at home are at a very high tempo, requiring the dedication of all the men and women of the defence forces.
In the brief time available, I want to refer to some of the recommendations and issues surrounding the report. The committee has made a recommendation about the importance of Defence looking to buy military off-the-shelf equipment wherever that is able to be done, in effect as a default position. Over the years, the defence committee has looked at a number of acquisitions that have been problematic for Australian defence forces. It does not reflect on who happens to be in government or indeed who happens to be running defence at the time, but there is a pattern which emerges, which is that those defence acquisitions which have been the most problematic, those that have had the greatest time delay and those that have been more prone to cost overruns have been those where Defence and the government of the day have determined to acquire what is, effectively, a one-off solution or to be first of type. It is not surprising that that should be the case. Common sense would tell us that that would be so. There will be a number of occasions when Australia’s unique geographical circumstances and our unique strategic environment will in fact require us to have a one-off type solution, and I can think of a number of examples where that is the case. One of the areas that has had difficulties over the years is the combat system on the submarines, yet in truth there is no submarine in the world that would have met Australia’s needs. The typical submarine is designed for operation in the North Atlantic, more in a European context than the circumstances confronting Australia. That is an example of where a military off-the-shelf solution is unlikely to meet our needs. That said, we need to mitigate the risk wherever we can.
There are other first-of-type acquisitions that come to mind which have also been problematic, such as the Airborne Warning and Control System. That has been a particularly plagued program. It is now some three years overdue, and a review of the circumstances surrounding it would raise a number of important questions about whether the best decisions were taken at the outset. There have also been acquisitions of military off-the-shelf equipment, the most recent best example of which is the heavy airlift capability that the Australian Defence Force has recently acquired. It has clearly been the correct decision to get a capable, proven platform off the shelf for what is effectively an air cargo freighter—a fancy air cargo freighter, but nonetheless an air cargo freighter. In making this recommendation, it is important to note that it is not intended to be a statement with respect to any particular acquisition that may currently be under consideration. I say that advisedly, given some of the debate surrounding one of the acquisitions that is presently being touted—or, at least, one of the bidders places great store on that as their selling point. That is fair enough, but, in making this recommendation, the committee is not engaging in any assessment of current acquisitions. Rather, it is making a broad point of policy.
There is one other recommendation that I want to turn to that has been a concern of mine, and that is the situation with the submarine escape training facility at HMAS Stirling. This has been a very sad and sorry episode in recent government management of naval assets. The escape training facility at HMAS Stirling is world-class, specifically designed as part of the HMAS Stirling submarine fleet base. The training for escape from submarines is an essential part of any Navy operating a submarine fleet. Originally, that training was done by naval and defence personnel. A decision was taken some years ago that that should be outsourced. I am yet to be persuaded or to see the evidence that that was the correct decision.
In any event, when it was time for that contract to be renegotiated, apparently nobody able to provide a contract was seen as satisfactory for the purposes. As a result, for some time now we have had a world-class facility for submariner escape training effectively sitting idle and we have needed to send Australian submariners overseas to be trained, in facilities in Canada, in survival and escape from submerged submarines. This is, in my view, completely and utterly absurd and unacceptable. We need to ensure that the facility at Stirling is brought back online as quickly as possible. I understand that the government has been actively engaged in recent times in bringing HMAS Stirling back online; I will be interested to see under what circumstances that occurs and indeed what assessment is done of the relative merits of those services being provided in-house rather than by contractors.
Related to that is the submarine rescue vehicle Remora, which has also been unavailable for some time. It and its delivery vehicle have to be operational as a matter of urgency. We cannot in all good conscience operate a submarine fleet without having an indigenous rescue capability on hand. There are other alternatives that may be available in case of emergency, but I think we owe it to the men and women in the Navy, particularly those who crew our submarines, to ensure that we have a domestic capability to do all within our power to rescue them should the need arise.
The final point I want to make is covered by recommendations 6 and 7. The committee, I think for the first time, engaged Defence on the question of oil supply and alternative fuel sources. Whether it is a short-term dislocation of oil supply or whether it is addressing the peak oil issue that we can argue about occurring 30, 50 or 60 years down the track, there is an important matter confronting the Australian Defence Force, which is the need to guarantee the supply of energy, whether it be oil or some alternative type of fuel, for the ADF’s purposes. The committee made two recommendations—one that deals with the short-term oil shock issue and another that deals with the long-term alternative fuels issue. The United States and other countries are engaged in research on alternative fuels for military application. Australia has had some limited engagement in that process. It is integral to the future security of this nation that we engage more fully in that research, and I would recommend to the government increased activity in that field.
In conclusion, I want to thank the members of the Defence Subcommittee for their work in the course of the last year and particularly over the months involved in the review of the Defence annual report 2007-08. I have made this observation in the past, but I think it is worth repeating: the Defence Subcommittee is fortunate to have among its members a number of senior members of parliament and members who have a genuine interest in national security matters. It is important that it operates on the bipartisan basis that it has throughout my experience in this place. I think we owe it to the men and women in the defence forces to ensure that that is the case.
I also want to place on the record my thanks to the committee secretary, Dr Margot Kerley, the secretariat, and especially Wing Commander Dave Ashworth. Dave has been the defence adviser throughout this year. His appointment will soon cease and he has got to go back to one of those real jobs, in a uniform, at Air Force. But, as I commented to the committee itself, the Defence Subcommittee could not operate nearly as well as it does without the support of the defence advisers. We have been very lucky to have as defence advisers—through all the years I have been engaged in this—people of a really high calibre. Their advice, their input and their suggestions are instrumental in allowing us to do our work. I do hope that in the course of their engagement with the parliament and the committee they manage to pick up a few ideas about this place that might help shape their thoughts into the future and perhaps change some of the preconceptions they had when they walked in on day 1. But on behalf of the committee I want to sincerely thank Dave again for his outstanding contribution.
I also want to place on record my thanks to the other support staff who have been engaged with the committee over this period of time, Muz Ali, Dr Brian Lloyd and Paul Zinkel. I also want to thank the other people who actually ensure that our committee can function and that the documents and everything are where they should be when they need to be. Mrs Donna Quintus-Bosz as office manager is, dare I say, someone I have known since childhood in Brisbane. Donna does a superb job, not just in this committee but in the intelligence and security committee, which I also chair. Her work in that area is greatly appreciated. To Sonya Gaspar and also to Gillian Drew, thanks for their support. None of the committees in the parliament would actually operate were it not for that administrative support, and I think it is appropriate that we should from time to time acknowledge it. I am happy to put that on the record and thank them for their service.
I rise to lend some comment to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into the Defence annual report 2007-08. Let me first of all acknowledge Arch Bevis, member for Brisbane, as chair of the committee, who is certainly a wasted talent sitting on Labor’s backbench. If the Prime Minister had any sense at all, he would seek to promote a talent such as Arch Bevis, who has led the committee so incredibly well. I certainly pay him the respect he deserves. I also thank the defence adviser, Wing Commander David Ashworth, for all his work. I can only hope that in coming here he has learnt a lot about how the committee works, indeed how the parliament works, and can take that experience back to his professional career as an Air Force officer. I also thank the secretariat for the hard work they have done not only on this report but also throughout the year as the defence committee gets across the vast portfolio which is Defence within the Australian security environment.
The Defence annual report ostensibly looked at four key areas and its recommendations are factored around those. They have to do with procurement, with Defence pay systems, with issues involving our submarine facilities and with fuel. I wish to make a few comments with respect to those four areas.
