Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Clare for Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements the government’s response to the review of the Comcare scheme, as well as some other associated amendments.
The Comcare scheme provides workers compensation and occupational health and safety arrangements for employees of the Australian government and of some private sector companies that self-insure their workers compensation liabilities under the scheme.
As one of its election commitments, the government undertook to review the Comcare scheme, in particular its self-insurance arrangements which provide for the entry of private sector corporations into the scheme. The review was to ensure that the Comcare scheme has suitable occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements for self-insurers and their employees.
The Rudd government placed a moratorium on companies seeking to join the Comcare scheme while this review was conducted.
On 25 September 2009, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a number of improvements to the Comcare scheme arising out of the review.
This bill will implement these improvements through amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).
To encourage timely determination of workers compensation claims, the bill amends the SRC Act to set statutory time limits within which claims must be determined. Claims determined quickly tend to be less costly.
The bill amends the SRC Act to reinstate workers compensation coverage for off-site recess breaks. This will realign the Comcare scheme with most jurisdictions and remove the inequity in coverage for employees whose employers do not provide on-site facilities for meal breaks.
The bill amends the SRC Act so that medical and related costs will continue to be paid where a worker’s weekly compensation benefits are suspended for refusing to participate in the rehabilitation process. Suspending weekly compensation benefits can be a useful incentive to encourage claimants to comply with the requirement to undergo appropriate medical treatment. However, suspending medical and related payments could be counterproductive to early rehabilitation and return to work.
As the House would be aware, the lump sum and weekly death benefits under the Comcare scheme were recently increased substantially to align them more closely with death benefits payable under state and territory workers compensation schemes.
Furthermore, Comcare is undertaking a review of the permanent impairment arrangements under the scheme, including whether they provide reasonable access to, and reasonable levels of, compensation in the case of workplace injuries which result in permanent impairment.
The Deputy Prime Minister has also directed Comcare to strengthen its OHS prevention and enforcement approach, including through more proactive interventions and improving the expertise of its investigators. Comcare has also been asked to develop guidance material for employers to improve consultation with all workers on occupational health and safety matters. This is intended to ensure that consultation arrangements reflect the modern workplace, and extend beyond the traditional employer/employee relationship.
These measures, as well as the measures proposed in the bill, are designed to improve the Comcare scheme by reducing injuries; strengthening the focus on rehabilitation and return to work; and increasing benefits for injured workers.
In announcing improvements to the Comcare scheme arising from the review, the Deputy Prime Minister also announced that the government would maintain the moratorium on new entrants to the scheme until 2011, when uniform occupational health and safety laws have been implemented in all jurisdictions.
As the House is aware, the Commonwealth, states and territories have been working cooperatively towards the national harmonisation of occupational health and safety legislation. This is progressing well.
Workplace relations ministers from all jurisdictions have agreed to consider occupational health and safety coverage of Comcare self-insurers as part of the harmonisation of occupational health and safety. Following the implementation of uniform occupational health and safety laws, the government intends to transfer occupational health and safety coverage of Comcare self-insured licensees to state and territory jurisdictions.
The adoption of uniform occupational health and safety laws and nationally consistent approaches to compliance and enforcement will remove the need for Comcare’s occupational health and safety coverage of licensees. The transfer of occupational health and safety coverage would also reduce the number of dual jurisdiction worksites.
The government has decided to maintain the moratorium on new entrants to the Comcare scheme until uniform occupational health and safety laws have been implemented in all jurisdictions. To do otherwise would cause unnecessary complexities and duplication for all new self insurance entrants to Comcare which would have to adapt to Comcare’s laws and then change again to comply with the new model laws.
Other amendments to the SRC Act contained in the bill will restore Comcare’s access to the consolidated revenue fund to pay for its workers compensation liabilities and associated expenses arising from long latency injuries claims. Comcare’s access to the consolidated revenue fund was closed off as an indirect result of a Federal Court decision in 2006.
The long latency injuries claims are those attributable to employment before 1 December 1988 but manifesting themselves after this date. These would include, but are not limited to, asbestos related diseases claims. The intention of the act had been—and still is—that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should fund these claims because they relate to employment not covered by Comcare’s premium system.
The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 (OH&S Act) promotes the health and safety at work of persons employed by the Commonwealth, Commonwealth authorities and certain private sector corporations. An important part of this act, and the Occupational Health and Safety (Safety Standards) Regulations 1994, are the provisions relating to the manufacture, supply, installation, design and safe use of plant.
Advice from the Australian Government Solicitor has indicated that the current definition of plant may not encompass lifts. Comcare has continued to work collaboratively with employers in its jurisdiction to ensure that lifts are subject to the same high safety standards as other items of plant. The recognition of lifts as plant within the meaning of the OH&S Act would bring lifts within the plant risk management framework, and would apply all the duties contained in the plant regulations to lifts.
This amendment will align the OH&S Act with all other Australian jurisdictions, as well as the National Standard for Plant.
The bill also contains technical amendments to the SRC Act, the OH&S Act, the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 and the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 to cater for new arrangements and terminology introduced by the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Emerson.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There are two additional estimates bills this year: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4). I shall introduce the latter bill shortly.
The additional estimates bills seek appropriation authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget. The total additional appropriation being sought through additional estimates bills 3 and 4 this year is a little over $2 billion.
Turning to Appropriation Bill (No. 3), the total appropriation being sought this year is $1.69 billion. This proposed appropriation arises from changes in the estimates of program expenditure, due to variations in the timing of payments and forecast increases in program take-up, reclassifications and from policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget.
I now outline the major appropriations proposed in the bill.
The government will provide an additional $510.8 million to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to meet commitments under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. This program was terminated on 9 June 2009, and replaced by the Solar Credits Scheme. The new program provides assistance to households, small businesses and community groups with the upfront costs of eligible small-scale renewable energy systems installed after 9 June 2009 through the expanded Renewable Energy Target.
In addition, the government will adjust funding for the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, to meet lower-than-expected demand, resulting in a saving of $13 million in the current financial year. It will also reduce funding for project contingencies under the Water Smart Australia program, saving a further $10 million in 2009-10.
The government will also provide the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts with $16.1 million for the Tasmanian forest package. In addition, an unspent amount of $20.1 million, resulting from project delays, will be carried forward from last financial year for the Living Murray Initiative.
The government proposes to bring forward $290 million from 2011-12 for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to meet an increase in demand for the Home Insulation Program. This amount is in addition to the $695.8 million proposed in the Appropriation (Water Entitlements and Home Insulation) Bill 2009-2010 introduced into parliament on 18 November 2009, the funding for which is required by December 2009. The $290 million proposed in this bill is required less urgently and will meet demand for the program in the months following passage of the additional estimates appropriation bills.
The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will also be provided with $24.8 million for the Climate Change Action Fund, which is matched by a corresponding reduction in the funding for the Department of Climate Change.
The government is proposing to provide the Department of Health and Ageing with $45.2 million in response to the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic. The funding seeks to manage this pandemic and to enhance preparedness for any future pandemics by supporting activities such as:
In addition, the Department of Health and Ageing will be provided with $12.4 million which was unspent last financial year because of project delays for the Zero Real Interest Loans program. The program provides capital funding to build and expand residential aged care and respite facilities in areas of high need.
The government will streamline arrangements and introduce efficiencies at Centrelink to deliver substantial savings over the next four years. From 1 July 2010, paper forms received by Centrelink will be scanned to reduce the cost of transferring forms between Centrelink sites and to reduce storage of paper documents. This initiative is expected to deliver net savings of $131.3 million over four years. An amount of $12.4 million is proposed in bill 3 to prepare for the introduction of the streamlined arrangements.
In addition, the government will streamline the arrangements for job seekers from 1 July 2010 with the fortnightly income reporting requirements being met through electronic lodgement over the internet, or by telephone utilising interactive voice recognition software. This measure is expected to deliver net savings of $95.2 million over four years. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) includes $14.5 million for Centrelink to implement this initiative.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be provided with the following additional amounts. First, $40 million to meet an increase in demand for assistance from the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme due to a rise in bankruptcies and insolvencies. This is a basic payment scheme designed to assist employees who have lost their employment as a result of the insolvency of their employer and are owed certain employee entitlements. Second, an amount of $20.3 million will be provided to establish environmental and heritage training and work experience placements, lasting 26 weeks, for young people aged 17 to 24.
The government will provide the Defence Materiel Organisation with $43.4 million for personnel and other operating costs associated with delivering additional activities required to be performed on behalf of the Department of Defence. This increase is matched by a reduction in the Department of Defence’s departmental operating expenses.
An additional appropriation is proposed for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship as follows.
First, an amount of $63 million will be provided to meet the cost of increased irregular maritime arrivals. Second, a further $11.2 million is proposed to expand Christmas Island’s accommodation capacity in response to increased irregular maritime arrivals.
These increases are partially offset by a reduction of $19.3 million resulting from lower than expected activity levels in the department’s visa and migration services.
The government proposes an additional $19.95 million for the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, for payments under the National Rental Affordability Scheme due to a greater than expected number of charities looking to participate in the scheme. This change is accompanied by a reduction in the estimated administered refundable tax offsets payments and results in an overall budget neutral rebalancing of estimates between the department and the Australian Taxation Office in 2009-10.
The Australian tax office will be provided with $11.3 million, which has been carried forward from last financial year, to fund a public awareness campaign concerning the Small Business and General Business Tax Break—hear, hear!—the passage of legislation for which was delayed until May 2009.
The appropriations that I have outlined so far are proposed to meet additional funding requirements that have arisen since the last budget. There is a further category of requirements for additional appropriation, referred to as a ‘reclassification of appropriation’, that are also proposed in Appropriation Bill (No.3).
These amounts need to be re-appropriated to align the purpose of the proposed spending with the correct appropriation type. The additional appropriations are fully offset by savings against the original appropriations and thus do not lead to additional expenditure.
I now outline the material reclassifications proposed in bill 3. First, the Department of Defence will be provided with $639.2 million in departmental outputs appropriation to align its appropriations with its work program. The additional amount will be more than fully offset by reductions in its non-operating appropriations, resulting in a net saving to the budget overall. Second, the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will be provided with $118.7 million as an administered expense appropriation for the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program. This amount represents a reclassification of appropriation from the Administered Assets and Liabilities appropriation provided in the last budget. Third, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will receive $42.6 million for the Support for Child Care Program. This amount, which was originally appropriated in Appropriation Act (No. 2) as a states, ACT, NT and local government item, has been identified as a Commonwealth Own Purpose Expense and so has been reclassified.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
I would like to turn now to a new clause that is included in bill No. 3. The new clause gives effect to the government’s decision to reduce the amounts of unspent or uncommitted depreciation and make-good funding that agencies have accumulated since the introduction of accrual appropriations in 1999-2000. This clause will operate separately and in addition to the current appropriation reduction provisions. The clause will apply to both the departmental outputs and administered expenses appropriations. A similar clause is provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 4). It is intended that the new clauses will only appear in these additional estimates bills and will not be required in future bills. The proposed new clause is discussed in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Emerson.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 provides additional funding to agencies for expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution, and for payments to the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and local government authorities; and for non-operating purposes such as equity injections and the acquisition of administered assets.
The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2009-2010 is $310.9 million, the more significant amounts of which I now outline.
The government proposes an additional appropriation of $167 million for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. This includes funding for the establishment of a Local Government Reform Fund to help councils manage their infrastructure and to plan for their future needs; and funding under the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program to support investment in community infrastructure, such as libraries, community centres, sports grounds and environmental infrastructure.
The total of $167 million includes amounts which have been previously provided as follows:
First, an amount of $114.9 million has been reclassified from administered expenses in Appropriation Act (No. 1) to make payments direct to local government for the East Kimberley Development Package
Second, an amount of $18.3 million has been reclassified from payments which were to be made under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 to payments direct to local government for various Nation Building Roads to Recovery projects
Third, an amount of $10 million, which was unspent last financial year due to delays in the negotiation of funding arrangements, is proposed for the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program.
These additional appropriations are fully offset by savings against the original appropriations and estimates and thus will not lead to additional expenditure.
A reallocation of appropriation is proposed for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts for the National Solar Schools Program. The department will receive funding of $19.8 million as a state, ACT, NT and local government item, matched by reductions in Appropriation Act (No. 1) administered expense funding, to facilitate that component of the program which is delivered through the states for non-government schools. In addition, funding of $15.8 million has been brought forward from 2012-13 for the National Solar Schools Program to meet demand in the current financial year for non-government schools.
The government will provide the Department of Health and Ageing with $26 million capital funding in response to the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic to purchase H1N1 influenza vaccine and fund the associated clinical trials.
An amount of $34.1 million is proposed for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to expand the accommodation capacity at Christmas Island in response to increased irregular maritime arrivals.
The remaining amounts that appear in bill No.4 relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
I would like to turn now to the general drawing right limits for the nation-building funds, which specify the maximum limit on payments from the funds in a financial year. The Education Investment Fund and Health and Hospitals Fund general drawing rights limits proposed in this bill will replace the limits declared in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2009-10, reflecting recently announced funding for the Giant Magellan Telescope and minor adjustments in the timing of payments from the funds.
Bill No.4 also includes a new clause that provides that where a GST qualifying amount arises for payments made in reliance on a general drawing right limit, the limit will increase by the amount of the GST qualifying amount. This makes clear that the general drawing rights limits are the sum of the amounts stated plus any GST qualifying amounts. This clause also covers payments made in 2008-09.
Appropriation Bill (No.4) also includes a new clause to give effect to the Government’s decision to reduce the amounts of unspent or uncommitted depreciation and make-good funding that the parliamentary departments have accumulated since the introduction of accrual appropriations in 1999-2000. This clause will operate separately and in addition to the current appropriation reduction provisions that are contained within the parliamentary departments appropriation acts.
It has been necessary to include this clause in bill No.4 because there is no additional estimates appropriation bill proposed for the parliamentary departments this financial year. The clause will apply to the departmental outputs and administered expenses appropriations of the three parliamentary departments. It is intended that the new clause will only appear in Bill No.4 and will not be required in future bills. The proposed new clause is discussed in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Byrne.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 is to establish the Office of the Information Commissioner.
The bill will implement the structural reforms outlined in the government’s election commitment, Government information: restoring trust and integrity. Together with the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009, it constitutes the second stage of the Rudd government’s overhaul of FOI.
The new Office of the Information Commissioner will bring together the independent oversight functions for privacy protection (principally regulated by the Privacy Act 1988) and for access to government information (regulated by the Freedom of Information Act 1982). The government considers that the co-location of privacy and FOI policy will enhance oversight and allow for consistent information policy.
For this purpose, the bill creates two new independent statutory positions of Information Commissioner and Freedom of Information Commissioner. It also makes provision for the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner in this legislation instead of under the Privacy Act 1988.
The absence of an independent statutory monitor for FOI was identified as an impediment to effective administration of the FOI Act in the joint 1995 Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council Open government report and later by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. To correct that deficiency, the Information Commissioner and FOI Commissioner will have broad-ranging FOI functions. They will ensure a constant voice which not only addresses poor FOI practices, but also addresses attitudes that are not conducive to the presumption of openness which is intended by the government’s FOI reforms.
The nature of the FOI functions and privacy functions are too extensive for one office holder to effectively manage. Conversely, the appointment of multiple statutory officers of equal standing does not present an effective governance model. The bill establishes the Information Commissioner as head of the office for both strategic and administrative purposes. It is intended that the FOI Commissioner will be mainly responsible for the FOI functions, and that the Privacy Commissioner will be mainly responsible for privacy functions.
While the government expects that the three office holders will work together cooperatively, the bill makes provision for the Information Commissioner’s view to prevail in any disagreement on matters which involve substantial policy decisions. Provision is also made to ensure that there is no duplication in the performance of essential determination functions.
The FOI functions include those functions that will make the information and FOI commissioners strong advocates for FOI, such as promoting awareness, issuing guidance, monitoring compliance and providing training and assistance. It is intended that the Office of the Information Commissioner will be a resource for agencies as well as for the public. The commissioners will also be given a function of undertaking merits review of access decisions and investigating complaints. The comprehensive nature of the commissioners’ FOI functions is in keeping with the government’s intention to provide a central clearing house for FOI matters.
The privacy functions are those functions now performed by the Privacy Commissioner. The government is currently embarking on reforms to the Privacy Act by preparing draft legislation for release for public consultation early next year. Any changes that are made to the functions and powers of the Privacy Commissioner following the government’s privacy reforms will of course be aligned with the new structure created in this bill.
The bill also gives the Information Commissioner a discrete function of advising the government on information management policy. That function reflects the capacity for the new structure to generate strategic advice to government on broader information management policy and practice, including in the use of systems employed in information management. Consistent with the objective of achieving a coordinated approach to information management policy across government, the Information Commissioner is to be assisted by an Information Advisory Committee. The committee will be chaired by the Information Commissioner and will comprise senior executives from key agencies and other persons outside government who have suitable experience or qualifications.
The establishment of an Office of the Information Commissioner not only supports the important outcome of promoting a pro-disclosure culture and revitalising FOI, but also lays new, stronger foundations for privacy protection and improvement in the broader management of government information.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Byrne.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 is to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to usher in a new regime for access to government information.
When Labor was elected to government, we committed to reforming Australia’s freedom of information laws. We committed to driving a cultural shift across the bureaucracy to promote a pro-disclosure attitude. The bill implements this important election commitment, and marks the second stage of the government’s plan to undertake the most significant overhaul of the FOI Act since its commencement in 1982.
The government delivered the first stage of reform earlier this year, introducing and passing new legislation to remove the power to issue conclusive certificates in the FOI Act and the Archives Act 1983.
This bill, together with the Information Commissioner Bill 2009, meets the Rudd government’s remaining FOI election commitments, which are designed to restore trust and integrity in the handling of government information.
The two bills introduced today are the product of a participatory process. The government consulted a number of stakeholders and then released exposure drafts of each bill for public comment in March this year.
Proposals in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill are also drawn in part from the key findings of the 1995 joint Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council Open government report. The report’s key findings have been updated and supplemented by other measures to deliver better access to government information.
The bill is intended to deliver more effective and efficient access to government information and promote a culture of disclosure across government.
In pursuit of the FOI Act’s objective to give the Australian community access to government held information, the existing limited publication requirements under part II of the act are to be replaced. The bill provides for a new framework which will require proactive publication of information by agencies. This new publication scheme will require agencies to actively consider the types of information they have which can and should be made available to the public. This measure represents a significant shift away from the current system that is predominantly reactive; responding only to requests that have been made.
The publication of information, which will be primarily web based, needs to be structured, informative and user friendly. The Information Commissioner, an office which will be created by the Information Commissioner Bill 2009, will be responsible for ensuring this occurs. The Information Commissioner will be responsible for issuing guidance to agencies on how they can ensure optimal publication. Agencies will also be required to develop plans showing what information they will publish to further the objectives of the act.
Our system of government remains responsible and accountable to the people it serves. This bill amends the objects clause of the FOI Act to expressly refer to the important role that access to government information serves in promoting Australia’s representative democracy.
The bill proposes many changes to improve the effectiveness of the FOI application system. The changes are closely entwined with the structural reforms proposed by the Information Commissioner Bill 2009. The aim of these measures is to ensure that the public interest in disclosure remains at the forefront of decision making, and that the right of access to documents is not unduly restricted by liberal application of exemption criteria.
A new, single form of public interest test weighted towards disclosure will be introduced and the test will be applied to more exemption categories than is currently the case. The public interest test is to be added to the economy, research and personal information exemptions and is to be partially applied to the business affairs exemption. In response to public consultation, the public interest test will not be applied to that part of the business affairs exemption which relates to documents disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information.
Decision makers will be required to address the public interest factors taken into account in their reasons for the decision. The bill does not seek to exhaustively define public interest factors. It has long been recognised that the categories of public interest are not closed. The public interest will vary depending on the subject matter.
Certain factors which are not conducive to open and accountable government, including arguments solely concerned with political sensitivity, will not be able to be argued as factors supporting non-disclosure of documents. This extends to arguments ordinarily associated with the deliberative documents exemption—for example, that disclosure would cause a loss of confidence in the government or cause embarrassment to the government. In keeping with the intention of the reforms to promote disclosure, the bill lists some pro-disclosure factors but does not list factors against disclosure.
The bill will repeal exemption categories for Executive Council documents, documents arising out of companies and securities legislation and documents relating to the conduct by an agency of industrial relations.
The bill also proposes two limited exclusions from the operation of the FOI Act for certain intelligence related information. The public interest in maintaining confidence in the information must clearly outweigh the public interest in access to that information. The nature of intelligence agencies’ functions and some programs which operate to ensure Australia’s strategic defence are such that those intelligence functions would be compromised by public dissemination of that information. These functions cannot be carried out with the same level of transparency ordinarily expected of administrative action. This is recognised by the special accountability systems in place for the intelligence agencies through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
A substantial change which will significantly increase accessibility to information will be reducing the term during which the FOI Act governs public access to government information, and accelerating the application of the Archives Act. The bill amends the Archives Act to bring forward the open access period for all records (other than cabinet notebooks and census information) from 30 years to 20 years. The open access period for cabinet notebooks is to be brought forward from 50 years to 30 years. These measures will make government information available earlier under the Archives Act.
The bill also amends section 33(1)(b) of the Archives Act to address concerns with the current application of the provision. Decisions made by the Australian government on section 33 exemptions will be made consistent with past practice and our international obligations, and will be based on the national interest and based on the views of partner governments.
The government recognises that the promise of better information disclosure requires structural reforms. The establishment of an Information Commissioner and an FOI Commissioner, as independent officers, will address a long-standing lacuna in effective FOI administration. In addition to promotional, monitoring and guidance functions, the commissioners will directly participate in the process by reviewing access decisions made by agencies and ministers. Review of a decision by the Information Commissioner will not replace review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). A party can still apply for AAT review after the Information Commissioner review, if needed. Both forums will offer full independent merits review, unfettered by the limiting effects of conclusive certificates. Retaining an option of review by the AAT, an experienced review body, will be particularly important for highly contested FOI matters.
Information Commissioner review will be characterised by reduced formality and adversarial contest, with most applications determined on the papers. The commissioners will be able to dispose of an application where an agreement is reached between the parties or by determination if no compromise is reached.
Following public consultation on the exposure draft, the applicant will have the option of seeking an internal review or going directly to the Information Commissioner for review of an initial FOI decision. By making internal review optional, agencies should be encouraged to make the best possible access decision in the first instance.
There is potential for a substantial resource impost in the maintenance of an effective FOI system. That impost in part exists because not all government information can properly be released, and so it can take time for agencies to work out what information can be released and what cannot. The broad range of FOI functions to be vested in the Information and FOI Commissioners are designed to ensure the objects of the act are achieved with as minimal contest, and therefore cost, as possible. That includes fostering a pro-disclosure culture among agencies. To manage access requests that are manifestly unreasonable, the Information Commissioner is given a power to restrict an applicant’s access rights by declaring them to be vexatious. Provision is also made to enhance consultation provisions for dealing with onerous or vague requests for documents.
The Information Commissioner will also take over the bulk of the role of the Ombudsman in investigating complaints about handling of FOI requests. However, the Ombudsman will still have capacity to investigate complaints which relate to FOI where it would be more appropriate or effective for the Ombudsman to do so.
One aspect of the current law which has restricted the public’s access to information is cost. Cost should not deter reasonable requests for access to information. The bill, together with amendments proposed to regulations, removes all application fees, including for internal review.
No costs will apply for access to a person’s own information. The first five hours of decision-making time for applications from journalists and not-for-profit organisations will be free, and for all other applications the first hour of decision-making time will be free. Some of these measures will be implemented through amendment to regulations. The regulations will also be amended so that, if there is a failure to comply with a statutory time period, any charges will be waived. The Information Commissioner will be tasked with reviewing all charges within 12 months of the commissioner’s appointment.