First, with procurement, the committee recommends that, in the absence of a clear strategic case for high risk, first of type lead customer, we go with a MOTS program, MOTS being military off the shelf. In a corporate sense we would go with COTS, commercial off the shelf: that we would buy, we would borrow and then build as a last resort. The committee recommends this strongly for Defence as well. Buy off the shelf first. Borrow it second. And if you must, for clearly identified reasons, then go for a build option. We know with Defence’s top 20 projects 16 of them are first of customer, first of type—an incredibly high-risk strategy. We also know from questioning Dr Gumley over the best approach that we should be an aggressive follower, in his words slightly behind the power curve; second or third customer first of type, to give an example. It is something we would impress upon the military, notwithstanding their ability on a strategic case-by-case basis to go for a build in the first instance.
Secondly, the Defence annual report inquiry recommends strongly that a high priority is placed on fixing the current pay disputes. KPMG has quite rightly identified a range of issues that need to be resolved quickly. The minister needs to take this as a high priority. There is probably no greater crime in the military, having served there for many years, than not paying the soldiers, sailors and airmen. It is important that we pay them on time. They have commitments, they have families and they need to have confidence in the administrative systems that support them, especially when they are fighting on the front line, which is the front line of freedom for all Western democracies.
Our third series of recommendations has to do with our submarine fleet. I believe personally we need an inquiry into the current state of our submarine fleet, its operational readiness, its capacity to deploy, its crewing issues and where the whole submarine fleet is going. Notwithstanding that as my personal belief about where we should go, we as a committee are recommending that the submarine escape training facility at HMAS Stirling be resolved, be re-established and function as a dedicated requirement to allow the training of our submariners in how to flee a sinking submarine. I can think of nothing more harrowing than being in a tin can as it descends to the bottom of the ocean when we do not have the facility to train our men and women on how to get out of that can. And, of course, we have a range of deployability issues with the Australian Submarine Rescue Vehicle Remora that need to be resolved without delay.
The final set of recommendations that the defence committee looked at had to do with fuel. With respect to the climate change debate, wherever one sits on the spectrum, what is important is managing the risks. One of the risks as we move forward is reliance on fossil fuels. I have a vision that one day this nation can rise up and be fully reliant on its own source of renewable energy and domestic fuel, that we can move away from reliance on Middle Eastern oil and that we can treat fuel as a strategic resource and have energy security as a priority within our nation. Our defence needs to have an assertive strategy on how it deals with its own energy security, especially with respect to fuels. There are a range of risks that need to be mitigated in our high dependence on oil and other fuels that go with it. The committee are firmly of the view that we need to mitigate that risk and set an agenda for the next 10 years on how we do that.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is an outstanding committee. It has taken a bipartisan approach to all issues that I have been involved with over the term of this parliament. Its view on these four recommendations is strong, and it looks forward to Defence’s response.
Debate (on motion by Ms Owens) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Brendan O’Connor:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill 2009. The coalition supports the objectives of this bill. However, amendments may be moved in the Senate pending the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the bill, which are due today. The safeguarding of children from sexual, physical and other abuse should be a key priority for all Australian governments. The COAG agreement which forms the basis of this bill aims to enable the interjurisdictional exchange of information for people working with children.
Protecting children from harm is the paramount objective of the bill. At the same time, it is important for society to afford opportunities for offenders to rehabilitate themselves and find gainful employment. There appears to be broad community acceptance of the necessity of some form of working-with-children check in ensuring the safety of children. However, notably, there is also an emerging debate about issues relating to the expansion of criminal records checks in general. In Australia, there has been a significant increase in requests for criminal record checks in recent years. Between 2004-05 and 2007-08, requests to CrimTrac, the national criminal record agency, increased by 73 per cent, from 1½ million to 2.6 million. Requests to the Australian Federal Police increased by 57 per cent, from 350,000 to 550,000 in the same period. It is interesting to note that other countries have also experienced the same significant increases—for example, in England and Wales between 2002-03 and 2008-09 the number of such checks nearly tripled, from 1.4 million to 3.85 million.
The proposed amendments in the bill before the House today would create an exception for convictions of persons who work or seek to work with children so that those convictions can be disclosed to and taken into account by Commonwealth, state and territory screening agencies in determining whether a person is suitable to work with children. The bill contains amendments to part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914. Part VIIC covers the disclosure and nondisclosure of pardons and quashed and spent convictions. Part VIIC provides that a person whose conviction is spent, pardoned or quashed does not have to disclose the fact of the conviction, prohibits others from disclosing the conviction without the person’s consent and prohibits them from taking the conviction into account.
The amendments would create an exception for convictions of persons who work or seek to work with children so that those convictions can be disclosed to and taken into account by Commonwealth, state and territory screening agencies in determining whether the person is suitable to work with children. In particular the amendments: repeal existing exclusions in division 6 that relate to the disclosure of spent convictions information in relation to the care, instruction or supervision of a minor; replace the existing exclusions with new exclusions that allow the disclosure of information about a person’s spent, quashed and pardoned convictions to or by a prescribed person or body, permitted or acquired by or under a prescribed law, to obtain and deal with information about persons who work or seek to work with children; and are for the purposes of obtaining or dealing with such information in accordance with the prescribed law.
The amendments also define ‘child’ and ‘work’ for the purposes of the new exclusions and specify criteria that screening units must meet before they can be prescribed, to enable them to obtain and deal with Commonwealth criminal history information. These criteria reflect the requirements of COAG agreements and include compliance with applicable privacy, human rights and records management legislation, natural justice principles and implementation of risk assessment frameworks. The amendments require the Minister for Home Affairs to cause a review of the operation of the new provisions to be conducted after an initial trial period.
The bill implements the COAG agreement of 29 November 2008 to facilitate the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children, including information about spent, pardoned and quashed convictions. That is the background to the bill before us. An extract from the communique on the significant COAG meeting of 29 November 2008 reads:
Leaders agreed in principle at the April 2007 COAG meeting to a framework to improve access to inter-jurisdictional criminal history information by child-related employment screening schemes.
COAG at this meeting affirmed the importance of an inter-jurisdictional exchange being put in place as soon as possible, and endorsed a set of implementation actions, the establishment of a project implementation committee under the auspices of COAG and an implementation plan. The implementation plan includes that jurisdictions will prepare, introduce and seek passage of legislative amendments within nine months, to enable the information exchange to commence in 12 months. COAG noted that all jurisdictions, with the exception of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, would exchange information on non-conviction charges for screening of people working with children.
As part of the agreement, each jurisdiction is required to remove any legislative impediments to the exchange of criminal history information for people working with children. The bill removes legislative barriers at the Commonwealth level to ensure that the Commonwealth can provide information in accordance with the COAG agreement.
As noted in the bill’s explanatory memorandum, under the Commonwealth spent convictions scheme, a person’s conviction is automatically spent on the expiration of a waiting period. The waiting period is five years if the offender was a juvenile when convicted of the offence or 10 years if the offender was an adult when convicted of the offence, regardless of when the offence was committed. The scheme only applies to convictions which did not result in the offender being sentenced to imprisonment at all or where a term of imprisonment was not more than 30 months and the waiting period has expired.
As I mentioned earlier, a comprehensive regime for assessing people who work or seek to work with children must be balanced with a person’s right to rehabilitation, privacy and employment. Accordingly, the use and disclosure of extended criminal history information will be subject to stringent safeguards and conditions. One safeguard included in the bill is that the criminal history information received may be used only for the limited purpose of assessing the risk that a person may pose in working with children. The information may not be used for the purpose of a general integrity or employment suitability check. A potential employee’s criminal history information will not be given to their employer; the employer receives only a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ from the screening unit. A person can appeal the decision of a screening unit and is able to review the reason that they received a ‘no’ decision. A 12-month trial of the new sharing arrangements starts in November 2009 between agents that already have screening units.
The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry is worth noting at this point. I wish to review some submissions to that inquiry. Bravehearts, as a non profit organisation specialising in child sexual assault, wrote in their submission:
Information sharing is our best weapon for protecting our children. Sharing powers would allow the federal, state and territory bodies to better assess the suitability of those seeking to work in areas that involve significant contact with children. Bravehearts thoroughly supports the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill allowing for information to be shared on pardons quashed and spent offences.
Bravehearts, however, believes the bill does not go far enough and would:
…also like to see consideration given to extending background checks to include, for example, disciplinary hearings, diversionary programs, employment history and overseas checks.
The Australian Childhood Foundation’s submission to the Senate committee stated:
We believe that information relating to charges withdrawn or not proven should not be excluded. The decision to exclude such information does not take into account the problems of child sexual abuse and the overwhelmingly poor rate of prosecution and convictions for child sexual offences.
In conclusion, the ongoing monitoring, training and supervision of employees who have access to children are critical to minimising the incidence of child sexual assault. In order to achieve the best possible child protection measures it is essential that there is a comprehensive approach that combines both effective screening and safe government and organisational practices and policies. As I noted at the commencement of these remarks, the coalition reserves the right to move amendments in the Senate pending the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s recommendations which are due today. We do, in broad, support this bill.
Our children are coagulated hope. Our children are our hope coagulated. They are the future distilled. They are all our tomorrows right here, right now. I say this as somebody who has two young children but for 39 long years of my life I had no children. For a long while my lifelong partner and I began to contemplate a life without children, that is not to say we were contemplating a life without hope—and I do not wish for a minute to offend the many Australian couples and singles who live without offspring. In our circumstances it merely would have been a reprioritising of aspirations and dreams of our future together. It would have been Paris rather than the playground; London rather than Lego; more riding rather than the Wiggles. I am not arguing about those options or whether they were better or worse—although I do think of Paris a little bit—but they are just choices that we make when we have children. Just different options, I guess.
I have many close friends who will be travelling down life’s road without any little voices in the back seat asking, ‘Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?’ Sometimes fate, or God, or time, or geography, or our genes just happen to roll the dice that way. Sometimes people recklessly roll the dice that way, and sometimes people carefully and deliberately roll the dice that way. Having teetered between all of these roles I know that casual words—be they concerned or careless, such as, ‘Do you have any kids?’—can sometimes cut like a knife.
I have friends who have dropped my wife and I as a couple basically because we had children, maybe because of their own poignant circumstances, maybe because they voted Liberal—who knows?—and I will certainly never ask. As any parent knows, your kids are like a friendship recruiting agency. ‘Your kid likes Thomas the Tank Engine? Hey, mine too. Let’s be friends.’ ‘Your kids like yelling loudly and chucking tantrums at public events whenever his father is just about to speak? Hey, mine too. Let’s be friends.’
I make these introductory comments about children because I want to clearly place on the record what I believe is children’s crucial place in the centre of a strong society. Unfortunately, not all Australians have the same view of children. In fact, if all of my fellow Australians had exactly the same view and acted the same way towards children as I do, then my wife would be unemployed. I say that, and by way of explanation I refer to a press release from the Queensland Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women, the Hon. Margaret Keech, on Thursday, 11 September 2008. The press release is headed: 20 Year Hero Honoured at Child Protection Week Awardsand this is about my wife.
After nearly 20 years on the front-line protecting Queensland’s abused and neglected children, Moorooka’s Leanne Scoines is being officially recognised as a community hero.
Child Safety Minister Margaret Keech today announced Ms Scoines has won the Child Protection Week Public Sector Award for her decades on the front-line and now at the after hours service centre.
I will not read the whole release, but it goes on to say:
Ms Scoines and her colleagues at the after hours centre assess risks to children, monitor families, arrange support for children and carers and ensure vulnerable children are protected—around the clock.
Armed with three university degrees, and working on her fourth, in law—
she has an exam next week, so good luck—
Ms Scoines sees her future in working with people who need her help.
And her husband is easily the best husband in Australia and does more than his fair share around the house. Actually, that was not in the release; I did add that last bit.
The reason I refer to that press release is that Lea has been a child protection worker for 20 years, and I have been with her for 18 of those 20 years. Therefore I have a little bit of understanding. She obviously has a lengthy understanding and the knowledge, skills, expertise and compassion, and through osmosis and observation I have only a little bit of understanding, but it has given me a bit of an understanding, I guess. I also have an understanding from my time as a union organiser in private schools, when I was working on the blue card discussions. For those people not from Queensland, the blue card is basically the Queensland equivalent of this legislation. I went through that same process, looking at the police records of teachers, when I was working for the Queensland Independent Education Union at the start of the decade.
On 29 November 2008 the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, endorsed recommendations for the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children, including information about pardoned, quashed and spent convictions. So we have a bill before the House called theCrimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill 2009. This would not include people who have been questioned and not charged or even necessarily those who were charged but whose charges were later dropped. However, I do point out that once a red flag is raised the information pertaining to whether somebody had been pardoned, had their conviction quashed or had spent convictions would be assessed and only acted on if it is relevant and deemed to be of risk.
After the November 2008 COAG meeting, the states and territories agreed to prepare, introduce and seek the passage of legislative amendments within nine months of the COAG agreement. Jurisdictions also agreed to remove any legislative or administrative barriers to formally supplying criminal history information, including information on spent, quashed and pardoned convictions, to other jurisdictions for the purpose of child related employment screening.
There are important privacy considerations and public good benefits that must be balanced, but it is obviously very important that we get the balance just right.
One safeguard included in the Bill is that the criminal history information received may only be used for the limited purpose of assessing the risk that a person may pose in working with children. The information may not be used for the purpose of a general probity or employment suitability check.
… … …
… a person or body will only be prescribed for the purpose of enabling them to receive conviction information if the person or body:
The bill before the House also requires the Minister for Home Affairs to review these new provisions after an initial trial period.
These government initiatives might well dissuade a couple of creeps from seeking to work with children, and that is obviously a good thing, we would all agree. However, I could not in good faith talk about child abuse, child protection and hope without touching on a couple of home truths about the real dangers that face most children. It is a horrible truth that our children are most likely to be harmed by the people they know, not by the paedophiles on the front page of the newspapers. Unfortunately it will usually be by their parents or somebody in the parent role and in their home environment. That is the truth. Leaving aside the mob hysteria and the Dennis Fergusons of the world, that is the reality.
The rates of sexual abuse are actually lower than the rates of other forms of harm. What is more likely to occur is emotional abuse. Sadly it is often due to domestic violence. The next most likely form of abuse is neglect. More often than not, this neglect stems from parental drug abuse issues. People who have addiction problems tend to focus their resources on their habits rather than on their children. Anyone of my age who has seen the movie Trainspotting would have seen some of the horrors of that. The second last most likely form of abuse is physical abuse. Last of all is sexual abuse. The rates are relatively low—from memory, only about eight per cent.