The government is allocating $19.5 million over four years for the establishment and running of the Office of the Information Commissioner, in addition to the existing resources for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Whilst the Privacy Act 1988 largely regulates the handling of personal information by Commonwealth agencies, access to and correction of a person’s own information is currently enforced through the FOI Act. Around 85 per cent to 90 percent of FOI requests annually are for personal information. The government proposes to amend the Privacy Act so that it is the principal legislation which provides for an enforceable right of access to and correction of an individual’s own information. That proposal will be addressed in draft legislation covering broader reforms to the Privacy Act expected to be released for public comment early in 2010.
The government believes that the legislation now before the parliament comprises a strong package of measures to enhance access to information for the Australian public. To ensure the reform package delivers effective change, provision is made in the bill for the act to be reviewed two years after the commencement of the reforms. The government will also consider further improvements and will ask the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into whether the FOI Act or another disclosure regime should apply to the private sector.
This government recognises that transparent and open government is a key component of a healthy and vibrant democracy. When the Rudd government was elected, Labor committed to significantly reform freedom of information laws, and these bills fulfil the government’s promise to the Australian public.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) 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 Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 amends the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 and the Telecommunications Act 1997. Under the bill, the Do Not Call Register will be expanded to enable all Australian numbers to be registered.
While telemarketing and fax marketing are legitimate methods by which businesses can market their services, the Australian government is concerned that the rate of unsolicited marketing faxes has grown in recent years. As a result, there have been rising community concerns about the inconvenience and intrusiveness of telemarketing and fax marketing on Australians. In response to these concerns, this bill will extend the register to enable all persons—including individuals, businesses, government and organisations—to express their preference not to receive telemarketing calls or marketing faxes.
The Do Not Call Register Act was introduced in 2006 in response to community concerns about unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls.
In May 2007, when the act came into effect, an impressive one million Australians listed their private fixed line, mobile, voice-over IP or satellite numbers on the Do Not Call Register. To date, 3.8 million people have registered their details on the register. This means that approximately one in three Australian households have opted out of receiving telemarketing calls.
The success of the register is demonstrated by the declining level of complaints regarding potential breaches of the act. From May 2008 to May 2009 the Australian Communications and Media Authority received 12,057 complaints, which represented a 60 per cent drop from the May 2007 to May 2008 figure of 30,060 complaints.
However, there have been many concerns raised about the restrictions on the types of numbers that can be listed on the register. Under the existing provisions, business numbers, emergency service numbers and fax numbers are ineligible for inclusion on the register. As a consequence, businesses, particularly small businesses, have raised concerns about the losses in productivity caused by responding to unsolicited telemarketing calls.
The receipt of telemarketing calls by emergency service organisations has also been a real issue of concern, as these calls may potentially impact on emergency service responses. Emergency service operators have advised the government that responding to telemarketing calls can delay the answering of genuine emergency calls. Telemarketers are bypassing emergency numbers such as 000 and directly contacting emergency service operators such as the fire brigade through the use of predictive dialling equipment. These calls divert emergency resources while the telemarketing calls are being answered.
There have also been concerns raised by fax owners that the register does not allow them to opt out of receiving unsolicited commercial faxes. Much of the cost of a marketing fax is transferred to the recipient in lost time, productivity and the tying up of telecommunications equipment, as well as the additional cost of consumables such as ink and paper.
In August 2008 the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy issued a discussion paper that raised these issues. A large majority of respondents—86 per cent—supported allowing the registration of all Australian telephone and fax numbers, including business and emergency numbers.
In response to these concerns and submissions to the discussion paper, the government announced in the 2009-10 budget that the register will be extended to allow the registration of all Australian telephone and fax numbers, including those used by businesses and emergency services.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 to give all individuals, businesses, government agencies, emergency service operators and other organisations the choice of whether they wish to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls and marketing faxes.
Outline of amendments
The bill enables all Australian telephone and fax numbers to be registered on the Do Not Call Register. This will allow organisations as well as individuals to access the protections of the register.
The bill will make an allowance for businesses (large and small) and other organisations to list their telephone and fax numbers on the register. This change is not intended to impinge on business-to-business communications which are an important part of everyday business activity. Businesses can still contact other businesses with whom they have a relationship under the current inferred consent provisions. Businesses that have given express consent to receive calls or faxes may also continue to be contacted. However, ‘cold calls’ and marketing faxes to businesses that do not fall under the express or inferred consent provisions in the act will be prohibited for numbers that are listed on the Do Not Call Register.
There have been concerns that extending the register to business numbers will limit competition and stifle innovation. To address these concerns, the bill contains an additional consent mechanism that allows businesses to list their number on the register and continue to receive telemarketing calls or marketing faxes relating to specific industry classifications. As a part of the registration process, new registrants will be provided with the option to nominate to receive calls or faxes relating to a list of industry classifications.
The default position will continue to be that registrants are opting out of telemarketing calls and marketing faxes.
It is anticipated that this ‘nomination’ option will be available to anyone who lists a number on the register after it comes into effect, in the second half of 2010. It allows marketers to continue contacting individuals or businesses that have expressed an interest in hearing about the products or services in their industry classification. The nomination process also extends the choice available to consumers currently listed on the register, as it allows them to tailor their registration.
Provisions in the bill prohibit marketing faxes from being sent to a number on the Do Not Call Register. The bill also provides the Australian Communications and Media Authority with the power to make a fax marketing industry standard to place restrictions on the sending of marketing faxes, such as specifying certain times of day when faxes can be sent. This will provide additional consumer protections and will assist business recipients to more efficiently manage their communications.
Expected benefits
The amendments in this bill will benefit those organisations that currently experience losses in productivity or other expenses by prohibiting unsolicited marketing calls or faxes.
This change may also assist the telemarketing and fax marketing industries in targeting their campaigns to those recipients who are more likely to respond positively to their representations. Consultation with key stakeholders indicated a preference for the proposed new consent provision, which enables registrants to nominate a limited range of industry sectors about which they would wish to continue to receive telemarketing calls and marketing faxes. For small businesses in particular, this model will only allow relevant and targeted marketing faxes or calls. It will prevent the interruptions caused by unsolicited or unwanted telemarketing calls or faxes in businesses that cannot afford to waste time dealing with them.
Extending the nomination model to all registrants on the register—including businesses and consumers—gives them the ability to receive calls they would like to receive, and reject those that they do not want. This is an improvement on the current register that operates as an ‘all or nothing’ scheme.
Compliance costs
There are expected to be some compliance costs for business-to-business telemarketers and fax marketers who have not previously been required to use the register. However, these compliance costs are expected to be in line with the costs that telemarketers incurred with the introduction of the original Do Not Call Register and are not expected to be large. For example, the current cost to check 20,000 numbers against the register is $78 per year. A 2008 independent study conducted by the call centre industry found that 90 per cent of call centres surveyed experienced no change in gross revenues following the introduction of the original register, and none experienced decreased gross revenues.
Funding
The government recognises that the telemarketing industry will quite legitimately need some time to make necessary adjustments before these proposed changes come into effect. That is why the bill proposes that the changes to the Do Not Call Register will come into effect six months after the bill receives royal assent.
The government will provide funding of $4.7 million over four years to make the necessary changes to the scheme. Of this amount, approximately $3.5 million over four years will be recovered from the telemarketing and fax marketing industries through fees paid to access the register to cover its operational costs. This is consistent with the government’s election commitment that industry will bear the full direct costs of the register. The remaining $1.2 million will come from a reallocation of resources within the Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio.
Conclusion
This bill will put in place a range of measures that will provide all Australians with equal access to the Do Not Call Register. Businesses have long demanded inclusion on the Do Not Call Register and this bill will allow them to join the 3.8 million Australian households already receiving protection from unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls.
I thank the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, for bringing this important matter and reform to the parliament.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for this sitting.
As members would be aware, it is vital that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation be carried by the House of Representatives and the Senate before we leave for the end of the parliamentary sitting year. This is absolutely vital, and the government’s view is that our preferred option be that the parliament would continue to sit until such time as that occurs.
Discussions have taken place this morning between government members and members of the opposition for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They were constructive discussions aimed at providing some certainty to members and senators about the timing of the passage of this legislation. Members of the House of Representatives will be fully aware that this legislation has been carried in our chamber. All members would also be aware that the opposition has chosen to support the amended legislation after constructive dialogue led by Senator Wong and Mr Macfarlane on behalf of the Liberal Party. I congratulate both of them for the constructive outcome that has occurred.
We now need the Senate to pass the legislation that is the subject of the agreement between the government and the opposition. The House of Representatives at this stage will, hopefully, be in a position to make an announcement about timing at around question time. It is possible that we may adjourn or suspend today’s sitting so as to enable the House to come back when we have received messages and the amended legislation from the Senate. I do not think there is an interest of members of the House of Representatives in continuing to sit without that legislation coming back from the Senate.
So we are looking for a response from the Senate. As I said, there was a constructive meeting earlier on this morning. We are aware of some of the difficulties that exist due to the positions held by some of the Senate. Nonetheless, it is clear that this legislation will be carried. Therefore, I think it is in the interests of the parliament that, whilst everyone needs to be able to have their say, there not be unnecessary delay in the passage of this legislation.
So, in the interests of all members, the government’s intention, in consultation with the Manager of Opposition Business, is that we determine a time when we would come back when we would be in a position to receive that legislation. As I said, the government’s preferred position would be that we stay here and we continue to sit through, but if that is not going to happen in a timely fashion then it may well be that we suspend the sitting and come back at a different time.
I wish I were in a position to provide more certain options, but the Senate is not quite as easy to predict in terms of its timing and operations as the House of Representatives is. It is in the interests of all members and staff—not just staff of parliamentarians but staff of the parliament—that there be that certainty provided. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business, who has been constructive in his dialogue with me. We will, hopefully, be in a position to provide more certainty at a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the following government business orders of the day be discharged:
For the benefit of members, this motion was circulated earlier today. It consists of a range of reports to the parliament which are left on the Notice Paper so as to enable the possibility of debate being taken up either in this chamber or in the Main Committee by members. This is a procedural motion which would normally take place at the end of the annual sitting.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That Main Committee order of the day No. 4, government business relating to Australia’s response to the Global Financial Crisis, be returned to the House.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day returned to the House in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier be discharged.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the beginning of this parliament I was fortunate enough to be a permanent delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, made up of delegates from 152 countries. On attending my first meeting, I was very impressed at the work of Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians. In order to protect parliamentarians against abuses, and thus defend the institution of parliament, the IPU established the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians in 1976. It has since examined cases in over 100 countries and in many instances has helped to provide those at risk with protection or redress.
This has taken a variety of forms, such as the release of detained parliamentarians, reinstatement to a previously relinquished parliamentary seat, the payment of compensation for abuses suffered and the investigation of such abuses and effective legal action against the perpetrators. Sometimes the abuses arise from the application of flawed legislation or parliamentary rules in a particular country. A satisfactory solution may then require a change in these legal provisions to bring them into line with applicable human rights standards.
Each year, the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, which is currently chaired by Senator Carstairs of Canada, reports to the IPU cases where parliamentarians have had their human rights abused, or they have been detained, tortured or even killed in the course of their service to the parliament.
The work of this committee is essential in upholding the institution of democracy around the world, particularly in countries where human rights of citizens are often violated. But it always struck me that a vibrant democracy also depends on journalists to report the news and to hold governments, parliaments and institutions to account. I know that at times our journalists here in Australia are accused of bias, one way or another, and I confess that sometimes I have harboured a suspicion of bias in the odd article. But Australia is well served by a robust press gallery in this parliament as well as in parliaments around the country.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case in our region and, sadly, many journalists are killed in the line of duty. We are all familiar with the tragic events of October 1975 in East Timor, where a group of five Australian journalists, now famously known as the Balibo Five, were killed while covering the Indonesian invasion of the former Portuguese province. More recently, journalists from our own press gallery were caught up in the tragic Garuda plane crash at Jogjakarta Airport, in Indonesia, while covering the visit of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer.
I hope that with the support of the Australian branch of the IPU we can work to change the mandate of the committee to include a rollcall of those journalists who have lost their lives in the course of their work. I have raised this issue with the committee chair, Senator Carstairs, and she has indicated her support for changes to the committee’s mandate to include reporting on journalists who have been lost in the line of duty. Today, I hope to start a tradition which involves reading into the Hansard the names of all journalists from our region killed in the line of duty during the past year.
At the time of preparing this speech the largest nationality group were Filipino journalists, seven of whom have been killed this year. They include: Ernie Rollin, Jojo Trajano, Crispin Perez, Antonio Castillo, Jonathan Fetalvero and Godofredo Linao Jr., all of whom died as a result of targeted killings. Government Press Undersecretary, Jose Capadocia, suffered an accidental death.
Since preparing this speech we have learned of the worst election massacre in the history of the Philippines, which occurred on Tuesday of this week. There are suggestions that as many as 34 journalists may have been executed, along with followers of a political aspirant. As details are still sketchy and victims are still being identified, I am sadly unable to read their names today.
Pakistani journalists represent the second largest group, having lost five journalists this year. Mohammad Imran and Saleem Tahir Awan were both killed in the same suicide bomb attack. Aamar Wakil and Raja Assad Hameed were victims of targeted killings, while Musa Khankhel was abducted and killed.
Afghan journalists Jawed Ahmad and Janullah Hashimzada died as a result of targeted killing, while Munir Ahmad Amil was killed in a shooting at an army checkpoint. Sultan Munadi, working for the New York Times, was killed in an abduction rescue mission.
Indian journalists Venkatesh Chapalgaonkar and Anil Mozumdar died accidentally, while Prakash Kumar Nath died as a result of a targeted killing. Indonesian journalist Agung Gede Narendra Prabangsa was abducted and killed while two of his compatriots, Rajo Johan and Harfianto Gani, suffered accidental death.
Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Leader in Sri Lanka, died as a result of a targeted killing while fellow Sri Lankan Puniyamoorthy Sathiyamoorthy was killed in crossfire. Uma Singh, a female Nepali correspondent, died as a result of targeted killings and Chinese reporter Bao Cunliang suffered an accidental death.
I hope all of us in this place remember the important role that journalists play in a strong democracy, the risks that they take to bring the truth to people and the sacrifices that too many are caused to make.
I would like to thank Malcolm Farr from the press gallery and Anna Noonan from the International Federation of Journalists, who have assisted me, the Leader of the House, Mr Albanese, who made government time available, and all those on both sides of the chamber who have offered their support.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Midlife engineering services refurbishment of the Australian embassy in Paris, France.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT, proposes the midlife engineering services refurbishment of the Australian embassy in Paris, France, at an estimated out-turn cost of $28.3 million inclusive of French value added tax. In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. DFAT accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is planned to commence in mid-2011 and be completed by mid-2013. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: AIMS tropical marine research facilities—Cape Ferguson and Townsville works.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science, AIMS, proposes to undertake works associated with the AIMS Tropical Marine Research Facilities Project at Cape Ferguson and Townsville at an estimated out-turn cost of $49.5 million exclusive of GST. In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in March 2010 and be completed by late 2012. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
I would like to support the motion. I pay tribute to Dr Ian Poiner and his team. The Australian Institute of Marine Science lead the world in what they do. It is also interesting that a briefing that they provided to me in relation to their research on climate change was yet another scientifically validated piece of information which made sure that anyone who saw it would not be a climate change sceptic. I just wish more in the Australian community understood that this evidence is available now to everybody.
These new works, particularly the works in the Port of Townsville, are very important for AIMS to do their work. I welcome the dollars that are being proposed here in the parliament and I support this motion.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Villawood immigration detention facility, Sydney, New South Wales.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship, DIAC, proposes to undertake a major redevelopment of the Villawood immigration detention facility in Sydney at an estimated out-turn cost of $205.37 million inclusive of GST. The Department of Finance and Deregulation, Finance, is to manage the project delivery on behalf of DIAC. In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. DIAC and Finance acknowledge the recommendations and agree to proceed with the works. DIAC and Finance will liaise with the Public Works Committee regarding the committee’s recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval and following a detailed design process, construction works are planned to commence in late 2010, with construction to be completed by mid-2014. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of housing for Defence on Gordon Olive Estate at McDowall, Brisbane, Queensland.
Defence Housing Australia, DHA, proposes the development of a five-hectare infill site in the Brisbane suburb of McDowall, Queensland, at an estimated total out-turn cost of $27.2 million inclusive of GST and land acquisition. In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. DHA accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in May 2010 and will be completed by June 2011. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Reconstruction of Housing on Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin, Northern Territory.
On behalf of the Department of Defence, Defence Housing Australia proposes to construct 97 new houses on Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin, Northern Territory. In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in August 2010, and the first stage of 69 houses will be completed by December 2011. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
I was on this particular inquiry and visited Larrakeyah Barracks in Darwin. Two contentious issues arose. One was the demolition of about 60 of the existing houses. The committee was satisfied that in fact those houses could not be recycled as there were too many difficulties in that. They will be recycled in the sense that Defence always uses about 70 per cent of the materials when the houses are demolished—so they will recycle that material—but the houses cannot be recycled. The other issue was the location of the sewage pump station on prime land overlooking Darwin Harbour. The committee was really hopeful that the sewerage pump station could be made less visible or relocated. DHA and their engineers have undertaken to look at that, and I thank them for that. I certainly support this motion to the House today.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of Tarin Kowt.
The Department of Defence proposes the redevelopment of Tarin Kowt at an estimated out-turn cost of $86.46 million plus GST. In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence late this year and be completed at by mid-2011. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Enhanced land force stage 2 facilities project at Gallipoli barracks, Enoggera, Queensland and other Defence bases and training areas around Australia.
The Department of Defence proposes to undertake the Enhanced Land Force stage 2 facilities project at Gallipoli Barracks, Enoggera, Queensland and other Defence bases and training areas around Australia at an estimated out-turn cost of $1457.84 million excluding GST. In its report the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed, subject to the recommendations of the committee. The Department of Defence accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary clearance, the project is scheduled to commence in mid-2010 and be completed by late 2014. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
This was a very interesting inquiry; some amazing facts came out. One of the great things about the Public Works Committee is that you really can make a difference. In relation to residents who live around Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, we felt that the traffic issues were not properly addressed. Defence—to their credit—have taken that on, and we will get a good outcome for the community because Defence really likes to work and live in its community and so that will happen.
Another interesting thing that came out was that there were 10 water supply connections to Gallipoli Barracks, many of them unmetered, and Defence was getting free water. The other interesting thing was that in some of the connections water was flowing out of the barracks into the city, and the barracks were supplying water to the Brisbane City Council. I think that is all going to be addressed. These are the sorts of things that come up during inquiries like these.
This is $77 million for Lavarack Barracks in Townsville in addition to the other money for the other bases across the country. This is Enhanced Land Force stage 2. These are very significant additions to Townsville, and I am sure that the member for Solomon would like to know that it maintains Lavarack Barracks as the premier Defence base in Australia. It is the home of the 3rd Brigade, and we are the garrison city of Australia and that is terrific.
I would like to make a special thanks to Brigadier Bill Grice, Director General of the Infrastructure Asset Development Branch. This was his last inquiry and his last project. Bill is such a can-do, hands-on person. He led that division wonderfully. He thinks he is retiring, but I am sure is not. He is going off to the United States but he will be back in a civilian role. Who knows, he may well come back to Defence. I do not think he ever expected to get to Brigadier but he has done it so wonderfully well. He made an observation which was quite remarkable. He said ‘You know, this year I have dealt with almost $2 billion worth of projects for Defence and I have 100 staff.’ He said, ‘Have a look at the DMO, $6 billion each year for 7,000 staff.’ There is probably a very interesting comment there.
Finally, as the last PWC report being dealt with by expediency motion today for the year, might I thank the staff of the PWC under James Catchpole and Siobhan Leyne. They are such highly professional people, such wonderful people in how they run the committee to get this work through the parliament, so we can get all of this money flowing in the Australian economy. Thank you so much to the staff; you are legends.
Question agreed to.
As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations interests received during the period 25 June 2009 to 25 November 2009.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth I present the committee’s report entitled Housing the Homeless: Report on the inquiry into homelessness legislation together with the minutes of the proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Moylan) adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
I present a report of the Standing Committee on Publications sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. I move:
That the report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
(Quorum formed)
I thank all members who are present in the chamber and everyone who is listening to today’s debate. As the parliamentary year draws to a close, it is a time for us all to reflect on the year that has passed, the year that lies ahead and the season of rest and restoration which lies ahead for us over this coming summer. Also, in discussion and in reflections like this it is a time to rise above the hand-to-hand combat of the chamber and perhaps in recent days, in the case of the opposition, the hand-to-hand combat within the party room. It is a time also to reflect upon the period of rest and restoration ahead. It is a time to extend good wishes to all those in this chamber and beyond who contribute to the great institutions of our democracy and to wish them well for Christmas and the holiday season.
This has in many senses been a very long year—a historic year. Remember, at the beginning of this year we saw the inauguration of President Obama. That now seems such a long time ago, but what an extraordinary change in American political history did the election of President Obama bring about. The 44th President of the United States, the election of the first president of African-American origin was an event of significance not just to Americans but to America’s friends right around the world.
It was only a few short weeks later, on 7 February, that we experienced the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria—the worst bushfires of any time in our nation’s settled history. A total of 173 lives were lost in the firestorm that swept through towns like Callignee, Flowerdale, Humevale, Kinglake, Koornalla, Marysville, Narbethong, Strathewen, St Andrews, Steels Creek, Taggerty and Wandong. I know the Leader of the Opposition, other opposition members, including the honourable member for McMillan, who has just entered the chamber, and members on this side of the House have spent time with some of those communities during the course of 2009 seeking to do what practically can be done to support a very long process of recovery for them.
The nation came together in remarkable fashion in the days that followed Black Saturday with support services, welfare agencies, public servants, volunteers and donations pouring in from right across Australia, and right across the world. On behalf of the government, I would simply say to all those who rose to the occasion of responding to those in need in the Victorian bushfires how grateful I am for Australia having shown itself to be at its absolute best—at its absolute best. It made you proud to be an Australian, seeing the level of physical, practical and emotional support being delivered to people whose lives had literally been destroyed. I would also commend those honourable members who have been working hard to support fire affected communities within their constituencies. I know that has been a very long and arduous process, and a continuing process into the new year.
As Christmas approaches we reach out to all of those who have suffered the loss of family and friends at homes in those fires. We know that this will be a difficult, lonely and sorrowful time for many people. Our thoughts are with you at this time. It is worthy always of a moment’s reflection as we sit down around Christmas trees on Christmas Day on those for whom Christmas is a very sad occasion as they reflect on the recent absence of loved ones and particularly loved ones who have been taken from us in the most tragic and violent of circumstances.
I want to acknowledge the approximately 3,000 troops who are currently serving our nation abroad in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Sudan, the Middle East, the Solomons, Timor Leste and elsewhere. They do Australia proud. They are doing a remarkable job in our collective name. Just last weekend we formally welcomed back those 18,000 troops who have served during the six-year long Operation Catalyst in Iraq. We thank them and honour them for their service to the nation in response to the decision of the democratically elected government of Australia. There is no higher service to our country than that of our men and women of our armed forces. Many of those in our armed forces will be serving during the Christmas and holiday season and will not be spending Christmas and the new year with their families. They are making great sacrifices on behalf of us all and we remember them especially today. We also remember at this Christmas time those families who have lost loved ones serving in our armed forces during the past year. This again is a difficult season for them.
Christmas is a time of celebration and a time when we all reflect on the absolute importance of families. I would encourage all members of this place and members of the wider Australian family to take this opportunity to spend as much time as they can with their families and their loved ones. As we often reflect in this place during times of great difficulty, at the end of all things in this life our families remain the most important. Often it is only when we are confronted with the physicality of separation from families that we see in full stark reality their absolute importance to our everyday lives. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members here as we affirm to our families, who endure our presence in this place, how much we love them and how much we value their continued support for our service in this parliament.