It is with much sadness that I repeat the fact that the sexual abuse is most likely to come from somebody acting in the nurturing role, usually the parent. Our newspapers and A Current Affair and Today Tonight would have us believe that abuse only occurs at the hands of strangers and opportunistic paedophiles such as Dennis Ferguson. I am not criticising ‘stranger danger’ programs and safety houses and the like. They are good, important things—and the bill before the House to bring in federal child safety legislation is also a good thing. However, for most children the opportunities for a stranger to have access to them are actually quite limited. Most parents keep a reasonably close watch on their children. The harm is more likely to come from a trusted person who has regular access.
I know that grooming does occur. That might have been Dennis Ferguson’s modus operandi—I do not know if that is what he did, and that will be the last time I mention that guy’s name. I just wanted to say this because I do not want anybody who is listening to or reading this to build a false sense of security about our legislation or, in Queensland’s case, the blue card. I have got my blue card here. As teachers in Queensland, we did not initially have to have it, but I subsequently got one as a politician on the board of a local community group.
We need to remember that legislative nets like the legislation before the House can only catch those who have been convicted. People who have experienced abuse, especially sexual abuse, will not disclose this experience easily. They are not likely to disclose it at the time. There is still a lot of shame associated with this trauma, especially for young boys. Often it is disclosed later, when the victim is in their 30s or 40s. The legislation before the House would not catch those perpetrators, because obviously they have not been charged or convicted.
Paedophiles will target kids who are vulnerable. Unfortunately such people normally get into a position of trust and present as fantastic saints. It is only later that we find out that they are actually horrible sinners. We need to teach kids and parents to recognise the telltale signs of abuse. We need to train our children to protect themselves—from strangers, sure, but also from their parents or the people in the parenting role. We also need to fund protective behaviour courses for children. These are real steps that will help us protect our hope.
A blue card like this is not a shield. It is just another weapon in the armoury. But the best weapon of all is to keep our children close and love them to bits. To paraphrase the singer Paul Kelly, from a song that I listened to carefully when I was younger, before I had children: I know sometimes that I’ve been careless, sometimes I’ve lost my tenderness. I’ve been careless and I sometimes take bad care of them. I can do better. I dare say that every parent can do better. Every Australian can do a little bit better, and this legislation before the House helps too. I commend the bill to the House.
I would like to echo the words of the member for Moreton. Often when we think of the threat to our children from paedophiles or those who would abuse them, we think of cliches like, ‘Watch out around public toilets in parks,’ and ‘Watch out for the car driving past,’ or the white van that we often hear so much about over in Perth when someone tries to grab children off the streets. But the reality is that our vigilance as parents must start at home, particularly with regard to members of the family and family friends, because it is often there that the greatest threat lies. So I certainly echo the words of the member for Moreton on that point.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution today on the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill 2009. I do see it as a reminder that we must always look for opportunities to strengthen the safeguards we have for the protection of children. The working with children checks and cards have been since their introduction a very important part of the safeguard regime. The proposed amendments in this bill would create an exception for convictions of persons who work or seek work with children so that those convictions can be and rightfully should be disclosed to and taken into account by the Commonwealth, state and territory screening agencies in determining whether a person is suitable to work with children.
There is nothing more important than the safety of our children and I share the view of many in our society that sexual abuse assaults against children are the worst of crimes. It just does not get any worse than where power and absolute control by an adult over children is used to undertake sexual assault. My view is that rehabilitation for such criminals is highly unlikely and that they should actually be retained in prisons. It is certainly the case that victims of these crimes will struggle to recover, mentally and socially; they are likely to have ongoing psychological issues and an inability to relate to others socially. They are less likely to succeed in education and in work. Also they are more likely to become involved in crime themselves. This is a reminder to us that we cannot afford to allow any children to be subjected to sexual crime because beyond the tragic lifelong damage that they will experience, the impact on society is also significant when you add up the cases across the nation. The point being that not a single case of child sexual abuse or assault is ever acceptable.
I would expect that all members of parliament are committed to fighting for the absolute elimination of these crimes and we must look to take every step that we can to achieve that goal. It is for that reason that I support this bill as it will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to allow exceptions to the provisions that prevent the disclosure of pardoned, quashed or spent convictions. In this bill pardoned and quashed convictions would be disclosed to persons or bodies in prescribed jurisdictions and could be used to determine whether an applicant would be able to be authorised to work with children. In the case of spent convictions exceptions which already exist would be expanded upon. The extract from the COAG communiqué from the meeting of 29 November last year regarding interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children read:
Leaders agreed in principle at the April 2007 COAG meeting to a framework to improve access to inter-jurisdictional criminal history information by child-related employment screening schemes.
COAG at this meeting affirmed the importance of an inter-jurisdictional exchange being put in place as soon as possible, and endorsed a set of implementation actions, the establishment of a project implementation committee under the auspices of COAG and an implementation plan. The implementation plan includes that jurisdictions will prepare, introduce and seek passage of legislative amendments within nine months, to enable the information exchange to commence in 12 months. COAG noted that all jurisdictions, with the exception of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, would exchange information on non-conviction charges for screening of people working with children.
While it is hoped by COAG that all states would agree Victoria unfortunately has chosen to be excluded from the operation of the exchange of criminal history information. It must be said that I find the Victorian approach disappointing but hardly surprising. I say that because Victoria has a charter of human rights. That document allows judges to overrule the decisions of elected representatives in many cases. This raises an interesting point given the Commonwealth government’s commitment to more jobs for lawyers and slower decision-making also known as a federal charter for human rights. As Senator Brandis has pointed out, the issues that Victoria needs elite lawyers and judges to decide are in fact those that should be decided by elected representatives.
If the Rudd government wants a charter of human rights then, unlike Victoria, it should have a referendum to ask the people. I make the point for Western Australians that, with regard to illegal immigrants, any move back by the coalition to strong border controls could be overruled by judges. Also, the popular WA mandatory sentencing laws for assaults on public officials would be a target for lawyers and judges under the charter of human rights. In fact, everyone who feels that the criminal courts in Australia rarely dispense justice should get used to the rights of criminals being paramount. These are matters worth thinking about as the push for this left-wing icon marches forward.
I return now to the matter of spent, pardoned and quashed convictions. In Western Australia, convictions are only spent by application to the court. South Australia has no spent convictions regime at all. Pardoned convictions can only be approved by a minister and convictions can be pardoned for technical reasons or for a lack of evidence. A quashed conviction can only be approved by a court. If a conviction is overturned on appeal, it is quashed. According to the Attorney-General’s Department, the reasoning behind this legislation is that, even if a conviction is pardoned or quashed, there is still reason to believe that the person concerned has an unreliable nature and may offend in the future—quite right.
Safeguards within the bill include a comprehensive regime for assessing people who work or who seek to work with children to be balanced with a person’s right to rehabilitation, privacy and employment. Accordingly, the use and disclosure of extended criminal history information will be subject to stringent safeguards and conditions—as it should be. One safeguard included in the bill is that the criminal history information received may only be used for the limited purpose of assessing the risks that a person may pose in working with children—which is quite necessary. The information may not be used for the purpose of a general integrity or employment suitability check. A potential employee’s criminal history information will not be given to their employer. The employer receives only a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ from the screening unit. A person can appeal the decision of a screening unit and will be able to view the reason they received a ‘no’ decision. In November 2009, a 12-month trial of the new sharing arrangements will begin between agencies that already have screening units.