To the members and senators on the government and opposition benches and also on the cross-benches who engage in the great democratic debates and other parliamentary work that occurs in the House and the Senate, my best wishes for the time that you have for your families and loved ones this Christmas. The media may not always be sympathetic to politicians, but the truth is that political office comes at a great cost to personal and family lives, and of course our friends in the media also have to endure some of those pressures as well and the impact on their families. Being associated with national and political life is a tough and arduous business with very considerable personal impacts, and that extends to families. We bear all our families in mind as this season of Christmas reflection approaches.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, and his wife, Lucy, and their family, that I wish them a very restful Christmas and a proper restoration for the holiday season. I also say to those other office bearers of the opposition—the deputy leader who is not here, the Leader of the National Party, and to other members of the frontbench of both the Liberal and the National parties and to all Liberal and National party members and Independent members, that they should receive from me and Therese the genuine compliments of the season and a hope and expectation that they find rest and restoration with their families and loved ones as well.
I want to acknowledge especially Harry Jenkins, who serves in the role of Speaker—and my notes here say—with ‘composure, good humour and even-handedness’. I am sure that all members would reflect here on a day such as this that being the Speaker of the House of Representatives, effectively since the days of the ‘long parliament’, has not been an entirely, shall we say, satisfactory career experience. But since the days of the long parliament and the short parliament, the business of being Speaker has been arduous—in days past it was more than arduous; it was physically challenging. Speaker Jenkins, we thank you for the work that you have done, occupying the position of Speaker in this parliament and seeking to bring order to what otherwise would be the chaos of our parliamentary deliberations.
Our thanks also to the Deputy Speaker, Anna Burke—where is Anna? I would invite Anna to come into the chamber. She also assists in keeping this House in order when the television cameras from time to time have lost interest and the parliament is going through the grinding hard work of its legislative program. I thank all other members of the Speaker’s panel including the member for Braddon, who was here just a minute ago and who was unceremoniously turfed from the chair.
Dumped!
Not through any lack of confidence on the part of honourable members in the way in which he would discharge his functions in the chair, because we know he is a very decent bloke. I also extend my thanks to the Parliamentary Liaison Office for their first-class work. Parliament House, when it is in session, is something like a small town with 3,000 or so people looking after the smooth running of everything. Mind you, in the place I grew up in in Queensland that would count as being a very large town. On the surface it always looks calm and organised but underneath that calm exterior we know that people are toiling night and day to make this place function. Indeed, they are literally toiling away in the corridors underneath the building where much of the real work essential for the parliament takes place.
I pass on my thanks to the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, who represent our best parliamentary traditions of integrity, independence and excellence. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the exceptional service of Ian Harris, who has served as the Clerk of this House since 1997 and is finishing up at the end of this session. We wish him all the very best in his retirement. In fact, Ian has been Clerk of this House ever since I was elected in 1998. I remember Ian attending our first briefing session, as rookie members of parliament, as we gathered here in the House of Representatives, when I asked several questions about how the standing orders actually operated and which, 11 years later, still remain, for me, a deep mystery.
I also pass on my thanks to the Serjeant-at-Arms and to all the attendants who are here, whose job it is to make the work in the chamber possible for us all. Also, to our security staff who, from time to time, are faced with some challenges in making sure that this House is able to conduct itself in a peaceful and orderly fashion, my thanks. The Parliamentary Library provides possibly the best research function of any place in Australia—always prompt, always reliable and a much-valued resource for all members and senators. To the Hansard staff, who create elegance from inelegance and who create poetry from prose—
Honourable member interjecting—Who wrote that?
I thought that was quite nice, actually. It wasn’t me—it was far too prosaic for me. We all appreciate your work, recording for the media and for posterity all the goings-on in this House. We do not altogether understand how you manage to do it, but we thank you for your excellent work in rendering sensible that which, occasionally, is less than that.
To the Table Office, we thank them for their excellent work and for, again, facilitating the practical work of this great institution. To the Parliamentary Relations Office, I make mention of their work which is important in terms of the relationship between this parliament and other parliaments around the world. That work is often, again, unseen in terms of the formal procedures of this place but very important in building a fabric of friendship between members of parliament here, members of parliament in other democracies and in other national political institutions around the world. I commend their work and thank them for it.
To everyone else who keeps this building in running order—those who care for the lawns, the gardens, cook the meals, operate the switchboard, service computers, manage security, work in the myriad other jobs in this place, we also thank you for your excellent work in making this building function.
The childcare centre.
I am coming to that! Can I say to the staff who work in the childcare centre that it is a very important part of the institutional and family life of this building. And to those honourable members who have little ones, whether they are members or senators, or are members of the media or other members of staff in this place, I believe the fact that we have now been able to provide for some time child care within the building makes this a much more family-friendly environment. Frankly, the pitter-patter of little feet around this place is a wonderful thing. There should be more of it. It actually humanises a lot of us.
Our travel agents, HRG, have done a great job as well. Also, the Broadcasting staff for making sure the broadcaster works effectively and to those Australians who choose to tune in each day, by either radio or television, to observe the deliberations of this place, my commiserations to you. Despite objections on the part of one of my predecessors to having this place televised, it is actually a good exercise in transparency of our parliamentary and political life. For those Australians who cheerfully endure the proceedings of this chamber each day on radio and television, we thank you for your virtual participation in our democratic processes.
To the IT support; to our security guards, whom I have mentioned before; to the maintenance staff; the gardeners; the switchboard; the catering staff; and the Comcare drivers, my thanks. Where would we be without our Comcare drivers? They perform a very important function. For those of us who are less familiar with Canberra than others, negotiating our way around this city in the absence of a Comcare driver would cause us all to be more than half an hour late for any occasion. We thank them.
To our friend in the press gallery at the moment—and to other members of the press gallery—thank you for keeping those on both sides of the House on our toes this year. The pace of a journalist’s life has accelerated dramatically in recent years, as media organisations embrace a range of new technologies. At the same time, many of the bureaus are coping with fewer staff and tighter financial constraints than in previous years and all have to now compete against Joe Hockey’s role in twittering against them. Therefore, as they confront the challenges of new technology and the vast changes that are occurring in the media around the world at present, this is creating stresses and strains within that profession which we should also acknowledge. We recognise that our journalistic colleagues are now working longer hours and are under greater pressure. It is not an easy career now and never has been, but their work is an integral part of our Australian democracy. I believe that it is important that the parliament recognises that fact, however vexatious we may find it from time to time. With an election year next year I am sure that everyone is looking forward to 2010, but may we all be properly repaired through a proper break over this Christmas.
I turn now to members of the government. Where is Julia? Is she here?
She’s at a photo shoot!
I think it is a great photo—a fantastic photo. The one of Joe and his new bub is good, too. The Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has done an extraordinary job for the government. This is not the time to engage in any partisan observations of her achievements—but let me just engage in a few! I speak on behalf of government members here when I say that I believe that her extraordinary work and great achievements in relation to Work Choices, the Fair Work Act and so many aspects of Building the Education Revolution have earned her not only the respect of all members on the government side but also wider respect in the general community.
As Deputy Prime Minister and as the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion can I just say that her contribution to the work of this government is simply outstanding. Also behind the scenes, in cabinet and through the various streams of government work, Julia makes an extraordinary contribution to the work of the government. I thank her for that.
To the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, my friend and colleague from the great state of Queensland: it has been an extraordinarily tough year for those charged with the tasks of economic management. I think if you were to get the treasurers or the finance ministers of the world into a room it would rapidly become a global therapy session as they all exchanged stories about how many near-run things there were during the last 12 months since the global financial crisis hit.
To the Treasurer, who now enters the chamber, I thank him for his stewardship over the Australian economy during the year which has been exceptionally difficult. Measured against all previous challenges of previous treasurers of the Commonwealth, dealing with our national economic circumstances in the last 12 months has been right out there in terms of what his predecessors have had to deal with, whether it was under previous Liberal governments or previous Labor governments. Well done, Treasurer.
Government members interjecting—Hear, hear.
I also want to thank the cabinet, the ministry and the parliamentary secretaries. I am proud to lead a united and disciplined and diligent team that has worked with a singular focus to implement a challenging and wide-ranging reform program. I am fortunate to work with such a strong team with such extraordinary depth of talent—talent that is evident when you work with the team every day. I am very proud of their contribution to the cabinet, as a ministry, as an executive. The Leader of the House, Albo—where is Albo?—for me is absolutely indispensable, not least because of his sense of humour when things are going right and things are going wrong. He brings also a sense of order to the House and manages to do so notwithstanding the fact that he has a daily collaboration with the member for Sturt. I thank him for his work. He brings a great sense of parliamentary humour to this place, I believe in the great traditions of former parliamentarians such as Fred Daly and Jim Killen. This is good for the overall operation of this place.
The government’s Senate team leadership, Chris Evans and Steve Conroy, have the enormous challenge of getting every piece of legislation through a sometimes unruly and sometimes unpredictable Senate chamber and we appreciate their terrific work. I turn to the Chief Government Whip, Roger Price. Where is Roger? He is absent as well. He is obviously out whipping somebody! He is very much pastor-in-chief when it comes to individual members of parliament who may for one reason or other be going through a difficult time, or who are dealing with challenging circumstances, and his role is also to make sure that the part relates to the whole in the operations of a governing party. Roger, I just place on record my great appreciation for your great work as Chief Government Whip. It is hard to accurately reflect on Roger’s precise role in this place but I suppose he would be a combination of sage, a sensitive source of wisdom, advice and support for so many, and a very, very good cook at a barbecue.
To each of the government’s members of parliament and each senator serving in the government go my thanks. To all those who are members of parliament and who work as backbenchers, can I say how much I appreciate what you do in your constituencies and what you do in the day-to-day work of this place. The member for Lilley and I were elected 10 years or so ago and we know full well the challenges from our own experience of working hard as a constituency member of parliament. We honour the work that each of you do in your communities. This is really important ground-level pastoral work in dealing with community life and the challenges that are faced by our local communities—often by people in acute individual need. For the day-to-day work that you have done—each of you in ways which will never ever be known on the national stage or covered in any reporting in the newspaper—in trying to make individual lives better, I really do thank you and salute the work that you have done. Your work in parliamentary committees, I also acknowledge, is very important in keeping this great institution of the parliament working.
I also acknowledge the work of opposition members as they seek to service the needs of their constituents as well. Most of this occurs invisibly but it is a very important function that we perform. So many people in the community have no idea about how to work their way through the myriad confusion that represents the system of government for them and they need help in negotiating their way through it. I salute the valuable role that all members of parliament play in helping meet the very practical needs of individual members of the community who would otherwise be friendless in getting the help that they need.
I also thank the Australian Labor Party national organisation. To the whole team at the ALP national secretariat—and the secretariat faces a very busy year ahead with the federal election—we wish them a very good break over Christmas; may they enjoy their three days off. To the staff of each of the members and senators in the Labor Party, whether they are our electorate staff, staff who act as ministerial advisers or others, I thank them for their extraordinary work. Our staff in this place, and I am sure I also reflect the view of other members from other parties, become very much part of our official family. They become more than that; they become part of our wider family and without their work and support, frankly it would not be possible for us to act effectively in this place.
Can I especially thank our electorate officers on all sides of politics for the very difficult job that they do in dealing with people in distress. This is really important. I know full well from my own electoral staff in Brisbane the range of tasks that they are asked to perform. I also say to the public service, which services diligently and faithfully the democratically elected government of the day, how much I appreciate their work in the year that has just passed. My own department, Prime Minister and Cabinet, in particular to the secretary of the department, Terry Moran, and the entire Australian Public Service, you have handled an enormous workload during the course of the last year. Public servants in departments and agencies have done an exceptional job managing challenges such as bushfires, the global recession, the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, the response to the challenges of the G20, the substantial reform programs that the government is implementing in education, infrastructure, financial services, health and hospitals, and partnership with the Council of Australian Governments.
The government has been implementing a formidable legislative and reform program. The Australian Public Service from time to time has been straining under the weight of it but I would use this opportunity to reflect again how much we appreciate the work that they have done diligently, independently, in working for the government of the day.
To my own staff: I thank them for the extraordinary work that they put in working for an exceptionally demanding boss—that is, yours truly. Without fail, my own staff rise to the occasion. I thank them for it. My Chief of Staff, Alister Jordan, who has now been with me for a long, long time—
Honourable members interjecting—
Appropriately, he is not in the advisers box! He is off doing something much more important. I thank him and all members of my personal staff in the Prime Minister’s office. This is a very tight-knit unit. There are a lot of challenges and a lot of pressures, and there is a lot of hard work. Can I say how much I appreciate what they have done to support the government’s program this year and to support me personally as Prime Minister. I really do appreciate it. That goes to you, Alister, as well, for having put up with me for so many years. A special thanks also to the close personal protection team, the AFP officers, who have put their own security on the line in their work protecting officeholders and dignitaries. Could I also thank personally my own electorate staff, the dedicated team in Brisbane, who deal with an extraordinarily large range of challenges. These come not just from within the electorate but, as you would expect when an individual member of parliament becomes a national political leader, from well beyond those areas a local electorate office would normally have to deal with. Also, I thank party members and volunteers in my own area in Brisbane’s Southside who dedicate many hours each week, week after week and month after month, to assist in the services of my electorate office.
To my own family: to my life partner, Therese, and our kids, Jessica, Nicholas and Marcus, I would place again on the record my appreciation for all that they do for me. I look forward very much to spending Christmas with them, along with Therese’s mum.
We look forward to the year 2010. It will be a big year. It is an election year. The great thing about elections in Australia is that we, unlike most countries in the world, conduct our national political life in a fair and proper manner, supervised by an independent institution otherwise called the Australian Electoral Commission and anchored in the laws of this great institution of the Parliament of Australia. With those remarks, I wish all members the very best for the Christmas season. May we all return to this place refreshed and rejuvenated from having spent time with our families and our loved ones.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
Firstly, may I thank the Prime Minister for his very warm remarks. I certainly listened carefully and took detailed notes, and I could not find anything that I disagreed with—other than perhaps a few of the confessedly partisan comments. The rest of it was very generous. It has indeed been a remarkable year. The Prime Minister mentioned the inauguration of President Barack Obama at the beginning of the year, and that was certainly a watershed in history.
He went on to refer to the Black Saturday bushfires. That was a tragedy of what many would say were biblical proportions; it was almost beyond imagination. The horror that nature unleashed on the people of Victoria was truly horrendous. I will never forget, as long as I live, inspecting the aftermath with my colleagues Fran Bailey and Darren Chester in particular. We looked at burnt-out vehicles where everything except the steel had melted, where the heat had been so intense that the glass and the windscreen had flowed like liquid and coated the dashboard and the floor and then frozen, where the alloys, the wheels and the engines had melted and just flowed along the ground like water. Those were inconceivable temperatures. Fires moved at previously unheard of speeds. It was truly in the nature of an apocalypse. The Australian people did, as the Prime Minister said, come together in a way that brought out the best of us. Nature showed us her worst side and we responded by showing our best side—the comradeship, the generosity, the extraordinary heroism and the determination to set things right. That was an admirable and beautiful thing to behold.
In particular, our colleagues here—and I mentioned Fran and Darren Chester, but I also mention the member for McMillan, my very good friend Russell Broadbent; all of them suffered with their communities—represented their communities and spoke in this House, as they should have, with moving and powerful eloquence. I will never forget the heartfelt words in this House of those members about those fires. They summed up many of the things that we love so much about Australia. Indeed, as the poet Dorothea Mackellar wrote, ‘We love her beauty and her terror.’ It was a very terrible side of Australia that we saw then. In respect of the families who lost their loved ones and are still suffering with the consequences of those fires, we know this will be a difficult and often very sad Christmas, because there will be places at the Christmas dinner table that will not be filled. There will be loved ones not there. We wish all of them the very best, and our prayers are with them as they recover and rebuild with our support after these terrible experiences.
The Prime Minister reminded us, correctly, of the important work our troops are doing overseas—3,000 Australian troops serving our nation abroad, putting themselves in harm’s way to defend freedom. They do that wearing our uniform. They serve under our flag. We are enormously, unconditionally, proud of their skill, their professionalism and their great courage. I want to particularly note the House’s appreciation and admiration for Trooper Mark Donaldson, who this year was awarded the Victoria Cross. In the great tradition of Victoria Cross winners, he put his own life at enormous risk to save the life of another. It was a remarkable moment of bravery when he ran out, under fire, to collect a wounded Afghan interpreter and carry him back to safety and then, having done that, continued fighting. It is truly the stuff of legend. Trooper Donaldson personified the courage, the spirit, the commitment of the Australian defence forces.
This year we have seen, as the Prime Minister noted, the official end of Australia’s proud, valuable and constructive military engagement in Iraq. I would just note with appreciation that the Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, who had been a critic of our involvement in that war, himself acknowledged that our engagement had been a success. That has been noted.
There is, of course, no greater sacrifice than to lay down your life in defence of your country and to protect your comrades in arms. We have lost 11 soldiers in Afghanistan, and one can only imagine how hard it is at this time of year for the families of those brave Australians. We lost four this year and I just record them, brave men who died serving our nation in that very dangerous mission: Private Benjamin Ranaudo, Sergeant Brett Till, Corporal Mathew Hopkins and Private Gregory Sher. At this time of year, which is a special time of year for all the families, whether it is Christmas or Hanukkah, it is important to reflect on and remember the sacrifice that those young men made.
We have also seen a lot of combat here. The Prime Minister called it hand-to-hand combat. Thank heavens it does not ever quite come to that—although there was a moment when the Leader of the House suggested to the member for Sturt that they should step outside. But it was purely just for a chat, I am sure. We would all have followed if we had thought it was going to be more engaging! Nonetheless, there have been occasions of great bipartisanship this year. We have talked about the bushfires. That was one occasion where the House spoke as one in compassion and admiration for the courage of the people who were so cruelly affected by those fires. And we saw just last week the apology, on behalf of the government and supported by me as Leader of the Opposition, to the forgotten Australians and the lost innocents, the child migrants. That was a very moving moment, and I am sure the Prime Minister has received the same responses and correspondence that I have. It delivered a degree of healing and comfort, in some cases a sense of closure, for thousands of Australians who had been so cruelly neglected and ignored.
This is a time for families. I agree with the Prime Minister: when all is said and done, your family is what you have; that is what you are. Of course, this is one of the tragedies of the life experience of so many of those forgotten Australians: they were taken away from their families, and in some cases lied to about their families and their background. Happily, that is not the case for most of us here and we will spend this Christmas period with our families.
The Prime Minister spoke a little bit about love. I would like to say a bit more about that. One of the most remarkable things about the events of 9-11 was that when the passengers on those doomed planes realised their fate, so many of them got onto their mobile phones and called their families. And the one thing they all said, just three words, was: I love you. Facing death, that is what they said. The most important thing they could say was: ‘I love you.’ It is a reminder that love and family is all we have. It defines our humanity. Love is what makes us human. So often we do not love enough. So often we deny or suppress or set to one side our love for each other. Surely this is the time of year when we should be loving and generous to all people, but particularly to our families.
As everybody in this House knows, politics is a tough business. The Prime Minister talked about the press gallery giving us cruel and unusual punishment from time to time—occasionally deserved; probably sometimes not so deserved. But, nonetheless, the thing that we all know, that each and every one of us knows, is that it is our families—our spouses, our husbands and wives—who take it hardest. When the Prime Minister and I are attacked, we can stand up and defend ourselves, we can denounce our accusers and ridicule them and speak for ourselves, but Therese and Lucy just have to take it, and that goes for every spouse in this parliament. It is a tough life, politics, but it is so much tougher for our partners, for our spouses. Today is a day when we should, above all, thank them for the support they give us, because without that we could not do this important national service here.
I thank the Prime Minister for his kind conveyance of thanks and Christmas good wishes to Lucy and me. I reciprocate and wish him and Therese, and all their family, a very happy Christmas. In the Turnbull household it is a particularly happy time of year because our second child, Daisy, has announced her engagement to a young man who seems perfectly suitable. James, her fiance, is a prospective member of our family and we look forward to welcoming him.
Mr Rudd interjecting
He is actually a member of the Army so he shouldn’t be in any political party, Prime Minister—but if he was I am not sure that he would be in yours! Having said that, as you know, the ADF are completely above politics. James is a good young man, he and Daisy make a fine couple, and Lucy and I are very, very pleased.
The Prime Minister spoke about the House, and of course our first thanks should always be to the Speaker. We are told that with the Speaker, flattery gets you everywhere. We are very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for your hard work and we are also grateful for the work of the Deputy Speaker and, from our side, the Second Deputy Speaker, Bruce Scott, and the coalition members on the Speaker’s Panel. All of you, on both sides of the House—the Speaker and all of his deputies and representatives—do an outstanding job.
The Clerk, Ian Harris, after your many years of service, we thank you. You and Bernard Wright make this place run. You give us the wisest advice one could possibly imagine and we congratulate you and thank you for your many years of service. And, Bernard, we congratulate you again on your elevation.
The Serjeant-at-Arms has not been obliged to throw anybody out this year, at least as far as I have noticed—but I am sure there is still the potential for some provocation.
The Parliamentary Library is more important to the opposition than to the government, as a rule, because governments have the massed ranks of the public service to give them advice. So I particularly thank Roxanne Missingham and the team at the Parliamentary Library. My colleagues have heard this before: I remember when I was inducted as a new member of parliament not so long ago, in 2004, Roxanne’s predecessor—a very distinguished woman—looked at us coldly and austerely and said, ‘Our job is to make you look intelligent.’ She said it in a tone of voice that implied that that was going to be very difficult. Tony Burke was there with me and can vouch for that.
I thank all the people who work in this great House. This parliament is an enormous engine. It is an extraordinary monument in every respect but nonetheless works as a very effective parliament. There are hundreds of people who enable it to work, from the attendants here in the House to the cleaners to the security guards. Every possible line of work here is done with good spirit, especially taking into account the very heavy demands we put on these people.
The Prime Minister mentioned the child-care centre and the pitter-patter of little feet. A number of members here are members of the legal profession who would have been admitted to practice in New South Wales when Sir Laurence Street was the Chief Justice. At every single admissions ceremony, a baby in the public gallery would start to cry. Sir Laurence would always say, as the mother got up to take the baby out, ‘No, no—let the little one stay.’ The Prime Minister’s remark reminded me of that, and I agree with him and I agreed with Sir Laurence that the more children we see in this place, the better. I say to every school group that I address—and I think many of you say the same thing—that this House belongs to them. There are some kids up there in the gallery now. Everything we do here, right or wrong and whether we agree or not, is done with their best interests at heart. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
The task of Leader of the Opposition is often said to be a tough job—I think all the jobs in this place are tough—and I could not do my job without the support of my team. I acknowledge, in particular, the support of my deputy, Julie Bishop, the member for Curtin, who has done an outstanding job both as Deputy Leader of the Opposition and in her two shadow ministerial roles—she has been shadow Treasurer and is now shadow minister for foreign affairs. Our leadership group, of course, includes the Senate, and I acknowledge the hard work of our Senate leader, Nick Minchin, and his deputy, Eric Abetz. We have a strong but frank coalition with the Nationals, and I acknowledge the support and friendship I have had from the Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss.
The Prime Minister referred to Albo’s good humour. The good humour of Christopher Pyne, the Manager of Opposition Business, has been remarkable. When you do not have the numbers it is harder to remain good humoured, as Albo would recall from the days when he was on this side of the chamber. Christopher has really taken the fight up to the government in a way that combines an encyclopaedic knowledge of the standing orders and good humour.
104!
If it is a good one, keep using it. When he uses 104 as often as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer say ‘swift and decisive action’, then I will listen to him! The whole frontbench has performed very effectively and loyally throughout this year. I cannot acknowledge all of them here—it would take us all morning—but I want to acknowledge the hard work that Joe Hockey has done as shadow Treasurer. Of course, prior to that he was the Manager of Opposition Business and he did an outstanding job in that regard.
I also acknowledge the extraordinary work that Ian Macfarlane, the member for Groom, has done in those very arduous negotiations with Senator Wong that had the outcome of the agreement to amendments to the government’s emissions trading scheme. It was a remarkable negotiation and had many good results—the amendments were one, and there was also a particularly entertaining cartoon in the Age, which we have all found amusing.
I thank for their hard work our Chief Whip, Alex Somlyay, and whips Nola Marino and Michael Johnson. They have done a remarkable job. Again, whichever parliamentary job you speak of, it is harder in opposition than it is in government, and the members opposite understand that. The whips have done an outstanding job. I also thank every member and senator on our team—the Liberal and National members and senators. I acknowledge the hard work that they do in their own constituencies. Sometimes you read in the press that, when parliament rises, the parliamentarians go on holiday or take leave. The reality, as we all know, is that the work in one’s own electorate is often far more demanding, in terms of hours and the range of challenges that you face, than the work that we do here—although that is very challenging as well. The role of members and senator gets more challenging each day as the complexity of government increases and the number of people seeking assistance from their MPs becomes greater than ever. The internet has obviously made that work, that interaction, more intense, and MPs are routinely dealing with hundreds and hundreds of emails and other correspondence every week.
I thank all of our staff on the coalition side. I said that the Library’s job is to make us look good—to make us look intelligent, I should say!—and our staff have to do much the same thing. I thank all of our coalition staff—in particular, the staff who work in our electorates away from the limelight of Canberra. In terms of my own office, I recognise in particular the hard work of my Chief of Staff, Chris Kenny, and my Deputy Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin. I also thank Tony Parkinson, Sally Cray and our other advisers—including Stephen Ellis, who has worked so closely, so hard and for so long with Ian Macfarlane in the negotiations. Presenting the opposition’s case to the press gallery is often a challenge, and our media team has taken that on very well. Mark Westfield, Andrew Hirst and our whole press office have done a remarkable job. The Prime Minister said that, as a national leader, the range of inquiries you get in your electorate office goes well beyond local matters. With respect, I think that applies to just about every member of parliament—and obviously more so to the party leaders. I acknowledge the tireless work of the team in my electorate office—in particular, Nick Berry, Pat McGrath, Bruce Notley-Smith, Jacqui Kempler and Melissa Chan.
Can I conclude where I began and speak about our families. This is a very special time of year. Next year will be an election year. It will be a tough year for all of us. I thank once again the families of every member and senator in this place. Without their support and love, none of us could do our job. I especially thank my family. They often take it very tough when their husband and father is under attack—and that is the occupation of a member of parliament. They have stood by me during this tough year, as I know the families of every other member have done. As we go into this Christmas break, let us resolve to love our families more than ever. Let us to rest and reflect and return refreshed for a year of debate—no doubt there will be some strong disagreement, but all of it will be conducted passionately in the national interest.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
What a year it has been! It has been a year in our national economic life the likes of which we have not seen for something like 75 years—and I will talk a bit about that in a moment. But this parliamentary year has been particularly important and, I believe, particularly effective. From time to time this place gets an undeserved reputation, I think, for the willingness of some of our debates. But the one thing that we can say as we move forward to Christmas is that this year the parliament has been a very important clearing house in the battle of ideas. And whatever may occur in this House from time to time—the willing clashes at question time or in other debates—I think that this year all members have demonstrated what an important institution the parliament is for our public life and for all people, irrespective of their particular view, to contribute to important national debates. At this time of year we celebrate and remember all of those ideals that bring us here—because everybody comes here to serve the national interest. From time to time we will vehemently disagree about the ideas that we take forward. But what is so important, and what should be treasured, is that this House is the clearing house for those ideas, and I believe in the past year it has served that function very, very well.
This is a year which not just my Treasury colleagues but, I believe, everybody in this House will tell our kids and our grandkids about. We will talk about it and we will debate what occurred and what policy solutions were put in place. It will be talked about for many years to come.
I could go through all the facts and figures of what has happened in the economy and what lies ahead. But I think what is worth reflecting on, particularly at this time of year, is the success that we as a nation have had in cushioning the impact of this global recession on our communities, on our families, on our breadwinners, and I think all of us, irrespective of our different perspectives in this debate, would say how important it is to have had policies in place which have protected, to the maximum extent possible, our families from the scourge of higher and prolonged unemployment. That is something that is worth celebrating. And it is not something that is owned by a particular government policy; it is something that has come out of the community itself—Australians working together to make sure that we can do our best in the face of these external events that have threatened our community.
The consequence of that, as we go forward to Christmas, is that we do not have the high levels of unemployment that we had forecast at the beginning of the year as the unfortunate consequences of this global recession. That means that fewer families have been dramatically affected. Fewer families have lost breadwinners. More small businesses have managed to keep their doors open. That all means that unemployment has not torn up the fabric of our society in the way in which it could have, and that is something worth reflecting on as we move forward. Fewer people have been thrown on the scrap heap. Less damage has been done to communities and less damage has been done to individuals.
That is very much worth reflecting on, because, going back to where I started, all of us come to this House with the view that we must do our best to protect people. We may disagree about the means of doing that, but we all come here with the objective and public policy purpose of ensuring that we do the best that we can by our communities. I think in the past year we have demonstrated as a community and as a nation that by pulling together in the face of these external global events we can make a difference.
The year ahead is one that is going to bring great challenges. Despite the success of the last year, we do know that there are big challenges ahead. Meeting those challenges is going to take every ounce of commitment and courage and unity if we are going to keep Australia ahead of the pack—and not just in the year ahead but in the decades ahead, and none of that is going to be easy. To paraphrase JFK, we are here to meet these challenges because they are the hard challenges, not the easy challenges—because if we are going to protect the national interest we have to take the hard decisions for the future.
I thank all of my colleagues in the cabinet and in the ministry, and of course in the caucus. Sitting around our cabinet table there are some very, very dedicated ministers. It is a real privilege to work with such big-hearted and smart people as those who sit around our cabinet table, with the exceptional leadership of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, with all of my colleagues, including the Leader of the House, who is in the chamber, working together in a way which is quite extraordinary. I suppose, given the amount of time that we spend together, it is even more extraordinary that we all remain on such good terms! There is a camaraderie in this cabinet and in this ministry which has been very, very important in government decision-making. The capacity to work together, to do the long hours, and the good spirit that comes forward even when colleagues may, from time to time, have a difference of opinion: that degree of unity in our cabinet says something very special about each and every one of my colleagues. To my Treasury colleagues, Chris and Craig and Nick—it is a great team—I say thanks very much for all of your effort and I can promise you a harder year ahead!
There is also so much talent not just in the cabinet and the ministry but also on our backbench. Many speakers this morning have reflected on the important role of a backbench member of parliament. All of us who have the privilege of serving in the executive know that you cannot serve there effectively unless you have worked effectively in an electorate, unless you have actually connected with a community and understand how national policies translate to local communities, to individuals and to families. That is just an important part of political life.
This is an opportunity to say something nice about our political opponents! I am pleased the member for North Sydney is here, because I have not had the opportunity to publicly congratulate him on the birth of his baby boy. I wish the family all the best for the future. I had planned to say this publicly to the member for North Sydney earlier, but I have been waiting a long time for a question, Joe! So I have had to say it this morning, because I thought I might miss out if I waited until this afternoon. But seriously, as I said earlier, this parliament, particularly this year, has been a very important institution. Whilst we have had our disagreements over economic policy with the opposition—some fundamental disagreements—I do accept that these disagreements are part and parcel of the role of this parliament, and there has been vigorous debate about economic policy in this parliament, which is as it should be, and the opposition have played their role in that debate, and that is very important. I would like to mention a few of my sparring partners from the other side, although there do not seem to be many of them in the House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has also been a very important part of that debate. I wish all of my colleagues in the opposition a festive season. I hope you do not come back too refreshed! Nevertheless, take the opportunity to spend some time with your families.
I also thank all of the Parliament House staff, from the security guards, whom I generally see when I come in very early in the morning, and all those who clean the offices and look after us in the corridors, to the Serjeant-at-Arms, Hansard, Anna in the whip’s office, all of the attendants who help us on a daily basis, Ian and Bernie, the press gallery and of course our party office. I thank all of them for the very important role that they play.
I would like to say something about family, and both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have highlighted the importance of family. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in this House can only do so with the permission of family, and we can only continue to serve, particularly for any extended period of time, with family. Of course, they sacrifice so much for us in terms of the time that we spend away from home and, if you like, coming to the fore of the media debate. They are in this as much as we are, but they do not necessarily get all of the benefits that we receive. So they do pay a very big price. I would particularly like to acknowledge my wife, Kim. This year we celebrated 25 years of marriage. She thought that was a bit of a miracle!
She is very tolerant!
Yes.
You have done well.
Yes, I think I have done extremely well; I am not so sure about the other side of the ledger! But she is very patient and we even managed to find time to have a party, which was even better.
My children, Erinn, Libbi and Matt, always bring me back down to earth when I go home. If there is an issue around that has escaped my attention, they will make sure that it does not escape my attention. They are very good at bringing me back down to earth and at bringing me up to date with what is happening in their communities. I want to thank all of the families who support members of the parliament. We all have our battles but, when it comes to family, I think we would all agree on the important and critical role they play in supporting us in our national political life.
I also thank in particular the Treasury, because it has been a very big year for them. Each and every one of our Treasury officers has made a very substantial sacrifice for our country in what has been an extraordinarily busy year in our national economic life. Of course, they have frequently been in the firing line as well. This country would be a lot poorer without their quality advice, dedication and long hours of work. They have put in a magnificent effort this year. They are highly regarded not just domestically but internationally, as they should be. I thank every Treasury officer for the very hard work that they have put in, particularly in the last year.
I thank all of my staff here in the ministerial office. Each and every one of them has put in an extraordinary effort over the past 12 months. They are a dedicated group of staff and they show no respect for sleep. They have the capacity to work around the clock—and they frequently have been working around the clock. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for their dedication and service over the last 12 months, and I also thank their families. For their hard work over the past year I also thank the staff in my electorate office in Brisbane—Lisa, Carla, Finn, David, Jess, Angela and now George—and the staff in all of my branches.
Could I just give a special thanks to Treasury head Ken Henry. It is true to say that he has been a dedicated and extraordinary public servant, and he has put in an extraordinary effort over the last couple of years. I am certainly proud to be a Treasury minister, and I am proud to have worked with Ken and his team at the Treasury because they have certainly delivered so much for our country in the last 12 months.
Finally, could I wish everyone here all the best for Christmas. Have a break. We will see you in the New Year.
May I join with the others in extending to all of those who work in this place, those who support us and the people of Australia, my very best wishes for the Christmas season. It has been another eventful year—the year of Black Saturday; the year when the drought has continued for many, although in some instances it has eased and in other cases it has got worse; the year when our involvement in Iraq formally ended, although the war in Afghanistan became more intense. It has been a year when we have apologised to forgotten people and when the government has been able to advance quite a deal of its agenda. It has been a year when people have lived through a lot of uncertainty with the recession we did not have. All of these things have made this an eventful year. The parliament has had, as it always does, a particular responsibility to take a leadership role, to respond to the issues and to do what we can to help build a better nation.
I thank all of those who have been a part of ensuring that the parliament has worked so smoothly this year. Firstly, I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the members of your panel. Thank you for the good natured way in which you undertake your responsibilities. From time to time, I know people on all sides of the House test your patience, but you have undertaken your work with great dignity and goodwill, and certainly you have earned the respect of every member of the parliament. We thank you very much for the work that you do and the support that you get from the other members of your panel.
I want to also make some comments about the Clerk. I guess this will be the last time we have an opportunity to say thank you to Ian as he retires very shortly, after 12½ years as the Clerk of the House and after 37 years of service to this House. Ian has made an extraordinary contribution, and that is beyond question. He came from a coalmining family in the Newcastle area, and he went to school and university there. He worked as a teacher and then as a public servant, but most of his working life has been in this place.
Ian has served as the Clerk for 12½ years. There have only been 14 clerks in 108 years of our federal parliament, so clerks manage to survive much better than prime ministers, opposition leaders and most of the people who have the privilege to serve as members. Perhaps it is because of the important administrative role that the clerks play as well as the great diplomatic skills that they bring to their task. Fairly early in my parliamentary career I had the opportunity to travel with Ian overseas. I got to know him well. I admired and appreciated him, and I saw a side of him that you never get to see with the formality of this place.
The Clerk, more than anyone, is entrusted with a fair degree of the traditions and forms of this place, and with the administration, to make sure that we are able to undertake our work seamlessly and effectively. It does not mean that things do not change. Indeed, there has been a lot of change in the parliament over the last 20 years with the establishment of the second chamber and a whole lot of other things that have made a real difference. Some of the formality has gone; there is no doubt about that. As one who has been around for a while, I regret some of that. But on the other hand we do need to be relevant to the times and to make sure that the things we preserve and protect are those things that actually matter to our democratic institutions.
So, Ian, thank you for all you have done. As I mentioned, you have come from humble beginnings. You served for three years as president of the Association of Secretary-Generals of Parliament, the first person in the southern hemisphere to have that honour. That demonstrates the respect with which you are held around the nation and beyond. I read somewhere in a newspaper report that you actually had to learn French do that job. That is a clear demonstration of dedication, that one would go to that length. But the fact that you have held those offices is a further commendation of your career. Ian Harris, AO, we wish you good health and every happiness in your retirement. I know that Erika will be very pleased to be able to spend more time with you as well. You leave with enduring friends in this place and much respect for everything you have done.
In that context I welcome Ian’s replacement Bernard Wright, also a man steeped in the traditions of the parliament. Bernard, I am sure that it will not be long before we will be saying equally favourable things about your contribution to this place and your support for the parliament and the way in which it operates.
I will mention the staff, about 250 staff, I understand, that serve the parliament. That is just those directly associated with the office of the Clerk. They have certainly, as always, served us well. They help us in undertaking our responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. We do not very often get the chance to say thank you to them. Sometimes we walk past in a flurry with our minds on other things. But let me say that there is a deep and abiding affection for the work that you do and appreciation for your service to the parliament and to us as members. I mention the Serjeant-at-Arms and his staff, the attendants, the security people, the Comcar drivers, the dining-room staff, the nurses, the cleaners, the Library staff, the Hansard people, who translate what we say into English, and those who look after our travel arrangements and everything else that we do. We thank you very much and wish you the compliments of the season.
I also acknowledge the press gallery, who give us a tough time. I acknowledge what has happened in their lives over the last year or two as their numbers have been reduced. They work long hours. We all often do interviews at 10 or 11 o’clock at night, and we know they are presenting programs at five or six in the morning—incredible hours. I will mention one other development in the last 12 months that I think is a very significant advance, and that is the opening of the APAC television channel. That has opened up the workings of the parliament so that people at home can actually see more of what the parliament does and in particular the way it works. So much television time of the parliament, what there is of it, surrounds question time, which is a very small part of what occupies our day. It is the theatrics, I guess, it is where the one-liners come from. But when people can actually see their local member, who may not be in the headlines of the capital city newspapers every day, when they can see them on APAC actually at work, I think that is a very substantial advance. I commend those who have taken the initiative to establish that channel. It is a pity it is not available free to all. Nonetheless, it is available to those who keenly follow the public events of our nation.
I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and Julie Bishop and all of my colleagues in the coalition front bench for the privilege of working with them. I acknowledge Nigel Scullion, my deputy, and Senators Joyce and Nash, the leaders of my party in the Senate. They have been good colleagues to work with and I very much appreciated that privilege. I want to join in thanking the whips, and I mention in particular Alex Somlyay, my electorate neighbour and good friend. I extend particular wishes to Alex in the period ahead. He has got some medical issues to address. We hope that those issues will go well for him, and we look forward to seeing him back next year bright and well and happy. Kay Hull is a tower of strength for us. She is little but big. She is a little person but, my word, she does a tower of work and is an enormous strength. She is there when we have got problems. Sometimes when I think of Kay I remember her past as a tow truck operator taking on the big guys with the big trucks battling over a wreck. Frankly, I think she would be more than a match for any of them. Kay, you do a wonderful job and I very much appreciate the contribution you make to our party organisation.
Our party secretariat, Brad and his team, work with a very thin budget to be able to ensure that our party operates as effectively as we can. Can I join also in thanking our staff, my Canberra office staff and my electorate staff. David Whitrow has been with me for many years and, indeed, most of my staff have been with me since our days in government. I appreciate their loyalty and their support and the hack work that we expect them all to do. Some of my electorate staff have been with me for as long as I have been in the parliament. In fact, some of them worked for my predecessor. The loyalty and support of all of them is very much appreciated.
Sometimes people think the parliament is out of touch, that we are not doing the things that they want us to do. But we can capture the mood of the people, and that has been evident on many occasions this year. As others have said, we have disagreements across the table and some of those disagreements are intense, strong and deeply held. But I think we all need to acknowledge that everyone comes into this place with a determination to make our country a better place in which to live. Our disagreement is about how we should achieve those objectives. It is appropriate in a democracy that there be robust and well-considered debate about those issues so that we can deal with policy issues with the depth that is needed to ensure that we have a much stronger future for our nation and to ensure that those we love and those we respect can grow up in a country that has the sort of environment in which we want them to live.
Christmas is a very special time of the year. Families can get together and enjoy one another’s company. The people we love are the people we want around us during that time. But Christmas is more than just decorations and gifts and parties; the celebrations and the symbols of Christmas highlight the joyous reason for our festivities, the birth of Jesus Christ. Those who seek to take the Christmas out of the holidays or Christ out of Christmas certainly lose the central reason for our celebrations and their meaning and their purpose. The true spirit of Christmas means we should think of those less fortunate—the homeless, the jobless, those who are sick, those who are spending Christmas alone this year.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned especially the families of the 11 Australian soldiers lost in Afghanistan. We think of those people, we think of those enduring drought for the 10th year and we think of those who have been through pain and suffering or whose families are not with them because they are spread around the world or in other parts of the country.
At an electorate level, I particularly acknowledge the celebrations there will be in the Mary Valley this Christmas. For 3½ years the residents have been living in uncertainty since the Queensland government announced the decision that their homes were to be taken from them to build the Traveston Crossing dam. I acknowledge with gratitude the decision of Peter Garrett, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, to put an end to this woeful project. It was really a tragedy that these people have had to live through these 3½ years of uncertainty. Now they can get on with building their lives. For them this is going to be a particularly happy Christmas. While lungfish, Mary River turtles and Mary River cod probably do not celebrate Christmas, it will be a good New Year for them as well.
Finally I particularly appeal to Australians travelling this Christmas to be safe on the road. We committed ourselves as a nation a few years ago to reducing the road toll by 40 per cent. We have been making good progress but, for some reason or other, the road toll has kicked up a bit this year, even though the roads are safer than they have been, the cars are safer, and there have been more regulations, more rules and more policing. For some reason or other the road toll has risen. We do not want that toll to grow over Christmas. Please, everyone, drive carefully. I know there are a lot of temptations at Christmas time. Lots of us think we are good drivers, but sometimes there are other people on the road who are not. Be patient and do what you can in these festive times to make sure that we all drive safely on our crowded roads.
There will also be, over the Christmas period, those who will have to confront the disasters that often come to our continent such as flooding and bushfires. We think of those people during the Christmas time. When others are enjoying their celebrations, our emergency services and so many others are often called on for special duty. We think of the armed forces, the police and ambulance and hospital staff and others who keep us safe as well as those who are looking after the aged-care homes and the child-care facilities. These sorts of people deserve particular recognition over the Christmas period because we expect them to maintain the services that are so essential in our community, so that we can enjoy these very special times.
Thank you to all of those who have contributed to the past year of the parliament. I join in extending best wishes to them and to their families. We look forward to the year ahead with hope and the expectation that we come back refreshed following the holiday season to again confront the issues that are important to our nation and to make sure that we continue the work entrusted to us as representatives of the people to build a country which they can all enjoy.
I am very proud to rise in this chamber as Leader of the House to give a valedictory speech in the closing period of this parliamentary year. I wish to take the opportunity to acknowledge the support that is received from all staff who work in this chamber but want to single some people out, beginning with you, Mr Speaker. You have managed, in a difficult period—some times more difficult than others—to rise to a position whereby you have the respect of all members of this chamber. You undertake your duties with a sense of good humour, with impartiality, with fairness and with objectivity, and that is often remarked upon to me outside of this chamber. To you and your family, I wish you all the best for this season. I look forward to coming back here next year, in 2010, when I am sure that the difficulties that are raised from time to time by individual members of the House will become far less as time goes on.
I want to thank the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has given me an extraordinary privilege of being Leader of the House and holding a major economic portfolio in government. I grew up in a single-parent household, in public housing in inner Sydney, and the fact that I was able to rise to be the Leader of the House of Representatives shows this is a pretty good country, where people do get a fair go and where people do have opportunity. The Prime Minister has shown enormous faith in me, requiring me to provide the day-to-day strategic advice that comes with being the Leader of the House and the chair of the parliamentary tactics committee.
I think that the Prime Minister has done and will continue to do an extraordinary job in providing leadership to the nation, not only leadership in economic terms in dealing with the impacts of the global economic crisis but also leadership in ways which are above partisan politics such as we saw at the beginning of last week with the apology to the forgotten Australians, which followed on from the apology to the stolen generations.
The Prime Minister has an enormous capacity for work, for intellectual rigour and for being ahead of the game when it comes to the policy frameworks that are necessary. He is passionate about this country’s future and its place in the world. I believe Australia is all the better for Kevin being elected Prime Minister.
To the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard: she is an ongoing source of advice as well. Julia was the Manager of Opposition Business while I was the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business. She is a very welcome source of strategic advice on the parliament while holding an enormous portfolio in which the achievements of replacing Work Choices with the Fair Work Act and the changes that are taking place in education—including Building the Education Revolution and the changes in relation to a national curriculum and to lifting standards in education—show that her enormous capacity is having an outcome for the nation.
To the Treasurer, Wayne Swan: there was a moment earlier this year, in April, when the Treasurer and I found ourselves having a drink at Buckingham Palace with the Queen. That was something that we probably would not have envisaged would occur when I first met him more than 20 years ago. I had the honour of attending the G20 summit in London with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. I do not think the regard in which the Australian economic performance is held globally is quite understood. Minister after minister from other countries come and talk to us about our economic stimulus package and how the decisive action which we took ensured that we were ahead of the game. To finish the year as the only economy in the advanced world which did not enter into a recession and which has surpassed its economic growth and which has the lowest debt, the lowest deficit and the second lowest unemployment is a tribute to his economic leadership. The Treasurer also has a passion about what economic growth is for, which is to not leave people behind. He was as comfortable at the G20 as he was in my electorate at the Exodus Foundation, which deals with some of the most underprivileged people in Australia. The Treasurer shows a commitment to equity as well as a commitment to a strong economy.
To the Deputy Leader of the House, Stephen Smith: the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs is a difficult one. He is overseas representing the nation, as he does in an outstanding way. Stephen provides extraordinary strategic capacity in his contribution to the tactics committee and in his assistance to me as Leader of the House.
I thank the other ministers for their support. We have had a huge program in my portfolio: establishing Infrastructure Australia and the Building Australia Fund, doubling funding to roads and quadrupling funding to rail, forming Regional Development Australia and strengthening the partnership with the local government sector through the Australian Council of Local Government. All of that can be achieved only if you have the support of your colleagues. I thank all of them but single out Senator Stephen Conroy, who represents me in the other chamber and when I am away, as I do him. Stephen has been a very supportive minister, in particular, as well as advancing the NBN as a great reform of this government.
To Roger Price, the Chief Government Whip, and his assistants Jill Hall and Chris Hayes: they are an outstanding team. The whips carry out an excellent job implementing the tactics of the government. From time to time they may not agree with them, particularly the Chief Government Whip. He is usually in good humour. I wish him all the best as well.