The facts are that the rights of Australian citizens have been and are still protected under existing laws and amendments passed by this House and the other place. What concerns me about a federal charter of human rights is that it might take away the most important obligation in this nation—that of the personal responsibility of elected representatives to pass laws that place controls on actions.
After somewhat of a digression, I would like to return to the core issue of the ‘working with children’ checks. I have longed believed that after a person’s criminal history check has been concluded, the ‘working with children’ card indicates that the person has not been convicted of certain crimes. That is good. However, the question must be asked: how do we better protect our children from those who have an intention to take advantage of them? I therefore bring a proposal to the parliament which represents my own personal viewpoint. I propose that every person seeking a ‘working with children’ card should be required to authorise their internet service provider to provide to the department or the screening authority a certificate stating whether or not that person had ever visited a pornographic website. I believe that such information would seriously undermine confidence in such a person’s reliability in working with children and, if not, at least it should be considered.
It is my view that the amendments outlined in this bill will provide additional benefits in the fight to better protect our children. However, there will always be more that can be done—and I have just provided such a proposal. It is always a matter of conjecture as to whether there are more paedophiles now than in the past. I do not believe so. But I do believe that if these warped predators are given an opportunity by weak systems then they will attempt to abuse children. The internet is one such weak system where predators can indulge with some ease their darker side. The Australian Federal Police and other agencies have been doing great work in that area. However, more can be done via such a suggestion as mine. A lack of communication between authorities across this country is also a weakness that could be exploited. I therefore welcome the changes brought forward in this legislation.
Finally, as adults and particularly with our extra responsibilities in this place, we have a clear obligation to make sure that we do everything in our power to protect children. I say that not just for those in this place but for every adult in this country. We all have a clear obligation to protect children and to report suspicions or concerns to the appropriate authority. We should never think twice about fulfilling that obligation, and I think more people in this country could do a whole lot better in that regard.
I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill 2009. I do not think there is a member in this House who would disagree with the notion that the safety of our children is of paramount concern to the national community. The object of these amendments is to help protect children from sexual, physical and emotional harm, by permitting criminal history information to be disclosed and taken into account in assessing the suitability of persons to work with children. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, unofficial estimates are that approximately one in four girls and between one in seven and one in 12 boys are victims of some form of sexual abuse alone. The effects of abuse and neglect on children are tragic. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that there are established links between abuse or neglect as a child and poor social, behavioural and health outcomes, as well as a higher likelihood of criminal offending and mental health issues. I do not think we need an institute or a study to tell us this; it is almost self-evident. Most Australians would already understand and acknowledge these links.
This bill will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to enable the disclosure and use of criminal history information about a person’s pardoned, quashed and spent convictions, but only for the purpose of child related employment screening. The bill implements the COAG agreement to facilitate the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children. At its meeting on 29 November 2008 the Council of Australian Governments endorsed recommendations for the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children, including pardoned, quashed and spent convictions. Jurisdictions agreed to prepare, introduce and seek passage of legislative amendments within nine months of the COAG agreement. Jurisdictions also agreed to remove any legislative or administrative barriers to formally supplying criminal history information, including information on spent convictions and quashed and pardoned convictions, to other jurisdictions for the purpose of child related employment screening.
At the Commonwealth level, the legislative barriers to the exchange of criminal history information under the COAG implementation plan are contained in part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914. This bill provides for new exclusions which allow the disclosure of information about a person’s spent, quashed and pardoned convictions to or by a prescribed person or body permitted or required by or under a prescribed law to obtain or deal with information about a person who works, or seeks to work, with children and for the purpose of obtaining or dealing with such information in accordance with prescribed law. At the moment there is national inconsistency with regard to the screening of those who seek to work with children. The differences in laws and approach over different jurisdictions are sparse.
In the ACT, there is no formal act or screening program. However, individual employees may require police checks at their discretion. In August 2009 the ACT government released a community discussion paper and a proposed system of background checking of people working with vulnerable people, including children. In New South Wales, the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1988 underpins the New South Wales working with children check. This is an employer-driven point in time system entailing background checks of employees and the permanent exclusion of prohibited persons from child related occupations. In the Northern Territory, the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check, known as a clearance notice. A clearance notice is valid for two years. This applies to employers and volunteers in child related employment settings.
In Queensland, the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check, known as a blue card. This is valid for two years, and blue cards entitle individuals to engage in child related occupations and volunteering. In South Australia, the Children’s Protection Act 1993 underpins an employer-driven point in time system requiring employers and responsible authorities to obtain criminal history checks for those engaged in child related occupations or volunteering. In Tasmania, there is no formal act or screening program. However, individual employers may require police checks at their discretion. In 2005 the Commissioner for Children Tasmania released a consultation paper discussing proposals for the government to introduce screening procedures for Tasmanian organisations which want to employ people to work with children. In Victoria, the Working With Children Act 2005 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check. This is valid for five years. The check entitles individuals to engage in child related occupations and volunteering. Finally, in Western Australia, the Working With Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check. This is valid for three years. Again, the check entitles individuals to engage in child related occupations and volunteering.
One safeguard included in this bill is that the criminal history information received may only be used for the limited purposes of assessing the risk that a person may pose in working with children. The information may not be used for the purpose of a general probity or employment suitability check. Another important safeguard under the COAG agreement is that certain participation requirements must be met before a person or body can receive the information. In accordance with the COAG agreement, a person or body will only be prescribed for the purpose of enabling them to receive conviction information if the person or body: is authorised by the government of the state or territory in which it operates; has a legislative basis for screening that prohibits further release or use of the information, except for legislated child protection functions in exceptional circumstances; complies with applicable privacy, human rights and records management legislation; reflects principles of natural justice; and has risk assessment frameworks and appropriately skilled staff to assess risks to children’s safety. To reinforce the importance of these safeguards, before a person or body in a state or territory can be prescribed in regulations to allow them to obtain and deal with the Commonwealth criminal history information, the Minister for Home Affairs must first be satisfied they meet all of these safeguards in their own jurisdiction. The bill also requires the Minister for Home Affairs to cause a review of the operation of the new provisions to be conducted after an initial trial period. The review is to commence not later than 30 June 2011 and must be completed within three months.
In the second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Brendan O’Connor, noted two main reasons for COAG’s agreement on a framework that allowed for consideration of a person’s full criminal history, including non-conviction information—that is, evidence that incarcerated sexual offenders are more likely to have previous convictions for nonsexual offences than for sexual offences and indications from law-enforcement agencies that charges relating to offences against children are often withdrawn, as a decision is made to protect the child victim from the stress and trauma of giving evidence, cross-examination and simply waiting for committal and trial.
There is broad acceptance of the necessity for some form of working with children checking and for ensuring the safety of children. It is appropriate that we are debating this during this sitting, when the plight of the forgotten Australians is very much a topic of the national conversation. The Prime Minister will give a national apology next week to recognise the ongoing hurt suffered by Australians held in care as children. As Minister Jenny Macklin said in parliament:
For the most part, these were cold, loveless, authoritarian places, with no time at all for the exuberance and innocence of childhood; no time for the love or laughter and warmth of family life; no time to play, to eat healthy food or to get a decent education.