We rely very much upon the bureaucracy that is provided to assist us. To the Parliamentary Liaison Office—Henry Thomson and the team in the PLO: they keep the House running and make sure that the government’s agenda is turned into the appropriate legislative process, from the Monday morning meetings of the PBC that then result in the activity that we see from Monday to Thursday in this chamber. To the Chamber Research Office and the Parliamentary Library, in particular Anna, Penny, Naomi and Chris: they work tirelessly in keeping up-to-date information and statistics on the working of the House. They provide us with a great deal of support.
To the retiring Clerk of the House, Mr Ian Harris: he retires with the respect of all those in the House. We acknowledge his 37 years of service to this parliament. Ian became the Deputy Clerk of the House way back in 1991 and has been the Clerk of the House since 1997. I worked with Ian when I was an opposition office holder and now when in government. I must say that his advice has always been impartial. His advice when we were in opposition did not secure us any majorities on the floor of the House and his impartial advice now has without fail resulted in a majority of the House agreeing with the actions that we have taken. That is the nature of the workings of the House of Representatives. He is a lover of this parliament and its processes. He is passionate about it and there is of course no more important building in the country. I think that he can be very proud and look forward to his retirement. To Bernard Wright, who is replacing Ian as Clerk of the House from 5 December, can I say that I hope we are not still sitting then. I very much look forward to working with you, Bernard.
To the rest of the House staff, including the Serjeant-at-Arms, catering, housekeeping, HRG, IT Support, security, the attendants, the staff at Aussie’s and other DPS staff, without whom this House simply would not function, I say thank you. I want particularly to thank Lupco Jonceski and the cleaners who look after my office, Anna Jancevska and Luzia Borges, who come in with great humour whenever you see them around the building.
I acknowledge the work of the opposition, of Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition; Julie Bishop, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; Warren Truss, the Leader of the Nationals and one of my shadow ministers; and Christopher Pyne, the Manager of Opposition Business, who declares himself the best of the bunch—we are having leadership challenges declared here in the chamber as we speak! Christopher and I have a good working relationship. I do not want to cause him too much damage with his party colleagues by being too effusive about that. We do have the odd difference, such as the attempted verbal of last week in the chamber, but by and large we have a constructive working relationship. When I was Manager of Opposition Business for the entire time I had two conversations with the then Leader of the House. I believe this House functions better when there is communication between the government and the opposition and a constructive framework worked out in the interests of the people that we are all here to represent. If we can minimise those disagreements over procedural issues and get on with the real debate about the future of the country, that is a good thing. I think that Chris enjoys the parliamentary process and I look forward to ongoing debate with Chris next year in an election year.
To the media, particularly those in the press gallery, I enjoy the briefings that I give after every caucus meeting and I look forward to boring you next year, every Tuesday after the caucus, with the great details of South Sydney victories the previous weekend. You do have a difficult job. The pressures that are on the media to deliver up-to-date information need far greater debate about the nature of how changing technology is producing an impact in terms of media debate in this country. You have a difficult job, and I look forward to working with you on most occasions in the coming year.
To my department, Mike Mrdak, the new secretary of the department, is an outstanding choice as secretary. He is reforming the way the department functions. He is a career public servant who represents the best of the Public Service. To my office, Michael Choueifate, and my chief of staff Karen Bissaker, and my personal assistant, Jo Haylen, who looks after the tasks for the Leader of the House, and Tanya Jackson-Vaughan, the chief of staff in my electorate office and to my branches and supporters, I thank all of you.
In terms of the ability that I have been given, I want to make some comments as Leader of the House and as minister. As Leader of the House we have had 1,171 questions answered in question time so far this year. We have passed 191 bills through this chamber. The last time that the House passed more legislation than this was back in 1999, so it is the largest number for a decade. We have had some 102 ministerial statements so far in this parliament, the 42nd—41 ministerial statements this year and nine Prime Ministerial statements to the 42nd Parliament. This compares with a total of 11 ministerial statements in the last parliament.
We have had a seven per cent increase in the amount of time spent answering opposition questions this year compared with 2007, and we have had on 21 occasions in the 42nd Parliament a number of question times that exceeded 20 questions—where there were more than 20 questions. In the previous parliament there were none. In terms of your patience, Mr Speaker, it has been tested with some 1,331 points of order. The Manager of Opposition Business has moved 219 points of order this year, or 13 for every week of question time.
Indeed, that is an absolute record, beating the previous record set by Joe Hockey last year. Indeed, in the parliament, in total, the Manager of Opposition Business has moved 254; Joe Hockey has moved 213; and Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, has moved 116 himself, something that in previous parliaments leaders of the opposition certainly did not do.
It is important, as we leave this place at the end of these sittings, to acknowledge that, as a minister, it is certainly the case that one of the great privileges is undertaking the work we do outside this chamber. A great privilege of being the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is that I get out and about. In recent months I have been to Geraldton, Port Hedland, Karratha, Kununurra, Daly River, Mount Gambier and Alexandra. I have been to the region affected by the Victorian bushfires on a number of occasions. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that those local communities showed extraordinary courage.
I also went to Bendigo, Wodonga, Geelong, Parkes, Bourke, Wagga Wagga, Lismore, Dubbo, Bathurst, Orange, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Tweed Heads, Cairns, Ingham, Townsville, Hervey Bay, Gympie, Gladstone, Maroochydore, Ipswich, Launceston and to the electorate of Maranoa. When I was there I spent a day with the member for Maranoa. I want to acknowledge that last night the member for Maranoa won the Politzer Prize. It is an annual photographic competition between federal MPs and senators who submit a picture which best captures the essence of their electorate. The photograph of a region not far from where I was with the member for Maranoa in far-western Queensland is indeed just that. It is a pelican rookery on the flood plains of the Georgina River in far-western Queensland. I congratulate the member for Maranoa on this fine achievement. Being a minister, it is a great privilege being able to attend communities, large and small, city and rural. As a minister, one of the things that I will remember is a visit to Birdsville, with the member for Maranoa; a visit to Bourke, with the member for Calare; and other visits right around the country. One of the cultural aspects that often people do not see is the extent to which, by and large, we as parliamentarians do treat each other with respect and do agree with each other a lot of the time. Certainly, going out there and meeting with communities is indeed one of the great privileges of being a minister.
I conclude with thanks to my family—my wife, Carmel, and my son, Nathan. It is hard for all of us as parliamentarians and it is particularly hard for our children. Indeed, a community cabinet has been set for my son’s birthday on 8 December, in Townsville. This makes life very difficult to juggle, and our families are very tolerant of it. But I put on the record that I certainly appreciate the support I am given and I look forward to spending time with them over the Christmas and festive period. I wish all members and their families a happy and safe festive season and, in conclusion, as transport minister, can I say: please drive safely.
This is the first valedictory I have spoken to in 17 years in this place. That probably speaks volumes for my failure in being promoted in the previous government to a position which would require me to give a valedictory in this place. Happily, it has been less so the case and I find myself, after 17 years, as the Manager of Opposition Business in the House and the shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training, and I am very grateful to Malcolm Turnbull for giving me the opportunity. I am also very grateful to members of the Liberal Party in my own state for giving me the opportunity to be the member for Sturt for 17 years and to have won six elections.
A fine member, too!
Thank you very much. I appreciate the support from the deputy leader of opposition business, who is required to be here in order to be supportive of the Manager of Opposition Business. I note that most of my colleagues have found my speech less than erudite and less than compelling but, as they say, that is the nature of these things at this end of the game, at the end of the year.
A valedictory is an opportunity to thank a number of people who make this House work and to acknowledge quite a few people. The first person I would like to acknowledge is the Speaker. Mr Speaker, we on the opposition side give you many opportunities to make good decisions, particularly in question time. We do not always find that you take up the offer that we give you with the enthusiasm that I know you would bring to that if only we were all in the same political party. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, you do a fantastic job and we will continue to give you many opportunities to make good decisions that will allow the opposition to get answers to questions from the government. I am sure that sometimes even the Speaker’s feigned patience and wisdom is tested by ministers at the dispatch box when they refuse to make their answers relevant to fine opposition questions.
Yesterday, I think we tested the Speaker’s patience even further and maybe confused him somewhat by using the term that Joe Hockey brought to the dispatch box of ‘con brio’.
I thought he was a branch member!
I thought for a moment the Speaker thought it might have been Con Brio from the Comedy Company in the 1990s and wondered whether we were going to ask a question about his well-known wife, Maria Brio, from that program. When we turn our minds back to it, there is of course another character from the Comedy CompanyKylie Mole, who bears a close resemblance to one of the members of the government on the other side. In fact, she has just turned up. The Deputy Prime Minister came in on cue—old Kylie Mole from the Comedy Companyand no doubt she will have some things to say herself on the valedictory.
I would also like to acknowledge the Leader of the House, Anthony Albanese, who obviously has to work with me relatively closely on a daily basis to make this place work. While most people outside this House think that we are constantly at loggerheads, of course it would not work if there were not the capacity—often behind the Speaker’s chair or even across the chamber—to make arrangements so that this great democracy of ours and this representation of our democracy, the House of Representatives, can actually function.
Anthony fancies himself as a snooker player. The tragedy of this year’s parliamentary snooker competition is that he beat me in the semi-finals. It was very close—it was decided on the black ball. The Leader of the House fluked the pink ball—he would admit, I am sure, that it was a fluke—and that kept me out of the game. It was a twist of fate that the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business were facing each other in the snooker competition, and it was good fun. He, of course, is a willing adversary. Anthony and I have many things in common, and we have many things that separate us. One of the things we have in common is that we have never run from a fight. I have been fighting a lot of people over my political career both within the Liberal Party and outside it, and in the Labor Party. I will not name them because most of them are not around any longer. I lasted a bit longer than most of them. I share with Mr Albanese a love of debate, a love of the parliament, and a willingness to have a good row about policy, about politics and about trying to represent our two great parties—the two great parties of Australian history since our Federation—the Labor Party and the Liberal Party.
I would also particularly like to thank Ian Harris and Bernard Wright. Ian Harris is leaving us on 4 December. He came here in 1972 and has been the Clerk of the House since 1997, which virtually mirrors my time in this place—I got here in 1993. As everyone has said and as everyone will say, he is a person who with his team keeps us all looking as reasonably good—if you could claim it that way—as we sometimes do in this place. We very rarely make procedural mistakes and that is only because whenever we are not sure—which is most of the time—we have a quiet word to Ian or Bernard, or whoever is at the clerks’ table, and they make sure that we stay on track. We wish Ian all the best in the future, having retired from this place. He will be missed but his ample shoes will be well filled by Bernard Wright, who I have also known for 17 years. Bernard will do a sensational job as the new Clerk of the House. It is, of course, the most important role in administering this place. It has a very successful history, a very quiet history where they are not pushed to the front like we are. They just simply do their job and they do it extremely well.
I also mention the leader of the party Malcolm Turnbull, deputy leader Julie Bishop, our leadership team in Eric Abetz and Nick Minchin in the Senate—of course that is around the other way; I do not think anything has happened in the last 12 hours that I am not aware of—and Luke Hartsuyker, the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House. Malcolm Turnbull is a terrific future Prime Minister of Australia; a terrific Leader of the Opposition. He is clever, he is experienced, he is articulate, he is intelligent, he is incredibly hard working, he is inclusive, he is humble, and he is also tough. I do not think anybody in the Labor Party would want to underestimate him. I am sure that people who come up against Malcolm over the years would not underestimate just how tough Malcolm Turnbull is. He has taken over the leadership of the opposition at a very difficult time. Everyone knows that in this period, straight after an election defeat, that term is always extremely hard. He has taken on the job; he is doing the job—there will always be bumps in the road. It requires enormous resilience and Malcolm Turnbull has resilience by the bucket load.
Julie Bishop, his deputy: nobody could ask for a more loyal and better deputy than Malcolm has in Julie Bishop. Julie is a veteran of the House in terms of years and also in capacity as a cabinet minister in the Howard government. She rose quickly because of her immense talent. She is also terrific company. She sits very close to me in the chamber. As most people would admit, opposition can be a dismal affair. Julie and I keep ourselves having a good laugh, usually at the expense of the government—sometimes not—throughout question time and she is a terrific person to have around in the team. As the deputy, she has done a marvellous job for both Brendan Nelson and now Malcolm Turnbull.
Warren Truss is a kind of figure who you would not necessarily think was great fun, but actually he is great fun. He is very wise, he is very calm and he is very considered. He is a safe pair of hands and whenever I am not absolutely sure what the tactics should be in the question time or in the parliament Warren is one of the very first people I talk to because he always gives extremely sage advice. I would also like to thank the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House, Luke Hartsuyker, who has served under both Joe and me. He is a very steady hand. We can easily leave matters in Luke’s hands and he always does a very good job. He is very supportive of whatever decisions we make and gives advice on a constant basis about the sorts of questions we should be asking and the themes of the day and the MPIs. He really is making a great contribution here in parliament.
There are other people that I should thank, too—a few people who are not in this place. Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz, our Senate leader and deputy leader, who I see every morning at our leadership team meeting, are doing a great job in the Senate, a fantastic job under difficult circumstances. It is not always easy, of course, in opposition—the two houses often have different views about how we should manage things and the politics of things. Nick and Eric run an extraordinarily good show in the Senate, and will continue to do so in the future.
Lastly, for people from my own side of the House, I would like to acknowledge Joe Hockey, the shadow Treasurer. He plays an extremely important role, and is the person I took over from as Manager of Opposition Business. He is always ready with advice, always welcome advice, and he is also terrific company. He keeps us all in a good frame of mind and a good temper. He is also holding the government to account over their reckless spending, their debt and their deficit. With an election year next year, I have a feeling that we might hear a lot more about debt and deficit, interest rates and inflation, unemployment and the government’s economic management, and I am sure Joe Hockey will shine the closer we get to the election and the more those kinds of issues come to the fore.
There are other people I should thank. The people who keep the House operating have all been thanked before, and that is because they are usually behind the scenes quietly doing their job. I thank Cheryl Lane, who heads up the House attendants. They are a marvellously patient group of people. I could name them all, but I do not want to embarrass them. They have been looking after me since I came here at the age of 25. They are a sensational group of people who often go unthanked—and I thank Luch, who is in the chamber.
I thank the Chamber Research Office. They keep things bubbling away in this place and they provide invaluable service to members of parliament. I thank the Department of Parliamentary Services, headed by Alan Thompson, and his team of people. They keep the legislation and the amendments flowing and they provide us advice about the schedule et cetera.
I thank the Hansard staff. Trevor Fowler and Rachel Croome head up the Hansard staff. Things have changed a little bit over the years. The Hansard staff do not have to write everything down in shorthand as they used to. They do a marvellous job. I do not think I have ever corrected a Hansard record of a speech. The only time I have ever made any alterations was when they did not know the spelling of a school or a suburb that I was referring to. I have never corrected a Hansard speech because they have never made a mistake with a speech of mine. That is because they are probably the best Hansard reporting service in the world—and they train most of the others, so that suggests that they are the best.
I thank all the Comcar drivers, security staff and cleaning staff who go about their business unheralded in this place. The Comcar drivers get us all home. Without the Comcar drivers I am not sure any of us would go home all the time. Our drivers are always there to get us back to our places of accommodation at night and back to work again the next morning. They are always pleasant and happy. They always know where they are going. They are a terrific part of this organisation.
I thank the Chief Opposition Whip, Alex Somlyay, and his team of whips—Michael Johnson, Nola Marino, Kay Hull and Paul Neville. The whips are a vitally important part of operations on both sides of the House. Alex Somlyay leads a great team of staff and other members who help members of parliament to do their job well and to know what they are supposed to be doing. The whips make sure that members’ leave arrangements are being looked after. The whips play a very important role as a safety valve in this place—and they might sometimes regard themselves as a counselling service. The Chief Opposition Whip is the person you tell almost everything to because he needs to know in order to manage 150 people in this place and another 70-odd people in the Senate.
I thank the Chief Government Whip, Roger Price. I have known Roger for a very long time. I have sat on committees with him. I know that he has very firm views about procedures and other parts of the way this place operates. He is a very important part of the Labor Party’s armoury in this place.
I thank my own staff, led by my Chief of Staff, Adam Howard. We had a lot more staff when we were in government—as I am sure the government would know because many of them were in opposition. In government we had about 18 or 19 staff, but we now have about seven staff, and they have to do a tremendous amount of work. My staff do a great job, as do the staff of all members of parliament, members of the frontbench and members of the government. They do not get much credit, but the credit is usually due to the staff’s great work. I wish all my staff a great Christmas and New Year. It is going to be a tougher year next year, but every year in politics is interesting and exciting; otherwise we would not be in it.
I thank my wife, Carolyn, and my four children. My wife and I have nine-year-old twins, Barnaby and Eleanor; a seven-year-old son, Felix; and a 20-month-old daughter, Aurelia. Aurelia is not as successful at Skype as the other three—she likes to get nice and close to it and pushes it off the top! My children are a wonderful light in my life, as is my wife. They, of course, have to put up with all the misery of having a father who spends so much time away from home. We all know the story: it is a wrench for those of us with wives and children to be here, but it is twice as bad for those we leave behind. Often it is our families who bear the brunt of the criticisms made of their partners. That is very tough. My family did not choose to be born into a family whose father spends a lot of his time away in Canberra, yet they have to live with it. Politics is a very tough and selfish lifestyle—there is no doubt about that—and the families are the ones who bear the burden.
I wish everybody a happy Christmas, and I wish for a very successful New Year for the opposition. We return in February and we intend to hold the government to account. We look forward to the government picking up our proposals for reform in the areas of relevance in answers to questions and, of course, time limits on answers to questions. I am sure I speak for everyone in the House—except perhaps some of the ministers—in saying I am sure that shorter answers would make everyone in this place a lot happier. Finally, let us all try and get along as well as we can next year. I keep telling Mr Albanese that he should just try and get along as well with me as I do with the Deputy Prime Minister and everything would be terrific.
It is not my intention to do any impersonations of Kylie Mole, or anybody else, at the dispatch box. I have already done enough of that during the valedictory speech by the shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training—and I wish him and his family a very happy Christmas. From time to time we see commentary in the media about the number of portfolios I hold and the size of the job I perform for the government. We see that commentary come and go, but what we do not see in that commentary is recognition that I do not do this work alone. I do this work with the support of a terrific ministerial team, and I would like to start by acknowledging them and wishing them the compliments of the season.
Before the reshuffle, it was my pleasure and privilege to work very closely with Brendan O’Connor, who is an old friend and doing a terrific job for the government. He was a tremendous support for me in his capacity as Minister for Employment Participation. He has now gone on to the customs and justice portfolio. I also had the pleasure of working with a great Labor light, Maxine McKew, who assisted me with early childhood development. She has now moved to infrastructure, but I would like to record my thanks to her.
I work with a great ministerial team—with Senator Arbib, with parliamentary secretaries Jason Clare and Ursula Stephens, and with Kate Ellis performing in the jobs of youth and sport and also early childhood development and care. They are tremendous ministers. It gives me a great feeling about the long-term future of Labor to see such talented young people in ministerial jobs. To them, I would like to say a very sincere thanks for everything that they have done in working with me this year.
I would like to thank my ministerial and caucus colleagues generally—first and foremost, the Prime Minister. It continues to be a great pleasure and privilege to work alongside him day by day. We work hard, he works harder, and he inspires the team to keep working and to keep delivering, to make this a stronger and fairer country. He is a man of enormous vision and capacity. I continue to learn from him each and every day and I thank him very much for the work he has done over the past 12 months for the team and for the nation. I certainly wish him, Therese and their family—Jessica, Nick and Marcus—the best and happiest Christmas. They certainly deserve some time together and a break together.
I would also like to pay a very sincere tribute to my close colleague the Treasurer, Wayne Swan. He has obviously had an amazing 12 months, having the economic stewardship of the nation during a global financial crisis and global recession. It is a huge weight for anyone to bear. Wayne has not only borne that weight well but worked hard to see this nation through a very difficult period. Whilst, as Wayne would say, we are not out of the woods yet, the work he continues to do is greatly valued by the government. I believe it is greatly valued by the Australian people.
I would also like to pay tribute to a few other of my ministerial colleagues. Lindsay Tanner, too, has borne a great deal of the weight during this period and continues to do a remarkable job. I certainly wish him a happy Christmas and hope he gets a break with his family.
I would like to make particular mention of Anthony Albanese, leading the parliamentary team in here. The shadow minister for education and Manager of Opposition Business has gone through some of the rituals of opposition about meetings of tactics, committees and the like. We too obviously have our own rituals in government, and I have worked with Anthony Albanese—Albo—now through all of that when we were in opposition and we continue to work on it together in government. I have known Anthony Albanese since I was 19 or 20. It is a considerable length of time and he continues to be a great friend. It is a great pleasure to be able to work with him.
I would also like to make special mention of Jenny Macklin. Some aspects of our portfolios are very centrally locked together. We work together very solidly on the government’s social policy agenda and social inclusion agenda. She is a great thinker—one of the greatest thinkers in this country on social policy questions—and a great leader of a national reform agenda.
To each of my ministerial and caucus colleagues, I would say it is time for a break. They have all worked very hard in their constituencies as part of a united government team. We only get to do the things that we do because each and every day they are doing all of that work, and I thank them very sincerely for that.
I would like to thank some of the staff who work alongside me delivering the government’s agenda. I particularly would like to make mention of some staff who have left my office this year. First and foremost is my former Chief of Staff, Ben Hubbard. I have known Ben Hubbard for a very long time. We worked together way back when when I was Chief of Staff of John Brumby’s team in opposition in Victoria and Ben was on that staff. He came to work with me as Chief of Staff when I became Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He worked with me through the campaign into the set-up in government and into this year. He was absolutely pivotal to our success during that period. He has gone on to do what I think all Australians would acknowledge as probably one of the best but toughest jobs this nation has to offer in the modern age and that is as the Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority. It is a huge job and a great opportunity for Ben and a great opportunity to work alongside those devastated communities and to make a difference for them. My best wishes are with him in that new job and as he proceeds to Christmas.
I would also like to acknowledge Erin Dale. Erin worked with me for a considerable period of time, starting in my electorate office and then moving on to my portfolio staff. She has gone onto bigger and better things. She has moved from being an adviser in my office to being Maxine McKew’s Chief of Staff, so she is not lost to federal Labor. It is a great opportunity for her and a big promotion. I wish her well for Christmas. I would like to make mention too of Barbara Wise, who worked with me as our early childhood adviser. Barbara is from New South Wales and she has returned to the New South Wales Public Service. She did a great job but wanted a more Sydney based existence. Some in Canberra would be able to understand that, although some in Canberra possibly would not understand why someone would select Sydney over Canberra—I will leave that where it is. She did a great job and my best wishes are with her.
As for the staff that work with me now, I would like to acknowledge their very hard work and long hours of efforts for the government and for me personally. I would particularly like to acknowledge my Chief of Staff, Amanda Lampe. She was my Deputy Chief of Staff and moved into the job when Ben left. She has done a tremendous job during this year. When Ben left I obviously thought he was irreplaceable. Amanda is a different sort of chief of staff than Ben, but she is doing an absolutely tremendous job. She is very ably assisted by Tom Bentley. Tom Bentley, of course, is a UK migrant to this country. He fell in love with an Australian girl and came to live here. He had worked with the Blair governments and with social policy think tanks in the United Kingdom. He continues to be a pivotal part of the driving of this government’s reform agenda.
To my policy advising staff, I would like to say a big thankyou to Jim Round and John Spierings, who developed and delivered the biggest round of reforms for universities since the Dawkins reforms of the 1980s and are continuing to deliver a profound reform agenda in vocational education and training, which will make a real future as to both the economic prosperity and the equity of this country.
As for the team working on schools—to Gerry Kitchener, Rondah Rietveld, Natalie Cooper—when you are delivering an education revolution, transparency, new measures for teacher quality, new measures for disadvantaged schools, the Building the Education Revolution, trade training centres, the digital education revolution, national curriculum—and the list goes on—it is a big policy advising task for a very limited group of people. They do a tremendous job.
For Andrea Lester and Craig Carmody, this was, of course, the year of the Fair Work Act, the year we got rid of Work Choices. That would not have happened without the work of Andrea Lester. That reform is very much her reform. She did so much work on it. My congratulations go to her. My congratulations go to Craig Carmody for working not only alongside Andrea but separately—we are almost delivering; I am hoping that we are going to get there—on the uniform system for occupational health and safety. Craig has played a tremendous role in cracking what has been a policy chestnut for this country for decades and decades and decades.
As for the media advisory staff who work with me—Kimberley Gardiner, Russell Mahony, Leanne Budd—dealing with the press gallery all day, every day isn’t everybody’s idea of fun, and with a range of work that we do we obviously deal with a wide range of people both in Canberra and beyond. They do what is hard work, starting early in the morning and finishing late at night, with remarkable good cheer each and every day. My thanks go to them.
My thanks also go to the administrative staff: to Rachael Purcell, also known as ‘Monkey’—it would be better if you did not ask, Mr Speaker—and to Janine Robb. I thank them for all of the work that they do. To the staff who work with us travelling with me, doing research, doing speech writing, my thanks go to them—to Alex Williamson; Emma Smith; Andrew Stark; and to Silvana Anthony, who worked with me in opposition and went on a period of maternity leave and is now back. They are great friends, great company and tremendous contributors in the office. I thank them for the work that they do and wish them well for the Christmas break.
I come to our DLOs, Sue, Sarah and Deb. We work hard, we work fast and we churn a lot of paper and the paper would never get back to where it is supposed to go—get to me or get back the other way—without their work. They are our interface with the department. They work tremendously hard and my thanks go to them. I would also like to acknowledge a couple of new starters in our office—very recent recruits: Claudia Perkins and Jack Whelan. I am looking forward to working with them over the course of next year.
I would also like to thank my electorate office staff. They are the public face for me in my very precious electorate of Lalor, a very special place in Melbourne’s west. You have a special sort of mayhem in your office when you employ sisters. That is what I did. I will ask people to think about that as a management conundrum. To Vicki and Michelle Fitzgerald, thank you very much for your work over a long period of time. Michelle has been with me since I was first elected. I want to thank them for everything that they do in the electorate office. I would also like to thank Carlos Baldovino, once again a very long-serving staff member. Carlos has been with me since the day I was first elected as well and continues to do a great job for me in the electorate office. To Helen, to the two Johns—just to cause some confusion in the office, John and John—and to Amy, I would thank them for everything that they do. They are a tremendous team.
Of course here in Parliament House and beyond there are a set of people that we could not lead our lives or do our work without. I would like to acknowledge them at this very special time of the year. As for the clerks, Ian and Bernard, I have had cause to trouble them in all sorts of occupations whilst I have been in this parliament. I think I used to give them the most trouble when I was Manager of Opposition Business. Hopefully they now think I give them less trouble. But from the days that I used to give them lot of trouble, I am well aware of the quality of work that they do and their unflappable demeanours. That is very prized by all of us who really do put a lot of stress and strain on the system. To Ian: the very best to you in retirement. You are, I know, moving to a different stage of your life. Whether you will miss us I think is an open question. We will miss you. We will obviously continue to work with Bernard in the years to come.
To the attendants, to the Serjeant-at-Arms, to Hansard, to all of the people who make this chamber function, thank you very much for the special care and concern you show to each of us each and every day. To the people who make this building work—to the cleaners, security staff, the people who work in dining, the people who organise the travel—thank you very much for all the things you do and do so cheerfully and so well.
I would like to make a special mention of Aussies. I am probably the single biggest contributor to its ongoing profitability. I am almost a co-owner in the business, given the number of coffees I have bought over the years. It is a special place. Parliament House is a grand building, sometimes criticised for being a building where there are not enough meeting places for people, but Aussies is probably the best of the meeting places that we do have, so it plays a special role in all of our lives.
I acknowledge the work of Comcar drivers, particularly the driver who works most with me in Melbourne, Dianne Stanford, known now as ‘Disie’—she has been renamed! Disie also travels frequently with the member for Corio, who is at the table. She lives in our part of the world and she does a tremendous job.
I would also like to thank the Australian Federal Police officers who work with me from time to time, most particularly Chris Robey, who very frequently leads the team. They obviously are very special people to do the work that they do. The fact that they do it so well, so diligently and with so little intrusion is really a tribute to their professionalism.
I would like to acknowledge the work of my department. It is a sizeable enterprise. We took a majority of the former Department of Education, Science and Training and considerable portions of the former FaCSIA department, as early childhood moved across, and all of the old DEWR has been amalgamated into the new Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. It has been a big department to integrate and manage, and that work has been done amazingly well by Lisa Paul, my departmental secretary. I would like to pay a very special tribute to her, to her skills and to her fortitude. The team that she leads is a tremendous team, and the delivery of the government’s reform agendas would not have been possible without the professionalism, independence and capacity of our departmental secretary and the team that she leads. I thank them very much for that.
I would also like to thank some people external to this building. I would like to thank our national secretary, Karl Bitar. Political parties are funny things. Alby and I were just sharing a joke about what odd beasts political parties can be. That means that being the national secretary of one is not an easy job, and Karl Bitar does that with a great deal of pride in his work and support to the government and the team.
I would also personally like to thank our Chief Government Whip, Roger Price, who works alongside Karl and with our caucus members in this place. Roger is one of those people who integrate the work that we need to do here in parliament with the work that we need to do as a political party and as a team. I certainly thank Roger for all of his efforts. Of course, I refer to him as ‘Rogie’, but he is not going to thank me for getting that on Hansard!
I would like to particularly thank my partner, Tim, and my family: my mother and father, Moira and John; my sister, Alison; and my niece and nephew, Jenna and Tom. They do bear some of the pressures of this life. They bear them in a derivative sense. The shadow minister for education was right to say, ‘We chose it; they didn’t.’ This is the right time of year to acknowledge that they bear those special pressures because of the choices we made.
I would also particularly like to acknowledge my two mad girlfriend mates Robyn McLeod and Julie Ligeti and thank them for all their fun and friendship during the year. You need people like that in your life, and Robyn and Julie are certainly like that in mine.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to wish you and the Jenkins family the compliments of the Christmas season. I have had some insights into the sorts of festivities that the Jenkins family has. I know that they can be big, boisterous and—I might just conclude it with ‘big’ and ‘boisterous’ and not use any other adjectives! I know that you will enjoy the Christmas season with your family.
I conclude by wishing the members of the opposition well. As for Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, I am sure it has not been the year they might have hoped for in January, but that is politics. It goes up, it goes down, it has its turns and its tumbles. In some way, that is the seduction and the fascination of it. I wish them well for Christmas. I hope each of them gets a much deserved break over the Christmas season and gets some time to spend with family and friends. As for my other counterparts on the opposition benches—I keep a stable of them; I do not like to content myself with one counterpart!—Christopher Pyne, Andrew Southcott, Michael Keenan and Sophie Mirabella, I am glad that we are keeping them all in jobs. We will continue, I hope, to lead a merry dance for them to try and follow as we work on our reforms next year. I certainly do wish each of them well as we move towards the Christmas break.
This is a fantastic life, a life of great privilege, where you get to serve the Australian people, where you get to meet so many of the Australian people and where you have the opportunity to change the nation for the better. Each and every day, in that sense, is a delight. Obviously each and every day brings its pressures, and the amount of work we do under the kind of scrutiny we do it is a special kind of pressure, not necessarily much understood by people outside the political arena. In some senses, despite the party divide, that gives us a better understanding of each other than many people on the outside have of us. At this time of year, as we move from the political combat to a happier and gentler pace, it is important to acknowledge the shared bonds in this place. I would like to end by wishing each member of the House of Representatives and, yes, even each member of the Senate a happy Christmas and all the best for the New Year.
As we approach the Christmas season, we should rejoice in the fact that Australia is one of the world’s most open and free societies. We are a true democracy that reflects freedom—freedom of speech and expression, freedom of political association and freedom of worship as well as freedom from want and freedom from fear. Our citizens are free to choose where they live within our shores and are free to travel throughout the world. Like other open liberal democracies of the world, our society and lifestyle are a beacon of hope to all those who are oppressed or persecuted.
This parliament is at the epicentre of our democracy. It is the battleground of ideas, not of weapons. While we have disagreements on policy, both sides of the House are fundamentally committed to making a difference for the betterment of the lives and communities of all in Australia and in other places around the world. The coalition members believe that the ideas and policies they bring to this place not only are good ideas and good policies but are right and just for Australia. The government members believe that their ideas and policies are right and just, and we can agree to disagree. But we must respect each other’s views. We must not seek to prevent each side from arguing passionately for their ideas and their policies. We should not personally denigrate, ridicule or vilify those whose views differ from our own. This is part of the strength of our great parliament, the strength of our system of representative parliamentary government. The diversity of views, the passion with which ideas are debated must be done with civility and respect, with good humour and with humility.
I had my ideas of robust parliamentary debate rather expanded after a recent visit to our friends in South Korea. I was discussing our democratic traditions, and one of the members of the South Korean National Assembly told me that, as many of the male members of parliament have a background in martial arts through their mandatory national service, when things get a little heated in the assembly they resort to rather robust tactics to make their point, including taking the Speaker hostage by surrounding the Speaker’s chair and then neatly landing a few tae kwon do kicks on the backs of their opponents. In fact, I was sent a YouTube link to their latest fracas last July. I must admit that I was in awe of the female members of the national assembly who joined in the fray. I suggest that the YouTube link is worth looking at. Although, Mr Speaker, I am not suggesting any change to the standing orders in this place, when the Leader of the House asked the Manager of Opposition Business to step outside recently the image was almost too good to resist.
Our democratic process is a source of strength and stability. We respect election outcomes however painful. Australians do not seek to overthrow their governments but reserve their passion for the ballot box where they are free to vote as they please. Sadly, this is not the case internationally where we still see political differences settled by violence and by the intervention of military forces. While I would not be so presumptuous as to assume that our system of government is so perfect or so ideal that it should be adopted by every other government around the world, I do believe that most people have the same aspirations for freedom and for choice. People the world over aspire to personal freedom and to go about their lives free from the threat of violence. They want a peaceful environment in which to raise their families and to build a more prosperous life.
During the past year we have seen the struggle continue between the extremists, who seek to impose their vision and control on others, and those who are defending freedom. At this point I pay tribute to Australia’s armed forces who are serving or who have served particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Air Service is in my electorate and this year I was privileged to visit the troops who are serving in Afghanistan to demonstrate our support for their work overseas. The world was uplifted at the start of this year by the election of President Obama, who spoke of his aspirations for ridding the world of nuclear weapons and for promoting greater peace and cooperation. While some nations have continued their pursuit of nuclear weapons and others have continued to jail and oppress political opponents, democracies of the world have continued to work for greater stability and prosperity for all the people around the world.
I take this opportunity to place on record my thanks to the many people who have supported this place throughout the past 12 months. I want to thank my colleagues in the Liberal Party. I am honoured to have been elected their deputy two years ago and I take my role as deputy leader very seriously.
We are pleased to have you.
It is not always the case that the leader and deputy have a close working relationship, and the relationship between the occupants of the two leadership positions has in the past been a source of tension and instability. I see my role very much as one of providing support to my leader and to my colleagues, to be a conduit and to be a stabilising influence, and I have sought to do that with both leaders of the Liberal Party whom I have served as deputy. I thank my leader, Malcolm Turnbull, a person of immense ability, a person of substance, who has already achieved a great deal in his pre-parliamentary life and who will, with his intellect and drive, achieve much more. Hopefully at the next election he will achieve the ultimate prize, which is to be the Prime Minister of this country.
I pay tribute to the work of the Senate leadership team: Nick Minchin, for whom I have a great deal of respect; and my counterpart deputy, Eric Abetz, whose dry humour makes our leadership meetings a joy to attend. The Manager of Opposition Business, Christopher Pyne, is a wonderful personality and dedicated to whatever task he undertakes, always with great vigour, great wit and ability. The Leader of the National Party, Warren Truss, is a person with whom I have a strong working relationship and for whom I have a great deal of affection. I thank the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Barnaby Joyce, for the great working relationship that we have. I enjoy his company and he is a passionate advocate for the National Party. My colleagues in the Liberal Party and in the National Party are a great source of support to me. I enjoy their company, I respect their views, I admire the great effort that they put in—
Even the introverts like me?
Particularly the introverts like the member for Hume. I admire the effort that they put in on behalf of their constituents. I know their families support the work that they do and it is not always easy with many days and weeks away from home. But they are dedicated to the cause of the Liberal and National parties. They believe in what they are doing and they believe that they offer an alternative that the Australian people want and need, perhaps more than ever before.
I acknowledge the work of the whips in the House—Alex Somlyay, Nola Marino and Michael Johnson. I also want to put on record my thanks to the federal secretariat, Brian Loughnane and his team, and also the state Liberal Party and the team at Menzies House.
While I am talking about Western Australia, I want to pay particular tribute to my colleagues in Western Australia—the Western Australian members and senators who make that trip each week across the Nullarbor and back. The bond that has formed between us is strong. It is not quite true that we hunt as a pack, but we are great friends and colleagues and there is something about that three-hour time difference that bonds us together. The 4 am phone calls from our friends in the Canberra press gallery can sometimes be a little trying; nevertheless, we are prepared to pay that price for living in the greatest state in Australia.
I thank the Liberal supporters who have stuck with us through some very difficult times. I ask that they keep the faith and continue to support our party. In particular, I thank the people of Curtin, my electorate, who have continued to be a great source of support and inspiration to me. I appreciate the input and I encourage them to continue to send me letters, emails, phone calls, tweets—whatever. I need to hear from them and I want to hear from them.
I acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Leader of the House for their service to this House and to this country, as well as the government ministers and the members of the government. I acknowledge the work that they do for their constituents and the people who sent them to this place.
Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your calm and measured demeanour. You have somewhat of a cult following among the afternoon question time devotees, and I have had a number of emails about your considered judgments.
And how unnaturally handsome he is!
Order!
Would you like me to take that intervention at that point?
No, I think we will let that ride.
I pay tribute to our clerks. Ian Harris has had an outstanding career in public service to this country—37 years. The Prime Minister, in his own special way, would hardly be able to describe that as non-extraordinary service. It has been an outstanding effort, Ian, and we wish you all the very best. I do not know how this place could have functioned without you, but function it will. And I congratulate Bernard for taking on the extremely significant role of Clerk of this House. We look forward to working with him.
I acknowledge the Hansard reporters, the Parliamentary Library staff, security, the cleaners, the gardeners—everybody who works here makes this place function for the benefit of all Australians. I acknowledge the work of the Comcar drivers, who so cheerfully get us from A to B and everywhere in between. I acknowledge the staff who manage the bookings, the staff at HRG and all of the people at Aussies and in catering—all those who help make this great parliament function.
I thank my staff: my PA, Kirsten Ridge, and the girls in my electorate office, Suzanne Chambers, Rachael Gunderson, Georgina Adcock and Judy McEvoy; in Canberra, my Chief of Staff, Murray Hansen, whose loyalty to our cause is unquestioned, and I thank him and his family for the many hours he puts in working for me and for our party; my advisers, Justin States and Rochelle Hill, and the volunteers and interns who have spent time working in my office, Ursula, Dane, Paul, Rachael, Shiva, Chris, Liliana, David and Grace.
I also want to mention two of our colleagues who retired this year. Brendan Nelson, who was the Leader of the Opposition, was a great servant of the Australian people. He was legendary for his energy, his enthusiasm, his—
Sincerity.
His sincerity, and his ability to support colleagues at any time in any place. I remember him flying across the nation to help colleagues in need. I also want to pay tribute to Peter Costello, one of the greatest parliamentary performers of our generation. I still cry with laughter at the thought of some of his parliamentary performances. Do you remember the rooster puppet performance when he mercilessly taunted the now Treasurer but with great theatrics and humour? I wish both Brendan and Peter all the very best in their post-parliamentary careers.
I also wish our two candidates for the Bradfield and Higgins by-elections all the very best—Paul Fletcher and Kelly O’Dwyer. Should the people of Bradfield and Higgins choose them to be their elected representatives in this place, I know they will make a magnificent contribution.
This great Parliament House is all about the people who work in it. I acknowledge each and every one. I acknowledge their dedication, I acknowledge their service, I wish each person here and their families a safe and happy Christmas. Let us hope that our parliament will continue to strive to provide good public policy and outcomes for the benefit of all Australians throughout 2010. I wish all Australians a happy, safe and prosperous New Year.
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
On indulgence, I just want to take a moment of the House’s time to share with everyone the responses that we have had to the Prime Minister’s apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants and, in doing so, I want to particularly acknowledge the member for Corio, the member for Blaxland and the member for Swan for their very, very strong support in the whole organisation of this apology and making it happen. One woman has come back to us saying:
It was a wonderful day for many of us and it is certainly the beginning of healing or a step further down the road. As someone more famous than me said, ‘Even the longest journey starts with the first step.’
And another said:
I’m happy that mothers and other family members received an apology. I will now put this apology on my mother’s grave. The apology and public acknowledgment that our leaders are now aware of what happened and now believe us supports me and makes us feel better. Knowing how many care leavers there are makes me feel united in a big family.
In reflecting on the event itself here, in Parliament House, we have had the following statement reflected by so many people, and this is just one. It states:
Seeing our people who have lived lives bereft of hope and respect mix freely in our parliament where they were the important people of the day complemented wonderfully our Prime Minister’s speech and intended antidote of healing. I was very moved by this.
The following is a wonderful email from one person who was really thanking all of the fantastic volunteers and staff from my department. I, too, put my thanks on the record. I think this person really sums up how the forgotten Australians and former child migrants felt. He wrote:
I could not have asked for better care—ironic, when we were all there because of an earlier lack of care. You and your team of volunteers were the nicest people we could meet. All my life I have felt that I did not deserve the kindness of strangers, so it makes it all the more special that you and your team who did not know me from a bar of soap went to so much trouble. I still cannot shake the notion of ‘why would you bother with me?’ but I am so grateful you did.
On indulgence, we cannot underestimate the power of this apology in healing what are in many cases very broken lives, but we are also moving forward with practical measures and today our response to the Senate inquiry into forgotten Australians and child migrants will be tabled in the Senate.
The question is that the motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; 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 from 23 November, on motion by Mr Marles:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As I was saying the other day, some universities attempting to combat the rising costs of amenities and services have reported having to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to make up the shortfall. According to Universities Australia, the body representing the university sector:
Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation from other parts of already stretched university budgets, to redress the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s disastrous Voluntary Student Unionism legislation.
It is one thing to deprive our university students of vital amenities and services, but it is a completely different and far more severe issue when we begin to put at risk the educational quality of our universities. It simply cannot be justified. That is the cost of the current legislation and it must be amended urgently to rescue our tertiary institutions.
Without the amendment of these laws, Australia could see a serious decline in the influx of international students to our higher education facilities. The current laws have resulted in increased social isolation for international students because of the diminished services and amenities. If we continue to allow the quality of the services and amenities at our tertiary institutions to decline, then the multicultural vibrancy of our university campuses in Australia will be in serious jeopardy. In 2005, 18 per cent of all higher education students in Australia were from overseas. Without funding for the services that support these students, Australia could face a significant decline in its position as a major player in the international student market, and therefore a significant decline in the number of international students enrolling at our universities. The simple fact is that universities need the amenities and services they had in the past in order to attract significant foreign student bodies. These services are vital for international students to integrate and interact socially with other students at our universities. By depriving the universities of these facilities we are taking away this important component of tertiary education. We cannot allow our universities to be neglected any longer. With almost one-fifth of our students from overseas, we stand to lose much more than our multiculturalism. Many universities need this influx of overseas students to maintain educational services. The funding that this bill proposes to be provided by students at the discretion of their higher education providers, up to the capped amount, is absolutely necessary to maintain adequate student services and amenities and ensure our universities continue to be seen as a viable option for international students, both socially and educationally.
Without this funding, many higher education providers have been unable to effectively maintain the primary social activity that is seen as a beacon for Australia internationally. I am of course speaking about sport. Long has Australia been recognised as a sporting nation, but, with the former government’s introduction of their voluntary student unionism legislation, many sporting organisations have identified a decline in participation and an inability to invest in infrastructure and undertake long-term development planning. The former coalition government’s legislation is effectively killing university sport, which is devastating for regional areas where the university sporting teams are some of the very few available to the community.
Another crucial service that the removal of this funding has impacted on is independent representation for students. The current laws are forcing students to face the daunting reality of a diminished capacity for effective representation on university decision-making bodies. Without this, many students will struggle when decisions are being made. The amendments in this bill will ensure that students have access to representation and are not left to face important decisions alone.
This bill is not about imposing fees on students; it is about supporting our higher education providers to ensure the continued viability of both Australian and overseas students engaging in higher learning. Without this support, the future and outlook for universities in Australia is bleak. The Rudd government has consistently committed to ensuring that university students have access to vital campus services. We are honouring that commitment. It is not compulsory student unionism. We are not changing the legislation that prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. We are simply providing a chance for universities to renew their once-vibrant amenities and services. If this bill is passed, higher education providers will be eligible to impose a fee on students that will assist the rebuilding and restoration of student services and amenities. It is for all of these reasons that I commend the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 to this House.
I am very pleased to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 for a second time. I think the reasons we are here for a second time can be boiled down to about four reasons. First and foremost: the opposition, if I may call them that, are hell-bent on stopping us from fulfilling an election commitment. I think one of the major reasons they are doing that is that they want to have something to say at the next election, whenever that will be, to say that Labor have not fulfilled their promises, because this is part and parcel of what Labor promised in 2007 in our election campaign and we are trying to fulfil that. But those opposite are setting out to stop us from doing that, to use it for cheap electioneering purposes for the next election, whenever that may be.
Secondly, from listening to many of those opposite—not all, but many of those opposite—I know they have a pathological, ideological hatred of unionism and, from that pathological hatred, they have associated anything to do with fees for amenities and services at our universities with promoting—and I think the member for Mayo used this term—‘Labor Inc.’ in our universities. So universities, to those opposite, are nothing more than seedbeds of socialism, of potential communism and, I suppose, the seedbeds for this conspiracy on climate change which those opposite now believe permeates the decision-makers of the world.
But those opposite have a pathological hatred of anything to do with student services. Take, for instance, the member for Indi. I do not know what happened to the member for Indi at university, but it has caused a pathological hatred of student services and amenities on the university grounds.
They wouldn’t vote for her; she kept losing elections.
Well, something happened, indeed! I did notice, though, that a number of those on the other side have been involved in, I suppose you could call it, union politics on student campuses in the past. The former member for Higgins is another. When he got re-elected, a little disappointingly for him but not for me, personally, he only spoke once in this place and that was about this bill and the re-emergence of ‘Labor Inc.’ on university campuses. But enough of their pathological hatred for anything bordering on unionism.
They also continue their attack on our public universities themselves. They have never been supporters of public universities, even though many of them have benefited from a public education through our universities. Not only have they attacked funding of universities, but they have tied their funding, perversely, to their perverse industrial relations systems in the past. In other words, you do not get funding or you do not get certain programs unless you introduce AWAs and other forced industrial relations systems in the university—again, this pathological interest in trying to dumb down liberal—small ‘l’ liberal, I have to say—institutions in this country.
Finally, I believe their view of politics is not to argue the substance of any legislation such as this. If you go through the substance of this legislation, which I will now attempt to do, you will see it has nothing to do with their opposition to it. That is purely political. When you ask for substantive argument about why we should not try to reintroduce what we regard as services and necessary amenities to our campuses, they cannot give it to you, except to say, ‘You’re trying to introduce compulsory unionism to our campuses.’ And on they go. Those are their four basic reasons for why they are opposing this bill. There is nothing of substance in their opposition, except that they are the opposition and they are well and truly acting like it today.