Around half a million Australians are believed to be in the group known as the forgotten Australians. Many of these children were subject to emotional, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of those who had the responsibility to care for them. It makes you wonder whether, if governments of the past had been more stringent in their hiring practices and less cold and more humane in nature, this apology from the Prime Minister would have been be necessary. Today, many of the forgotten Australians continue to struggle as a result of their experiences, grappling with mental illness, homelessness and substance abuse.
I have spoken in this parliament about my personal experience as an adopted child in the sixties and seventies. Similarly, I have heard in this place the experiences as an adoptee of the member for Forde and the experiences as a foster child of the member for Swan. I can speak only for myself as to how fortunate I was to have two very loving adoptive parents, who continue to support me, but hundreds of thousands of children in similar circumstances were not as lucky. I was part of a loving family environment.
An inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee began in 2004 and allowed many of those affected by the institutional care system of times past to pour out their stories of immense pain and hurt. This committee received over 440 public submissions and 174 confidential submissions. The first recommendation from that report was:
That the Commonwealth Government issue a formal statement acknowledging, on behalf of the nation, the hurt and distress suffered by many children in institutional care, particularly the children who were victims of abuse and assault; and apologising for the harm caused to these children.
Thankfully, the Rudd government is acknowledging the suffering of the forgotten Australians. An apology will at least acknowledge the hurt of these once-innocent children and make the forgotten Australians forgotten no more.
In closing, I wish again to endorse the spirit of this bill. There is a role for government to play to help protect children from sexual, physical and emotional harm. Criminal history information should and must be disclosed and taken into account in assessing the suitability of persons working with children. I commend this bill to the House.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
In the five minutes allocated to me in this debate, I want to respond to statements made by officers of Airservices Australia, Senator Conroy and Senator Glenn Sterle, Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, during the committee’s estimates hearing of 20 October 2009. The careless, sarcastic nature of their responses to questions asked by Senator Judith Adams and Senator Chris Back belie the serious nature of changes to air flight paths in Western Australia that are under investigation. During the hearing it was implied that I or my staff had not attended meetings, responded to emails or taken any interest in the Western Australian Route Review Program, called WARRP, until after changes to air flight paths were implemented in November 2008.
Since 2000, there have been about 19 Perth Airport Noise Management Consultative Committee, or PANMCC, meetings. My staff or I attended 15 of those meetings and an examination of the minutes of the meetings missed reveal that nothing would have foreshadowed the significant changes subsequently made to air flight paths affecting the Perth Hills area. Emails referred to by Airservices provided maps but virtually no explanatory notes. The information was of a technical nature and no response was sought. As Mr Russell, CEO of ASA, admitted in estimates:
These airspace concepts can be very technical and difficult to understand and I think the lesson from our viewpoint is that we need to ensure that the information is understood, rather than just assuming that no feedback on it is in fact equal to understanding.
I seek leave to table a sample of emails and maps received.
Leave granted.
The following observations were made by my staff at the meeting of 4 October 2006, when Airservices gave their first presentation on WARRP:
Stage 1 of the Route Review project is to identify the route structure within 100 miles. This should be completed by June 2007. Stage 1 involves just a few path changes, over the south of Perth near Banjup and north of Perth. Residents in Pearce are unlikely to be affected by the changes. Stage 2 is looking at structure issues to more remote destinations.
The Committee would like to see the environmental assessment report (which includes noise) before Stage 1 is implemented. Airservices doesn’t know if this is possible, and the Committee has complained about this in the past. Some 3 years later and after repeated requests the environmental report has not been received and was in fact requested again at the last PANMCC meeting of 30 September 2009.
Access to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority report, which ASA say is the basis for the changes that have been made, has been denied to me and to the rest of the committee and I have had to apply and pay to get access to that report under freedom of information.
Mr John Macpherson, the Principal Environmental Noise Officer from the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation, stated in an email to PANMCC members of 30 July:
The consistent impression given by ASA that the changes would only occur at distances well away from the airport was ultimately misleading, and led the Committee to a view that the changes were not likely to significantly impact any particular group.
The quality of information provided by ASA on the WARRP website was clearly inadequate to enable non-aviation experts to identify or evaluate the likely impact.
A statement from Mr Dale of Airservices at the meeting on 22 April 2009 that ‘the committee has been informed of changes to flight paths at the meeting of 11 September 2008’ seems to conflict with the minutes of that meeting. Mr Dale was recorded as an apology at that meeting and there was no representative from Airservices present.
In general, committee members have been critical of the lack of public consultation. I have asked for public consultations on at least four occasions. ASA is a corporate entity, has primary control over airspace and takes 95 per cent of its funding from the industry, and there is an urgent need to review the way it conducts business and the operation of the act that governs it to ensure that ASA has clearly defined community consultation obligations.
Corporate crime is always unacceptable, but the global financial crisis has certainly shone a brighter spotlight on the losses sustained by average Australian customers and investors when greed replaces integrity. At the local level, the pursuit of development and construction company Hightrade regarding its operations in the Newcastle and Hunter region by both Joanne McCarthy of the Newcastle Herald and Andrew Ferguson of the CFMEU has my full support. The actions of Hightrade have led to considerable loss—by contractors and suppliers, by investors and by workers involved with Hightrade and its associated companies. With a case brought by the Australian Taxation Office currently in the Federal Court, it seems that the loss may also extend to the wider public purse.
For the record, I first raised Hightrade with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission through the parliamentary process in 2006. However, under the Howard government, ASIC was seriously underresourced and had limited legislative power to pursue companies like Hightrade or other companies operating under the phoenix model. During the 2007 election campaign, I received a phone call from Mr Ed Mazzoni, representing Hightrade, requesting a meeting with me. I told him that I had concerns about Hightrade’s local operations but that a meeting would not be possible until after the election. Mr Mazzoni responded that he was aware that an election campaign was underway and that Hightrade could be ‘very useful’ to me. I told Mr Mazzoni that the only way Hightrade could be ‘useful’ to me was to do the right thing by the people of Newcastle, repeated that I would not meet with him until after the election and terminated the conversation. That is the only contact I have ever had with Hightrade.
At the federal level there is a bigger picture to consider as well. As chair of the federal parliament’s Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and as deputy chair in the last parliament, I and the committee have consistently pursued with the Commissioner of Taxation, at our biannual public hearings, the behaviour of phoenix companies, including the activities of Hightrade and other development and construction companies operating in Newcastle suspected to be under the phoenix model. The failure of companies to contribute the superannuation guarantee contribution of employees has been a particular focus of the committee, with greater resourcing and activity undertaken around this area by the ATO as a consequence.
Under the Rudd government, Hightrade has also come under particular scrutiny. The relevant federal minister, Chris Bowen, the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, who recently visited Newcastle, is aware of the Hightrade matter and is currently considering legislative reform around the issue of phoenix companies. Hightrade building sites have been raided by immigration authorities at least six times.
The Australian Taxation Office’s Serious Non-Compliance Division is currently pursuing Hightrade in the Federal Court for GST fraud, describing these matters as ‘the most important investigations being undertaken by the SNC operations’. With amounts approaching $100 million suspected to be in question and 38 of the 125 companies in the Hightrade group suspected of being involved, the ATO’s pursuit of Hightrade for GST fraud and taxation noncompliance is critical.
At last Friday’s public hearing between the JCPAA and the Commissioner of Taxation, Michael D’Ascenzo, the taxation commissioner agreed with me that 10 prosecutions of company executives for phoenix type behaviour since 2000 was not satisfactory and that this area of corporate behaviour was deserving of further attention from the ATO. The ATO’s case against Hightrade, if proven, may provide an important precedent for further pursuit of phoenix companies.