First and foremost, on a positive note, I would like to say what this legislation is all about. Fundamentally, it is about restoring a balance, as we promised we would do. It is about restoring the balance between what was taken away during the Howard era—and what is now being supported in the post-Howard era in this House by the opposition—and what existed before the Howard era. It seeks to do this in a contemporary way. It is not going to be the same as the past. It is going to be our way today. That is what it seeks to do. This time we are putting some balance back into the tertiary education system and accompanying services, after they were hacked at—and I think that is a pretty correct description—by the previous government in what was, as I have noted before, a poorly disguised attack on what they perceived as a political threat to their future on campuses around Australia.
Contrary to what some members have said in this House, both when this legislation first came up and more recently, the past legislation stripped nearly $170 million from university funding and left universities struggling to cover many vital and valuable services to the students the previous government claimed to represent. How do you make up $170 million of stripped services? I would like to know how to do that. One way the universities did it—had to do it, were forced to do it by those opposite—was to take away funding from their mainstream programs. They took it from student classes, programs and courses so they could redirect it into what they regarded as fundamental amenities and services. For example, dental services at La Trobe University and the Southern Cross University were closed down completely. I do not know about you, but having the old molar problems is bad enough at any time. But, if you are a rural and regional student at La Trobe University and you need assistance with your oral health—which can affect all of your health, of course; that is why I have always been struck by why, to this day, it is not part of Medicare, but that is another issue—and you cannot access basic oral health services on campus, it is very difficult. It is very difficult, as we all know, to access those services outside the campus. That is just an example.
The University of Technology, Sydney, La Trobe Uni and James Cook Uni had to close their legal services. In the case of the University of Technology, Sydney, this affected not only the students but also the local community, who had also accessed the service. The emergency loans scheme once offered at the University of Sydney had to close down. I understand that three universities shut down their Centrelink advice services. Nine universities shut down their student legal and taxation advice services. Childcare fees at La Trobe Uni rose by $800 a year and direct funding for sporting clubs was cut by something like 40 per cent and so on. Members on this side whose electorates include those campuses and those students have cited example after example of amenities and services being cut because of the Howard government ripping out $170 million, which is still supported by those post-Howard acolytes sitting on the other side. We all know this. Students are more than people just sitting in class and consuming lectures. Students, particularly those who come from rural areas such as my own electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania, require services to support and complement their studies. Those students are forced to travel, live away from home and go to university campuses throughout this nation and elsewhere. Those services and amenities are very important to those students.
I think it is very important—and, again, it has not been mentioned by those opposite—that this legislation allows higher education providers to choose to implement a compulsory student services and amenities fee. They can choose. It does not mean it is compulsory; it is up to those higher education providers to choose whether to implement this form of amenities fee. It is capped at $250 per student, it is indexed annually and what it is meant to do is clearly and precisely set out. It is not meant to and cannot be used to promote Labor, Green, Liberal, National or Callithumpian Inc., as the member for Mayo was very quick to point out in his rather scratchy contribution on this legislation. It allows higher education providers to choose to implement such a fee. It does not say they must do so, contrary to the mischievous comments made by members opposite. So this is not imposed by us from without. It is up to the higher education providers to make the decision, taking into account the whole of the demands and expectations of their students on their campus. They make the decision.
I mentioned earlier that, contrary to the claims of those opposite, the changes introduced with voluntary student unionism that Howard era and post-Howard acolytes still support did not reduce costs on university campuses. Those changes merely shifted those costs—for example, evidence demonstrates that students have been hit with increased costs for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport, food and so on. They have also indirectly affected academic achievements, with a number of unis forced to redirect funding, on their own account, out of research and teaching budgets to cross-subsidise and fund services and amenities that would otherwise have been cut.
For the edification of those who may be listening to this debate and those present in the House I would like to explain a little more about what the intention of this legislation is and what is not intended.
Please do.
Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary. I know you will be interested in these details, although you would know them anyway, I am sure. The new fee, if introduced—and I reiterate: if introduced—by higher education providers comes with some room to move. I see my good friend the member for Dunkley at the table is now listening to the actual contents of the bill. So as not to introduce a financial barrier, eligible students will have the option, if the fee is introduced, of a HECS style loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, SA-HELP. The fee will be indexed along with other loan programs. So, importantly, if it is introduced by a higher education provider, it is capped and if somebody finds it financially difficult then they can take a loan to help them pay that fee.
Contrary to comments made by many opposite, particularly by the member for Indi in her contribution to this debate, this bill is not about a return to compulsory student unionism. I point out to those opposite that section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which prohibits a provider from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation, is unchanged in our legislation. We knew that there would be scaremongering about support for political activities on campus, but the amendment is very clear on this point. This is very interesting, given that the member for Indi, not surprisingly, carried out a scare campaign about this legislation, mainly driven by what I regard as ideological motivations.
I reiterate that the new provisions prohibit the fee from being spent by a higher education provider on support for a political party or a candidate for election to the Commonwealth, state or territory parliaments or local government. It is strictly prohibited. So I do not know where the idea of ‘Labor Inc.’ being reinforced by this legislation comes from, except in the somewhat warped neurological domain of the member for Mayo and others. This restriction also applies to any person or organisation which receives any of the fee revenue. So we are not harking back to the old days when, as the member for Canning reminded us in his earlier contribution, there was tremendous warfare on the campuses, with support for the PLO, if you remember them. They are ancient days. I could well imagine how some people might have been upset at how student fees were used for contentious political debates; however, we have moved a long way from those heady days of the sixties and seventies. That is strictly prohibited in this legislation—but you would not believe that if you listened to those from the other side.
Don’t tell me you’ve lost your place!
No. I am just trying to—
You’ve had a go at just about everybody.
Not quite—I have another one coming up, Member for Dunkley. I note that the very edified National Tertiary Education Union has welcomed the bill, again. We expect some mumbling on the other side, because as soon as you mention a student union you immediately get right-wing reactionary comments. But the National Tertiary Education Union, which represents many thousands of students, has welcomed the bill as:
… the first step in the vital process of rebuilding student culture on university campuses, devastated by the effects of the former Coalition Government’s Voluntary Student Union (VSU) legislation.
I also note that Carolyn Allport, the NTEU President, said recently:
“The loss of student services in the university sector has been endemic, with essential health, welfare and academic advocacy services being reduced or abandoned in almost every university in the country.”
If we take that at face value, and we do, this is a pretty sad legacy from the former government’s legislation. Dr Allport also said:
It is a fact that the introduction of VSU has seen the demise of a number of elected student organisations, with many others only just surviving. As a result, many universities have been forced to redirect funding from their core duties of teaching and research to help support student services, often at a reduced level.
The protocols and guidelines—which we do not hear much about from the other side—that will accompany this legislation as a legislative instrument, which will be presented to the parliament, are an attempt to be more prescriptive about how student services and amenities fees are to be used and also more prescriptive about delivering national access and service benchmarks on services and information that are going to be presented to students.
To sum up, first and foremost this legislation is about delivering on an election commitment to restore balance to our universities by providing a mechanism to allow universities to provide much needed services and amenities to students. There are prescriptive guidelines on how this capped fee—if it is decided by universities that they want to introduce it—will be used. It is not to be used for overt political purposes, as those on the other side would have us believe. I urge them to support this legislation once again and get it through the other place. (Time expired)
I commend the member for Braddon on his contribution to this debate, as well as the members who have gone before him on our side of the House. I rise today to voice my strong support for the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009. The bill will amend the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation and deliver a balanced, measured and practical solution of rebuilding student services and amenities of a non-academic nature. The bill will also restore independent democratic representation and advocacy in the higher education sector.
If those opposite continue to oppose this bill it will cause the decline, or even the complete closure, of critical services at Charles Darwin University, or CDU, in Darwin. Under the current arrangements, close to $170 million has been ripped out of university funding, resulting in a decline in services in some instances and the complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, child care, sporting and fitness services. The failed passage of this bill is likely to hit students from the bush and regional areas like mine the hardest because it will prevent universities like CDU from providing vital services which support not only students but also local jobs.
The Country Liberal Party in particular have betrayed students from rural and regional areas. The services and amenities at Charles Darwin University are used not just by students but by the entire community. Universities have reported having to redirect funding from their research and teaching budgets to make up the shortfall of funding for campus services. Regional universities like Charles Darwin are already struggling to provide important services to their students. By not supporting this legislation those opposite have put at risk the remaining services that are already under pressure. The Rudd government remains committed to rebuilding student services on campuses because it is in the best interests of our students, in the best interests of the community and certainly in the best interests of regional universities. The National Party and Country Liberal Party claim to represent the bush, but they continue to vote against legislation which would support our vibrant community activity in Solomon.
In my electorate of Solomon, Charles Darwin University is a fine higher education institution. CDU has evolved from adult education classes in 1951 to Darwin Community College in 1974 to Northern Territory University in 1989 to Charles Darwin University in 2003. Professor Barney Glover is the Vice-Chancellor of CDU. I spoke to him yesterday. I rang up the vice-chancellor because often on these bills it is important to talk to the people who are at the coalface, the people who are working in the day-to-day grind of delivering services, delivering education outcomes, enrolling people and making sure that they are looking after the people whose education is entrusted to them. Barney said to me that this is a vital piece of legislation. He said that we really do need to make sure that this bill goes through. He reiterated the point that I have already made—that it is the services on the edges, the support services, that will be subject to closure and will not be able to be funded properly. He would lose money out of his operating grants. He would have to redirect money from the operating grants, which are there to deliver educational outcomes, into support services for students.
Let us face it, many students these days are having to also work part time. Some people are going back to study when they already have a family, so there are a lot of outside pressures on students that might not have been there in the seventies and eighties. It is vital that we have those services around these people to make sure that they are given every opportunity to study, every opportunity to achieve their best possible results, and not at the sacrifice of their personal life or their friends and family. I am a former student of CDU. The experience I had there was when there was a very strong student group, a community focused group. It was a fantastic time there. There were always a lot of activities going on that were put on by the student group. It made it feel like a university community.
I was very excited to see in a press release from Charles Darwin University that it has posted a record year of enrolments in its higher education offerings. In fact, the university grew its higher education enrolments by nine per cent this year, lifting the total number of higher education students to 7,445. I am very happy to read this: it was the third successive year in which CDU has grown its higher education enrolments. Recently the quality of research at Charles Darwin University was recognised in a new international ranking for universities. The Spain based SCImago Institutions Ranking 2009 World Report published the first index of institutions that are active in research and ranked CDU in the top five Australian universities. I congratulate CDU on this fantastic achievement, one I know that Barney and his team are determined to build on.
Charles Darwin University has become an integral part of the innovation ecosystem in Northern Australia. It is not, however, the limit of its ambition. I understand, through Barney, that CDU is determined to be part of the national conversation by joining the Innovative Research Universities network. CDU has been recognised internationally for its teaching and research, especially in the fields that draw on the unique culture and natural heritage of our beautiful part of the world, whether it be in tropical knowledge, cross-cultural and Indigenous knowledge or savannah and desert knowledge. That is why it is fantastic to be part of a government that believes in investing in education and innovation.
Recently, the federal Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, was in Darwin and he announced a $5.5 million investment for the Arafura Timor Research Facility. A landmark memorandum of understanding was signed between Charles Darwin University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Australian National University and the NT government to unite research efforts on critical issues like sustainable development, protecting biodiversity and mitigating the impact of climate change.
During the same visit, the minister also opened the federally funded $17 million chancellery at Charles Darwin University. It is a very impressive building that has been long needed. The project employed more than 40 Territory businesses during its construction, and has resulted in substantial revenue flowing into the local economy. I was involved with another fantastic initiative for CDU earlier this year when I joined the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, and the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery, Warren Snowdon, to witness the signing of a memorandum of intent between Charles Darwin University and Flinders University.
This memorandum of intent will mean that, for the first time, NT medical students will be able to complete their medical degrees without having to leave the NT. The memorandum outlines the arrangements between the two institutions for their collaborative partnership to deliver the new medical program. There is currently no medical school in the NT. Local students are required to travel and live interstate for much of their training in order to obtain a medical degree.
The Rudd government committed $32.2 million in its May budget to establish a full four-year graduate entry medical program in the Northern Territory. This funding provides a welcome change for medical students who previously had to travel interstate to study. It will also encourage medical professionals nationally to study and work in the NT, with obvious benefits to health service delivery. There is nothing that the CDU cannot achieve in the future, and possibly zoology might be another course of study. We might even be able to train astronauts, as the parliamentary secretary asked me about.
The government’s commitment to this NT medical program includes capital funding to Flinders University of $27.8 million over three years to build a dedicated network of community based medical education facilities. The government will also provide $4.4 million over four years to the NT government to enable it to support increased teaching costs and medical places for local students. These facilities will be centred around Charles Darwin University and the Royal Darwin Hospital, and will enable the NT medical program to be delivered. This will build on the existing NT clinical school collaboration between Flinders, James Cook and Charles Darwin universities and the Northern Territory government.
Over $1.6 million has been invested in local TAFE to support local jobs. This government has also invested almost $1.7 million at Charles Darwin University under the Better TAFE Facilities program. The funding will provide Charles Darwin University with upgrades on the construction, refurbishment and procurement of both the Palmerston and Casuarina campuses. It is great that local students, employers and businesses will benefit from these building upgrades.
I want to touch briefly on the youth allowance, which has once again been blocked in the Senate by the coalition. All students who receive the youth allowance will get a $2,254 Start-up scholarship every year. The parental income test will be raised so that families with two kids studying away from home can earn more than $140,000 before their allowances are completely cut. Students who choose to move away to study are eligible for a relocation scholarship worth $4,000 in the first year of study and $1,000 for each year after that. Students will be able to earn $400 a week, which is up from $236, without having their payments reduced. The age of independence will reduce progressively from 25 years to 22 years by 2012, which will see an estimated 7,600 new recipients of independent rates of allowance.
Opposition members interjecting—
Don’t read the script!
I know that those opposite do not like hearing this. It is great to see that the member for North Sydney has finally come back to the House after being the first male member ever to have a baby! What I want the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt, to do is come to my electorate. I want him to tell the 271 students there they will be worse off under the coalition’s plan for Solomon—the Pyne plan, as they have called it, or the Pyne plantation as it should be called: all full of rubbish and should be cut down. Under the Pyne plan, almost $700 million over four years will be torn out of the pockets of students at the start of the scholarship, and it will reduce permanently by $1,254 every year. More than 150 students will be losing the equivalent of $24 a week each and every year.
During the election campaign, Labor made it clear that Australia needs nothing less than an education revolution, a substantial and sustained increase in the quantity of our investment and the quality of education for all Australian youth. This is required at every level of education, from early childhood education through to the education of mature age students. Education is the platform of our economic future. Our prosperity rests on what we commit to education now. One thing I have learned from my parents is that education is not something you just go through the motions of. Education is not something that you just do to win an election. Education is a commitment we set for the society that we want to become. It sets us up. As the Prime Minister said:
… I want people to understand that our reforms are essential to Australia’s future—because quality education is good for our economy, good for our community and good for individuals. It will help create jobs and higher wages, and will create better opportunities for all Australians.
I commend the bills to the House
Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time today as he is addressing the Family Relationship Services Australia National Conference, ‘Children and Families: Reducing Risks, Building Resilience’, in Sydney, and the Minister for Home Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the arrival today of yet another boat, bringing the surge to 55 boats and more than 2,450 unauthorised arrivals since he weakened Australia’s border protection laws. Is the Prime Minister aware that these unauthorised arrivals will take up around 20 per cent of all of the places in Australia’s generous humanitarian immigration program?
It is good to see that Senator Ronaldson has been useful not only on the numbers but also in providing the Ronaldson doctrine, which has to do with reinforcing stereotypes. We have seen a bit of that in the debate in this chamber in the course of the last several weeks.
I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the following facts concerning the impact of security circumstances, which has been felt around the world, arising from the developments in Iraq, developments in Afghanistan and developments in Sri Lanka. I would draw the honourable member’s attention, for example, to the fact that the total number of those with asylum claims worldwide—this is data from the UNHCR—went up from 14,511 in 2005 to 42,478 in 2008. For Europe, it went from 10,295 in 2005 to 37,069 in 2008. If we go to Afghanistan, we see a similar pattern. We see that in 2005 there were some 5,600 Afghanis seeking asylum, rising in 2008 to 14,177 for Europe and 18,440 worldwide. So too with Sri Lanka—in 2005 the worldwide figure was 5,600 and in 2008 it is nearly 10,000. These are the statistical underpinnings of what is occurring around the world, whether it is Iraq, whether it is Afghanistan or whether it is Sri Lanka, and these therefore are the practical challenges that we are speaking about.
The honourable member also referred to the proportion of the total humanitarian intake for Australia each year represented by arrivals coming from various parts of the world. I draw his attention also to the proportion represented by arrivals in Australia coming by all means and seeking asylum. Take, for example, 2007, when we had a total of 4,133 asylum seekers arrive in Australia both by boat and by other means. We had 3,581 in 2006; 3,200 in 2005; 3,200 in 2004; 4,439 in 2003—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order going to relevance: the Prime Minister was asked whether he was aware that the asylum seekers take up 20 per cent of the humanitarian places—
The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
We know that it has been a while since Joe has been allowed to ask a question on jobs. According to our data here, it has in fact been 105 days since the opposition asked the government a question about jobs. We have now had 88 questions on asylum seekers.
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
I wonder what pattern this reflects. The honourable member’s question went to the proportion of the total Australian humanitarian intake taken up by various groups of people arriving in Australia in a given year. I was simply apprising those opposite of the facts and figures concerning the total number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia during the period that they were in office. The figures ranged from 10,000 in 1996, to 15,000 in 2000, to 17,000 in 2001; and, in the last year they were in office, there were some 4,000. Those opposite seem very keen to reflect a particular view of the statistics.
What I have sought to do in my answer is reflect what is happening worldwide for all countries in terms of outflows from Afghanistan, from Iraq and from Sri Lanka. Of all those numbers, when it comes to Sri Lanka, we have had some 600 or so arrive in Australian waters. On top of that, what I have also tried to reflect to those opposite in the answer is that, if you look at the total number of asylum seekers arriving by boat and by other means in Australia under their watch, the challenges that we face these days are by no means unique. These challenges have been faced by governments in the past and they will be faced by governments in the future.
I would suggest to those opposite, as they pursue the Ronaldson doctrine of stereotyping—part of the infamous Ronaldson email entitled ‘Digging dirt’—that, if they are going to continue to engage in these sorts of tactics, they should at least extend to the House the courtesy of framing them within historical fact and statistical reality. The government’s policy on these matters is clear; we still await some clarity in terms of what those opposite offer by way of an alternative.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on global action on climate change and new evidence of the necessity for action?
Mr Speaker, the Australian government is acting on climate change through the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
Order, the gallery will come to order! I am not sure that ‘old technology tweeting’ does my blood pressure any good either. The Prime Minister now has the call.
I suspect that that was not the first dog whistle that we have heard in the parliament today and it will not be the last dog whistle we will hear in the parliament today. But I will leave it to those opposite to wrestle with their consciences on that question, as hard as that may be.
The question I was asked was about climate change and carbon pollution reduction. The Australian government is acting on climate change by introducing a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to reduce Australia’s level of carbon production, by supporting Australian families and Australian businesses with any higher adjustment costs coming from a higher carbon price, by building the clean energy jobs we need for the future and by ensuring that Australia plays its part in cooling the planet for our kids and for our grandkids.
The alternative to action is to continue the inaction we have seen for 12 years. We are not proposing to do that. Instead, we have introduced the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and we look forward to seeing its passage through the Senate. To continue to engage in inaction on climate change would mean that we would continue to deny one core fact: the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change. To sustain a policy of inaction would be to deny the reality confronting Australians that we live in one of the hottest and driest continents on the earth. It would be to deny also the impact of inaction on drought, on fire, on extreme weather events, on coastal inundation, on the cost of insurance, on agriculture—including the projected 50 per cent fall in total agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin—and on the Great Barrier Reef. Inaction on climate change would result in the destruction of the reef over time and the 60,000 jobs generated by reef tourism. That is the economic cost of inaction.
Instead, the Australian government is acting through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Department of Climate Change forecasts that by 2011 to 2013 Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will start to fall. By 2020, there will be 138 megatons less carbon pollution than business as usual. To put that into context, that is the equivalent of taking some 35 million cars off the road, which is twice the size of the entire Australian motor vehicle fleet.
That is our action here at home through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But we must also see action abroad. I welcome the news overnight that President Obama will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. I understand that 75 world leaders have already committed to attending the Copenhagen conference.
Yesterday the White House also announced that President Obama is prepared to put forward at Copenhagen a provisional US emissions reduction target of 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. This announcement will help build momentum towards an ambitious global agreement in Copenhagen. I quote from the White House statement released at the time of President Obama’s commitment:
The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.
The Australian government continues to work closely with the government of the United States on its climate change policy, as we do with the government of China on its policy. We welcome the constructive role being played by China and we welcome also the work which China is currently undertaking on its national response to climate change in the lead-up to Copenhagen.
I wish to inform the House that I have been invited by the President of the United States to meet with him in Washington next Monday following the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting this weekend in Trinidad.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order!
I am taken aback by the outburst. Is it anti-Americanism on the part of those opposite? I am a bit puzzled by that. This is a strange world in which we live. We are now supposed to have a united position on climate change—both sides of the House have indicated which way they are going—yet each time I raise the issue of climate change there is a cacophony on the part of those opposite, who are still out there lurking in the dark with the international league of climate change conspirators, believing that it is all one big communist plot. But today it gets worse. When I indicate to the House that the President of the United States has invited me to go to Washington next Monday to discuss the Copenhagen agenda, somehow that is bad news. I would have thought that it is a good thing for the Australia-US relationship. I would have thought it is a good thing for our combined action on climate change. I would think that it is a good thing in terms of the alliance between our two great democracies. The fact that we are currently in the field with the Americans in Afghanistan and elsewhere underlines the closeness of our relationship.
Mr Truss interjecting
The Leader of the National Party interjects. He is concerned about the fact that we will be talking about more than climate change in Washington—another deep conspiracy. There are a few other things going on in the Australia-US relationship and our common efforts in Afghanistan which I do not think are invisible to the public—the fact that we are there together—and it would be a logical subject of discussion in Washington, particularly given that the United States administration is developing its own response on a long-term military commitment in that country.
Our challenge of course is not just with the United States on this matter. Our challenge of course is to work through the number of developed and developing countries which will be meeting at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago this weekend. The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago has also invited President Sarkozy to attend the meeting, together with the UN Secretary-General and Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite constantly seek to ridicule global efforts to bring about an outcome on climate change. Given that they have decided as a party to work together with the government on climate change, I would have thought that that would not stop at the continental shelf but would actually go offshore as well. Therefore, when it comes to America, which is the world’s single largest polluter, together with China, and with the developing countries which will be gathered together in Trinidad and Tobago, I would have thought this would be welcomed as a good thing.
The honourable member also asked a question about recent reports on climate change. I know the member for Sturt will be particularly interested in this, given the relevance of climate change to the good people of Sturt, who may in the future have him or someone else as their elected member. In the last couple of days a new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, was released. This was co-authored by 26 researchers, many of whom are authors of published reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The conclusions of the report are as follows, and they are disturbing. First of all, every year since 2000 has been among the top 10 warmest years since instrumental records began.
There is cooling.
Another interjection over there. In his view the planet is cooling, not warming.
The trend is cooling.
The trend is cooling. Well—
The Prime Minister will not treat interjections outside the standing orders as supplementary questions.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is hard to imagine how the Prime Minister could still be relevant to this question after over eight minutes of answering it without interruption—no points of order, simply him talking for over eight minutes.
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Before I give the Prime Minister the call: if the member for Sturt believes that the Prime Minister’s answer has been received without interruption, he has not been observing the same proceedings as I have. The interruptions against standing order 65(b) have been persistent and by a number of people, regrettably on both sides. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which was co-authored by 26 researchers, I would have thought would be of interest to all members of the House because some of its conclusions are indeed troubling on the question of climate change. One, every year since 2000 has been among the top 10 warmest years since instrumental records began. Two, recent melting of Arctic sea ice has been around 40 per cent higher than the IPCC predictions. Three, sea levels have risen by more than five centimetres over the past 15 years. This is around 80 per cent higher than the projections from the IPCC report in 2001. Four, measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating rate. Furthermore, human induced climate change is expected to lead to an increase in extreme weather events around the planet.