I am a member too of the federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Our committee’s inquiries into the collapse of agribusinesses, as well as our ongoing inquiry into Storm Financial and Opes Prime, have very much held financial companies, advisers, lenders and the big banks to account. Last night the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Macquarie Bank presented to the JCCFS in a public hearing to explain their role as lenders to clients investing in these failed investment companies. The role of financial planners and advisers has also come under scrutiny during this inquiry.
One important and positive consequence of the global financial crisis for average Australian investors has been the increased funding by the Rudd government to regulators such as ASIC and the more strategic data sharing and matching by government regulators, departments and agencies to pursue illegal corporate behaviour. The Rudd government is serious about combating corporate crime and protecting Australians and the public purse from predatory or illegal behaviour.
I rise to highlight an issue of enormous concern to Gippslanders and, I assume, all members in this place, that being the issue of youth unemployment. Recently a report was released titled How young people are faring, and its findings in relation to employment outcomes for young people, particularly in regional areas, should be ringing alarm bells throughout the federal government and its state counterparts. In summary, the report found that the proportion of teenagers out of work increased from 12.2 per cent in May last year to 18.5 per cent in May this year. It also found that the number of people getting into apprenticeships or traineeships has declined.
I would like to quote from an article in the Melbourne Age by Farrah Tomazin, a very talented education reporter for that newspaper. The article said:
Experts say the findings should be a wake-up call for state and federal governments, whose investment in education has failed to help those who need it most: disadvantaged students, indigenous children, and those in rural and regional communities.
The article goes on to say:
“The geographic areas where you have low-level participation also tend to be poor, and in many cases, have high indigenous populations,” said Melbourne University education expert Professor Jack Keating.
“Yet we haven’t made a lot of gains in those areas over the last decades. That’s the crucial question —can we find strategies to help get young people in those areas into education and training?”
There is a lack of recent figures in relation to Gippsland. The last available that I could find were in October 2007 for youth unemployment. They said the unemployment rate at that stage for 15- to 19-year-olds was 19.4 per cent, and I fear it is much worse now. In fact, I fear the hidden unemployment could be worse, with a number of young people being forced to leave my communities to obtain work outside the region.
The experience in particular in Morwell, in the Latrobe Valley, worries me greatly. The last available figures on the federal parliamentary website from December last year had the overall unemployment rate at Morwell at 7.7 per cent, which was double the national average at that time. It was in that context that I wrote to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion in September this year seeking an explanation as to why Gippsland was excluded from the program of local employment coordinators to assist with developing projects to stimulate employment opportunities. I am yet to receive a response from the minister in that regard but I will be following it up with her because I believe that the region, given its high unemployment rate, should have been one of the first to have been included in that program. I commend the government for the program but ask the question of why Gippsland, in particular, was not included in it.
On a separate but related matter, I will also be seeking an explanation from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs following a decision to cut the funding for specialised Centrelink officers to deal with young people. It has been reported to me in the Latrobe Valley that unemployed youth are no longer able to access a specialised youth worker and receive the one-on-one service that they used to be able to receive in our region. Instead, I am advised that they must deal with whichever Centrelink officer is available at the time that they visit the relevant office. This means that they may deal with different staff each time.
If anyone is familiar with the issues of youth unemployment, they will know that there is a lack of trust there to a large extent and there needs to be an opportunity to build a relationship with the individual officer to manage the case. I think this is a step backwards from the high quality of service and support that was provided in the past. Locally, qualified youth social workers have contacted my office to report that the Centrelink staff used to be able to arrange courses or training for unemployed young people and provide that level of specialised support which I think is very important and influential in helping some young people back on the right track. I am told that the practice has now stopped, apparently due to reduced funding availability for the Centrelink officers.
I must say that I am not here to criticise the individual Centrelink officers involved, because, by and large, in my experience, the Centrelink officers in Gippsland do a remarkable job with often very difficult cases. They are quite magnificent in the way they manage some quite awkward situations. But young unemployed people do need a level of specialised assistance, particularly, in my experience, in cases where they have come from a broken home and have experienced little adult supervision during their lives. Many also come from a background of almost institutionalised welfare dependency now. We have young people who have experienced several generations of unemployment in their families and do not have great role models to turn to for how they break the poverty cycle and get themselves engaged in our community. To break that cycle we need to get those young people engaged in practical and productive work that offers the prospect of regular employment in the future, and I think the opportunity of specialised assistance through Centrelink is one of the avenues we need to explore more fully.
I believe that the decency of a job stands at the heart of our contract with young people. We need to be continually striving to create the right economic environment for businesses to prosper and to hire young people in the future. For those young people in my community who do need a helping hand, we need to have the appropriate support services in place in our regional locations to ensure that they are assisted and given every opportunity to achieve their absolute best. I recommend that the government looks seriously at what youth support services are available through the Centrelink offices in the Gippsland region in order to assist those young people to achieve their best.
I had the honour and pleasure last Sunday, 25 October, to be invited to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Messinian Association of South Australia. I would like to congratulate the Messinian Association for all the good work that they do in the community and in the western suburbs of Adelaide in South Australia. As I say, I had the pleasure of attending that celebration last Sunday, together with the Attorney-General and a state minister, the local member for the area, Tom Koutsantonis, and the Mayor of West Torrens, John Trainer.
The association was formed in 1959, and Sunday’s gathering was to celebrate the 50 years of this association’s existence. It was founded by Greek migrants from the Messinian region of the south-western tip of the Peloponnese. In 1959, fifty years ago, a group of people got together and thought it was appropriate to form a social club to service the needs of those very early migrants who had migrated from that region to South Australia. The Messinian Association has serviced the community for 50 years, and it has expanded from those early days when it was basically a social club for those people. Today it has a very successful soccer club and social club. It has dance classes. It has morning teas for pensioners and a monthly barbecue. The club has grown to a membership of 400 or 500 people at this stage.
Many of the people who became members and were part of the inaugural group in 1959 were there, and major awards were given out to two of them. One award was to Angelo Bouzalas, who was a founding member and on the steering committee that got the club going. It was lovely to see him on Sunday and have a chat to him. The other award was to Theodora Mihalopoulos. She had served on the women’s auxiliary for many years and has been one of the engines of the club, always working in the kitchen and always one of the first to put her hand up to volunteer. The club would not survive without the many volunteers it has, and they do work very hard. I know this firsthand, because I was a member of their committee for many years. They work extremely hard. They bought a building back in the late 1980s and today they have converted that building into a beautiful reception centre where they have all their functions and lots of other events for the local area.
The Messinians who came to South Australia back in those days can be very proud people. They have had children and grandchildren, and there were many there on Sunday from the third generation, many of them in the professions. But I will make a quick mention of the politics that runs in the blood of these people, because here in Australia alone we have quite a few members of parliament who are either children of some of those Messinians who migrated to Australia back in the early fifties or are themselves Messinians who came over here at a very young age. For example, John Pantazopoulos, the former minister for tourism and member of the upper house in Victoria is of Messinian descent. Steven Kons, the Attorney-General of Tasmania, is a descendant of the Messinians. Tom Koutsantonis is the Minister for Volunteers and Minister for Correctional Services in South Australia. Jenny Mikakos is also from the Victorian state parliament. Nick Kotsiras is from the opposition in Victoria. And there is, of course, me. That is just to name a few. I am sure I have missed someone; if I have, I apologise to them.
The Messinian Association is an important part of the vibrant multicultural fabric of the community of South Australia. As I said, the association is a centre of cultural activity. We see many cultural events in this magnificent building that they have down in the suburb of Torrensville. Again, I would like to congratulate the volunteers; the president, Andrew Marantos; the secretary, Con Bouras; and the whole committee, for putting the event together. I am sure that the foundations they have built there will serve many more generations of Greek-Australian Messinians for many years to come in the western suburbs of Adelaide.
A funeral mass was held for William Joseph McMaster at the Holy Family Church at Maryknoll on 16 October 2009, under celebrant Father Tim O’Toole. Father O’Toole was gracious enough to allow me to speak at the funeral, but I will come back to that in a moment. Bill’s family chose to write on his order of service this:
That man is a successWho has lived well,Laughed often and loved muchWho has gained the respect of men and womenAnd the love of children;Who has filled his niche andAccomplished his task;Who leaves the world better than he found it,Who has never lacked appreciation of Earth’s beautyOr failed to express it;Who looked for the best in others andGave the best he had.
This guy was a friend of mine, a father, a husband, a leader, a community representative and a councillor and shire president of the Shire of Pakenham, with a rascal streak that was always expressed through his marvellous humour. He was a soldier, a rear gunner in the Air Force by choice and survived—obviously, or he would not have lived such a long life. He was an engineer, a fitter and turner, a welder, a businessman and a benefactor. Maree Dore in her beautiful oration about her father explained his deep and abiding Labor roots, about the split in the Labor Party and why they moved from Melbourne to Maryknoll after this enormous split. She said how the Catholic Church was so important to him that he went to Father Pooley and said, ‘I want to bring my family from Melbourne to come to this Catholic commune.’ Father Pooley thought about it for many days before he allowed this man to come up and live in the commune which is Maryknoll. I call it a commune because that is what it was. It is an integral part of the history of our community.
As I was sitting there and Marie talked about these issues I thought: ‘Goodness gracious, Russell, you are about to speak and you are a protestant Liberal. This is going to be rather difficult.’ But it was not difficult because he was an easy man to speak about. He came to council because he was needed as a running mate in those days for another councillor who wanted to continue his time on the council. Little did they know, in all their expertise and wonder—and this is only a rumour—that this man was so well thought of in his community that he won the election campaign, ousting the person for whom he was meant to be the running mate. I spoke of one of the jousts Bill had on the council with a former mayor and very important person in our local community: councillor Kel Anderson. Councillor Anderson was having a blue with Bill McMaster over sealing a road in Maryknoll. Anderson eventually turned to Bill McMaster and said, and I mentioned this in the address:
I know all about Maryknoll. I know about what you are trying to do, Councillor. But I can tell you about your community. I know that there is no sin up there, there is no sex and by the way there going to be no sealed road.
The beauty of this man was not only his family and all that they have done but the great legacy he has left through his family. His daughter Julia sent me a note. It reads:
Just a note to say Thank you so much for your lovely words at Dad’s funeral. It was so nice to have someone speak of what a wonderful community man Dad was and speak candidly of his larger than life personality. Dad always spoke very fondly of you and how much he enjoyed his time with the Shire of Pakenham. I know he was very proud that you had gone on so far with your career, so it meant a lot to our family to hear you speak so well of him.
He was easy to speak well of. Julia’s note went on:
Thankyou for helping to make a sad day very special. Best wishes, Julia Taylor (McMaster) and the entire McMaster clan.
Bill McMaster was a larger-than-life figure. He was shy in himself in one way but was always there to lend a hand to his community and his family. He loved his children, his grandchildren and all of those women that he loved to go and help in his community of Maryknoll and beyond. What a marvellous life he led. What a wonderful legacy he has given to us. He was always very shy when it came to his presentations at council but we, as a community, are very proud of him, his life and his family.
Today I would like to speak in this adjournment debate about some of the great work going on in terms of construction at my local primary schools in the electorate of Deakin. Last Friday I visited St Luke the Evangelist Primary School in Blackburn South and then followed that with a trip down the road to Burwood East Primary School to see how their construction works were going.
Deb Egan, the principal at St Luke the Evangelist Primary, along with William and Isabel from prep and Alyssa from year 5, took time out from their busy day to show me their brand-new library and classrooms being built. The project is being constructed by Melbourne based builders Johns Lyng and there are around 12 workers on the site at the moment. Of course, this project was only made possible due to the school receiving a $2 million allocation under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program.
As you can imagine, the school community are very excited about their new library and classrooms. The school itself is quite old—it has been there for many years—and this is the biggest thing that has happened there in a long, long time. Their building works are well advanced. Not only has the concrete slab been poured, but the frames are up, the structural steel is in place, the roof in on and the block work is happening—and the kids are very, very excited. William told me that he is very much looking forward to reading books and learning in the library. St Luke the Evangelist Primary also have a new toilet block, which was finished a few weeks ago, and are installing a synthetic surface on part of the school oval, including a running track behind their classrooms, with their National School Pride allocation of $125,000. It is a great makeover for the school. It is definitely needed and will be very much appreciated.
The principal at Burwood East Primary School, Jos Mills, introduced me to a group of year 4 students—Maggie, Omar, Liam, Abbie and Rhianon—who guided me through their existing school buildings to visit the site of their new school hall. Burwood East Primary School is growing, and that is a wonderful thing. Their prep enrolments for next year are increasing—and that seems to be quite common to many of the schools in my electorate. A few weeks ago I visited the same school and the principal, Jos Mills, took me to some of her classrooms where the school had used their National School Pride funding of $125,000 to tidy things up and make things look a little bit newer. Many areas of the school are very old. The children had some choice in the range of colours the classrooms are now painted. So there is lime, pink, a very enticing shade of purple and a few other different colours. I asked the children there if they were going to stop giving their rooms numbers and start calling them by colours, and they had thought about that but had not decided yet.
Burwood East Primary School was established well over 100 years go, but unfortunately has never had a school hall. Their school assemblies are held in their quadrangle—and, when it rains, students and teachers alike get wet. I know; I have been to those assemblies and got wet myself. So the school is absolutely delighted to be getting a brand-new multipurpose hall with their allocation of $2 million under the P21 program. I know they will appreciate it for all sorts of uses—not just for assemblies but also the sorts of things they cannot do at the moment, like hold music classes inside or have a gathering of more of the children. At present there simply is not the room inside to have more than a couple of classes. Construction is well underway. The concrete slab has been poured, the structural steel and the external and internal timber frames are up. Also, the site foreman from LU Simons, a Melbourne builder, mentioned that the bricks were being laid over the weekend and that glazing would be installed very soon.
Both of these construction projects, and so many others in my electorate, are using local Melbourne based construction companies, employing Melbourne based construction workers and all the trades and subcontractors that go along with that. The kids at the schools think it is great. They watch just about every brick being put in place and every steel girder. They know what is happening with the project. They know where it is up to. If ever I need to know something about what is happening at the school, I do not have to ask the builders most of the time; I can go in and talk to the children. The principal will lead me to them and say, ‘They know exactly what is happening because they are always asking.’ It is great that communities are getting involved—not just parents but the children at the schools as well. So many children and so many schools are benefiting from the P21 program, the national schools program. I will come back to the chamber at another time and talk about more of the schools that are benefiting from this wonderful Rudd government initiative.
Question agreed to.