These are the disturbing conclusions which are contained in this particular report. They are also particularly relevant to the Pacific island countries in our own region. The Pacific island countries will be represented at CHOGM. Their interests are of great concern to Australia. Fifty per cent of the population of the Pacific island countries live within one kilometre of their coastline—one kilometre. Therefore, in terms of sea levels rising, the impact on them is great. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is important because it brings together so many small island countries from the Pacific and elsewhere, also forging a deal in the lead-up to Copenhagen to try and craft a Copenhagen agreement. That is why the actions of the United States and China are particularly relevant.
The government has been active on climate change at home through the legislation before the House and equally active abroad. I would invite all members to again display a positive attitude in supporting this government’s global negotiations with other countries as we seek to bring about a Copenhagen agreement for the future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the recent decision of the Canadian government to allow uranium sales to India and to overnight reports that the President of the United States will implement a clean energy initiative with India that involves nuclear energy cooperation.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
Order! The gallery yet again will come to order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I will start again. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the recent decision of the Canadian government to allow uranium sales to India and to overnight reports that the President of the United States will implement a clean energy initiative with India that involves nuclear energy cooperation. Given India’s energy needs, will the Prime Minister now adopt the coalition’s policy of allowing Australian sales of uranium to India with appropriate safeguards to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions?
The government was clear-cut about the policies on this question when it went to the last election. Our policies concern the importance of the non-proliferation treaty. The government intends no disrespect whatsoever to the government and the people of India, given that the government of India’s history on non-proliferation is very good. What I would say is that the particular representations that we received both from the Bush administration and from the government of India in recent years have concerned the changes which occurred through the deliberations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the provision of nuclear materials to India by a range of countries around the world. As the honourable member will be aware if she has read her briefs on this subject, the Australian government was exceptionally supportive and constructive in the negotiation of that process through the Nuclear Suppliers Group when a range of additional countries in fact were not. This has also been reflected in the responses which the government has received from the Indian government as a result of our positive approach adopted in those negotiations.
That is the approach we have adopted on these matters. Obviously we value our relationship with India. We will continue to work with India in terms of their overall energy needs. The joint declaration, which was signed by Prime Minister Singh and me when I was in New Delhi only a couple of weeks ago, reflects indeed the expanded scope and potential for energy cooperation in a whole range of areas in the future. This is a very good relationship between Australia and India. It is one to which this government attaches the highest priority and we will continue to work on that relationship in the future. India is one of the economic superpowers of the 21st century, and we intend to invest every level of resource we can in ensuring that relationship is elevated at the political level, the security level and the economic level. I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the contents of the joint declaration, which was signed when I was in New Delhi with Prime Minister Singh only a few weeks ago.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. What is the cost of not acting on climate change and why is passing the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the national interest?
I thank the member for Dawson for the question. I can attest to the House that he has been a very persistent advocate on behalf of coalminers and their families in his electorate and also on behalf of renewable energy projects in the electorate of Dawson as well.
The Prime Minister, just a few minutes ago, was referring to the latest scientific report that has been released, The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which warns that climate change is occurring quicker than had previously been expected. It underlines again that, if we do not act, Australia faces huge potential economic costs from the impacts on water security, energy supplies, health, coastal communities and other infrastructure. On top of this the Treasury modelling has shown that if we defer action Australia will face long-term costs around 15 per cent higher than if we act now. To put that into a global context, the International Energy Agency says it will cost an additional $500 billion to cut global emissions for each year that action is delayed. As we have remarked previously, Australia will miss out on jobs in the growing global carbon market if we do not start making this transformation now.
There has been some commentary in recent days, too, about the issue of household compensation to meet the costs of the introduction of a carbon price into the economy. The government has provided for significant levels of assistance to low- and middle-income households to deal with this transition. Under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, pensioners, seniors, carers and people with disability will be fully compensated for expected increases in the cost of living. In fact around 90 per cent of low-income households will receive assistance equal to 120 per cent of their cost of living increase. And 97 per cent of middle-income households will receive some direct cash assistance, with 50 per cent of them being fully compensated. It is worth noting that the opposition leader, the member for Wentworth, indicated on the Sunrise program yesterday that the government’s CPRS included ‘an adequate and fair and sustainable level of assistance for households’.
The Senate is now debating amendments to the CPRS, and the fundamental position is that it is time to get on and pass the legislation. It is time that the sceptics and the conspiracy theorists on the other side stepped aside and got out of the way. They have had their time in the sun; it is time to pass the legislation. We had, as parliament will recall, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seriously positing on the Four Corners program that after the decline of communism, the international left somehow got behind the environment movement and climate change in an attempt to de-industrialise the western world—a preposterous proposition for someone with his responsibility. Senator Bernardi has offered, during the second reading debate in the Senate, the following words:
I do not and will not worship at the altar of green witchcraft.
Others have remained captured, as I indicated yesterday, by Lord Monckton’s world government conspiracy theory. Senator Cash indicated in the second reading debate that she is convinced of an evil United Nations conspiracy to take over the Australian economy. Senator Boswell is travelling in cyberspace finding adherence to Lord Monckton’s theory. We have had Nazi equated to climate science; the member for Warringah believing the science is irrelevant because grapes grew in Roman times on Hadrian’s Wall; the member for Mackellar proclaiming that the burning of dung is the biggest problem here; and Senator Abetz arguing that weeds are the greatest threat to the climate. Of course, Senator Joyce seriously posited through all of this that we will be paying $150 for a leg of lamb.
Enough is enough. There have been enough absurd, ridiculous, bizarre contributions from that side of politics in the sceptics and theorists camp, and it is time that it finished. It is time that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation be passed. The Business Council, the Australian Industry Group, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Council of Social Service, the ACTU, environment groups and premiers all want this legislation passed. The deal needs to be honoured and the legislation needs to be passed.
When this legislation is passed it will join the list of great Labor reforms in this country: the opening up of the economy in the 1980s, the decentralisation of the industrial relations system, Medicare, universal superannuation, social security, equal opportunity, trade practices and corporations law. All of these great reforms are Labor reforms. And the government’s action on climate change will join that wonderful list. It will be a huge nation-building contribution.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the report, tabled today, of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works entitled Redevelopment of the Villawood Immigration Detention Facility. I specifically refer the Prime Minister to recommendation 3:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation ensure that the detailed design for the Villawood Immigration Detention Facility address the management plan for potential surge conditions.
Is the government preparing the centre to cope with the ongoing surge in unauthorised arrivals?
It seems that the dog whistle continues in parliament today.
Opposition member interjecting—
The honourable member interjects, ‘For heaven’s sake.’ We are not blind to what is going on on the other side of politics at the present. We are not blind to the tensions which exist within the coalition. It is a sad day indeed when the only thing they can seem to unite on is this continued Ronaldson doctrine driven campaign which is to stereotype the entire debate about asylum seekers in this country. That is what is going on. Let us just call it for what it is.
The honourable member asks about Villawood detention centre. I would imagine that all appropriate preparations are made for the continued refurbishment and proper provision of facilities in detention centres for a long, long time. Can I just go back to one core point relevant to this and other related questions which the honourable member and others on his side of the parliament have asked, and it is this: if those opposite were seriously of the view that the problem concerning asylum seekers had simply disappeared, why did they then proceed to build an 800-bed facility on Christmas Island? This is a process that was begun, as I recall it, in about 2004, 2005 or thereabouts. I thought that those opposite said that it was problem solved, that they had all these policies in place, that the problem had disappeared and—there was no such thing as global factors, of course—that it was a uniquely Australian response to a uniquely Australian challenge. Yet mysteriously, out of that, they had to build an 800-bed detention facility on Christmas Island.
The truth is that public administration requires proper preparation for dealing with a whole range of contingencies. The previous government acted in that way by preparing Christmas Island. The current government is also doing so in terms of additional capacity at Christmas Island and further preparations in onshore Australia. It is the right and responsible course of action, because future contingencies have to be planned for. That is the right way in which you handle this.
Again I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that, worldwide, the numbers who are now exiting Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have gone up. This has been occurring since 2005. It has been occurring as a consequence of global push factors concerning security within those states. As a consequence, all countries in the world—France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, the United States, those of South-East Asia—are dealing with the same global push factors. The responsible course of action is to handle these matters in a practical fashion rather than simply have it fall within the rubric of the Ronaldson doctrine that you cannot generate good stories out of normal policy debates, that the best way to generate good stories is out of perpetuating stereotypes in the community. That is precisely what the opposition is now doing.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel. On behalf of the House, I extend to Mr Olmert a warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the government working with our agricultural industries to address climate change, and how has this cooperation been received?
I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, while it has received a great deal of attention over previous weeks, is not the only policy involved in the government responding to climate change. While it deals with aspects of trying to mitigate and reduce carbon emissions, one of the challenges faced by the farmers of Australia is to adapt to the changes which are happening in the climate.
Anyone who was here during the previous term of government would remember endless lectures being given by those who were then on this side of the House about the importance of mutual responsibility, or mutual obligation, as they used to term it—they claimed they had levels of support for that and they claimed that the then opposition did not understand the importance of mutual responsibility. So it surprised me when the member for Parkes decided to rail against principles of mutual responsibility within my portfolio.
One of the things that we established on coming to government was, because a number of areas were starting to come out of exceptional circumstances, to make sure that, for the most desperate farmers in those areas, there remained a way for them to receive food-on-the-table money, the household payments—in a limited scheme, but certainly we were replacing what previously would have been no support for them at all. One of the things that farmers do when they are involved in receiving the transitional income support is they deal with the Rural Financial Counselling Service and undertake a level of training to help them plan for the future. One of the terms involved in conducting this planning is the term ‘climate change’. This brought an understandable reaction from the National Party. The member for Parkes, on ABC radio earlier this week, said, ‘Ultimately, to be eligible, they have to undertake some form of training, and I find that most offensive.’ He found it ‘most offensive’ that there would be a level of mutual responsibility and there would be training.
So I thought I would have a look at the sort of support that the Rural Financial Counselling Service provides when people are applying for transitional income support, just so that everyone in this House understands what it is that the National Party finds offensive: financial assessment and planning; business management; budgeting; taking into account the taxation implications; drought recovery; climate forecasting; climate risk management planning; climate change impacts and risk information—indeed anything that you would have thought is a sensible way for governments to assist some of the most desperate farmers. The National Party is willing to rail against that, not because it is not smart policy, not because it is not helping the farmers plan for the future, but because it involves the words ‘climate change’, and, the moment you say that, the National Party just start frothing at the mouth, even on something of mutual responsibility, which we were always told was a cornerstone of what the coalition actually believed in.
The term of ‘climate change’ for the National Party has become like the concept of ‘don’t mention the war’. The moment you say ‘climate change’ the coalition abandons concepts of mutual responsibility, the world becomes flat and Virginia Trioli becomes a very remarkable judge of character. It is that same consistent response of loathing, the way they respond to words, the way the National Party responds to the words ‘climate change’, the way the Leader of the Opposition responds to the words ‘Godwin Grech’ and the way half the Liberal Party responds to the words ‘Malcolm Turnbull’.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. I refer the minister to the government’s repeated refusal to answer questions about the special deal that enticed 78 asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking and to the notice of motion return to order in the other place—
Order! The member for Farrer will resume her seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to argument.
Fran Bailey interjecting
I say to the member for McEwen that it was a good try. There needs to be a reminder about the extent to which there is argument in questions. I did indicate earlier this week or last week that I have been allowing degrees of argument in questions, but I must say, not necessarily, particularly on this one. It is a growing trend when there is excessive argument that is not assisting the way in which people perceive that the question should be responded to. I think that that is the balance.
Mr Secker interjecting
The member for Barker can give the commentary but I am giving the response to the point of order. I think that he should know that sometimes in the chair it is not easy to see things in black and white.
Mr Anthony Smith interjecting
The member for Casey, if he kept quiet, would be helping even more. On this occasion I do not find in favour of the Leader of the House, but I caution those that put together the questions that they should not overly place argument as preamble to their questions and they should do it with much greater care. If it is substance and response to that substance that they want, they should avoid that. The member for Farrer.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, I shall continue with the question to the Minister for Home Affairs. I refer to the notice of motion return to order in the other place requesting the tabling of documents relating to the details of that special deal. Why did the government defeat the motion to table documents on the Oceanic Viking special deal?
Order! I am not sure that the Minister for Home Affairs can be held responsible for a decision of the Senate. The member for Sturt.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The reason the question to the Minister for Home Affairs is in order is that he has carriage of the Oceanic Viking vessel, he is part of the government, therefore we assume he was part of the decision to not allow the tabling of documents in relation to the special deal.
If the question asked for an attitude to explain the position of the government about issues, that is in order, but I am not sure that a minister can be held responsible for and be questioned about a decision of the Senate. I will allow the member for Farrer, on a third occasion, to modify the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I once again question the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister now question the government’s decision not to table documentation or answer questions on the special deal for the Oceanic Viking?
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was out of order.
Whilst the redrafting—just as I do not want to mark answers, I am not going to mark questions. I am being very generous because it is the end of the year and I will allow the question. Even though that was not a very precise redraft, given my command of English, I could not judge exact precision. The Minister for Home Affairs is actually keen to respond. That is not a deciding factor in the way in which I adjudicate but he has been out of the barrier very quickly. The Minister for Home Affairs has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. No.
My question is to the Treasurer. What has the government and the Australian community achieved in 2009 that will help us meet the economic challenges of 2010 and beyond?
I thank the member for Dobell for his question because, as the parliamentary year draws to a close, I think it is worth reflecting on the impact of the global financial crisis on our economy and also on the challenges that lie ahead in the next year or so. It is the case that share markets around the world suffered their biggest decline since the 1927 stock market collapse. It is also the case that we have suffered the sharpest contraction in the global economy since the Great Depression. Something like 12 million workers in advanced economies have lost their jobs and every major advanced economy has fallen into deep recession. Australia was in danger of following suit.
As we are aware, the very prompt and decisive action by the government, the Reserve Bank and the resilience in the Australian community did help Australia withstand the full impact of this global recession. As the IMF said only a few weeks ago:
An aggressive policy response is likely to help Australia escape a contraction in 2009.
I think all Australians can be proud of what we have all achieved together—employers and employees—to cushion the impact on our economy by pulling together and working together at this difficult time. Because we have done that, we have come through in a stronger position than any other advanced economy. This is what the OECD confirmed last week in their report:
Australia has stronger growth, lower unemployment, lower debt and lower deficits than other advanced economies.
The government’s stimulus has meant that we did avoid recession and, in doing that, the destruction on capital, the destruction of skills and the destruction on communities. Of course, there are very substantial challenges that remain. We are under no illusions about that. The government are fairly and squarely focused on the challenges that lie ahead through next year.
The IMF has already indicated that the global recovery is uneven, that it is not yet self-sustaining and that it remains dependent on policy support. As we showed in MYEFO there is still spare capacity. The economy is expected to operate below capacity for some time and unemployment is still expected to rise. We are still feeling the effects on our terms of trade and, of course, on business investment. We can see that today in the capex data. It shows that capital expenditure by businesses fell by 3.9 per cent in the September quarter. While investment plans for 2009-10 have improved somewhat, they remain 7.7 per cent lower than the same estimate for 2008-09. The importance of that is that the government’s investment and infrastructure does remain very important in terms of supporting business and employment in the year ahead. I think it underscores the importance of the economic stimulus.
We are in a better position than we expected earlier in the year. That is a good thing. And we do know that we are better placed than many other economies to meet the challenges ahead. That is why the government are moving to put in place reforms like the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is why we are working hard on our productivity agenda and why we are serious about reforming the tax system. The country has some hard yards ahead. Reform is never easy. We have seen that in the House with the reaction by some to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. What we do know is that there will be difficult reforms ahead. The important thing is that this government have the commitment to put those in place and, in doing that, we do need maximum unity in this parliament. All sides of the House need to work together so that we can maximise the opportunities for the future to make ourselves more prosperous, to support employment and to support business. That is why the government are so focused on our reform program as we go through the year and into the years ahead.
My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to rising interest rates. I ask the Treasurer a simple question: will the Treasurer inform the House how much interest the government will have to pay on its record debt until that debt is paid off in 2022?
I welcome this question, because one month ago this Monday I presented MYEFO—an update of the budget forecast, the economic outlook and the budget outlook. I have not had a question from the shadow Treasurer about that in one month. Admittedly, he was away for a period of time. The family had a young baby. I understand that. But for him not to ask a question at any stage during this week about the MYEFO document, which forecasts stronger growth and lower net debt—some $50 billion lower net debt—or not to ask a question about those figures in one month just shows you what fundamental misjudgment the opposition has and how disorganised it is in its approach to economic policy or, for that matter, any other policy. It is very sloppy. It is definitely very sloppy. The opposition has been running this classic scare campaign about rising interest rates.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question could not have been more specific. How much interest will the government have to pay on its debt? How much?
The shadow Treasurer knows full well that all of the estimates are there in MYEFO, but I am happy to run him through them. Let us go through it: net interest payments for 2009-10 are around $2 billion or 0.2 per cent of GDP; net interest payments are projected to rise to $8.2 billion or 0.6 per cent of GDP by 2012-13. Those are the figures. They have been there in MYEFO for over a month. But the opposition have not been able to summon the political will to ask a question about them. Let me tell you why this question has taken so long: they are so acutely embarrassed by their opposition to our stimulus packages that they cannot come into the House—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not ask him about questions. I asked him a simple question: how much interest is Australia going have to pay on your debt?
The Treasurer is responding to the question.
I have run through the numbers, but I want to go through the economic outlook that lies behind the numbers. This government had to borrow responsibly to support small business and to support employment. What the Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Outlook showed was this: as a result of the global recession, we have had to write down revenues by $170 billion. The course of action that we took in those circumstances was to borrow responsibly.
Mr Speaker—
There is no point of order. The member for Sturt will resume his seat and the Treasurer will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question under the standing orders.
No, he isn’t.
The member for Herbert will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
Mr Speaker, we’re not getting any answers to the questions we ask.
The member for Herbert is named.
I move:
That the member for Herbert be suspended from the service of the House.
Mr Pyne interjecting
The member for Sturt is warned.
Question put.
Order! The honourable member for Herbert is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 94(b).
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
I now might be able to conclude my remarks. The House would remember I asked the Treasurer and the Manager of Opposition Business to resume their seats. If my recollection is right, I had simply made the comment that, based on previous practice of the House, the Treasurer’s response could have been considered to have been relevant. I then wished to make the further comment—and it could be considered by way of caution to the Treasurer—to indicate to the House that the real problem is the amount of debate that is allowed in the answers. As this has caused this longer break in proceedings, I will now read a couple of relevant sections from House of Representatives Practice, which the House might consider over the break. At page 552 it reads:
… Ministers have not been prevented from introducing argument into their answers. Although it has been argued that the standing order provision that ‘questions cannot be debated’ should be read as meaning a prohibition of debate in answering, as well as in putting, a question, it has not been so interpreted by the Chair.
On page 54 it indicates that a procedure committee in 1992, amongst other things, suggested that the standing orders be amended to read, amongst other things, ‘shall not debate the subject to which the question refers’—that is, the answer. I think that is part of the problem. That is why earlier I tried to be very cautious about the amount of argument we have allowed to creep into questions. In an unlevel playing field it seems a reasonable practice of the House to try to make it more level. It is why I attempt to reduce the amount of argument that is introduced into points of order. On this occasion I might add that the two points of order raised by the member for North Sydney—not that I adjudicated in his favour—were points of order.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Further to your advice to the House, I would find it impossible to frame a question that was simpler or more direct than asking the Treasurer what the interest repayments were on government debt. It was a simple question. If the standing order relating to relevance has any worth then surely it goes to the point—
The member for North Sydney might resume his seat. Perhaps he might find some time over the break to really reflect upon these matters. In a fair judgment of proceedings of this place over a long time—over a long time—he would be tested to find that things were as simple as he says by putting the words ‘a simple question’ in a question and not allowing the little bits and pieces of the question then to be picked out by ministers. I could also argue my response to points of order by saying that others who had it in their power to change standing orders over time, through dent of numbers, perhaps will consider that. I am not blaming anybody; I am blaming the House. If you think that I think that this is appropriate, you are wrong. I have tried to indicate a path that the House could consider. The Treasurer has the call.
I ran through the figures in MYEFO, but obviously the shadow Treasurer has not even read MYEFO. I ran through the figures and I explained why borrowings were necessary in the first place—that is, there have been revenue write-downs of something like $170 billion. Those revenue write-downs have necessitated borrowings, which has meant that the Commonwealth is paying interest. I then ran through the interest that we are paying on the net debt and he still did not seem to understand it or get it. I can only think that he has not read MYEFO. The truth is that, if we had not borrowed that money, if we were not paying that interest, Australia would be in a deep recession right now. That is the point. That is what those opposite are so embarrassed about. They are embarrassed about the fact that they opposed economic stimulus in this House. Economic stimulus has kept us out of recession. Economic stimulus has supported hundreds of thousands of jobs. Economic stimulus has supported small business. We are paying interest to achieve that very desirable outcome. Those opposite are so embarrassed by their opposition in the House that they simply cannot stand it.
Has the Treasurer concluded? Has the Treasurer concluded? Treasurer?
Just bring Ken Henry in!
Mr Speaker, that was an outrageous slur on the Secretary of the Treasury, which is now on the record.
An opposition member—He’s an ignorant Treasurer!
Don’t be so ridiculous!
Well, he is an idiot! Put that on the record, too.
The member for Casey will withdraw.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation representing the Special Minister of State. Will the minister outline the importance of public servants providing impartial advice and commitment to government? Is the minister aware of instances where this has not occurred?
I thank the member for Wills for his question. Yes, it is important that federal public servants provide advice to the government in an impartial and committed way and I am, sadly, aware of recent instances where that did not occur. Yesterday the Senate Privileges Committee published its report on the Godwin Grech affair and made public a number of emails that are rather extraordinary. I would just like to quote a few of these emails to give an indication of the seriousness of what has prevailed here.
First, an email from Mr Grech to a Mr John O’Sullivan, who I understand is a key supporter of the Leader of the Opposition, says:
What I have in mind is that once Rudd and his hacks sign off on Ford Credit—you and I can change the contract to reflect your preferred fee arrangement and push that through quickly next week. I will not be running it past Henry and co.
Secondly, from Mr Grech to a redacted—that is, not disclosed—name:
My immediate motivation is to place myself where I think I could be of most value to MT—
I think we know who MT is—
and the Party. At this stage, I am probably more valuable here in Treasury (albeit the personal risks I am taking). I am also doing some fundraising for MT. He tells me the cupboard is bare.
And an email from Mr Grech to none other than MT—
Order! The minister for finance will resume his seat. The Manager for Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I move:
That the member been no longer heard.
Question put.
If the opposition do not wish to hear the contents of these emails, might I suggest that they stick their fingers in their ears for the next couple of minutes. The next example is from Mr Grech to Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition. It says:
Perhaps it is best to meet somewhere private in Sydney this coming week. I can create a reason to be in Sydney for work, say on any day from Wednesday to Friday to meet up with you and Abetz. Must be very private, we must not meet in PH.
There is a response from the Leader of the Opposition that says:
Godwin, change of venue for 3 pm Friday. It’s Lucy’s office.
Finally, there is an email from Mr Grech to Mr O’Sullivan—and this may perhaps shed some light on the interjections from the member for North Sydney regarding the Secretary of the Treasury a minute ago. It says:
Today Treasury is as left wing loony as the government it serves.
That global communist conspiracy, it’s everywhere!
These emails of course raise some very obvious questions about Mr Grech. He is clearly not any kind of whistleblower, nor indeed a disgruntled public servant raising genuine matters of public interest. He is, in effect, somebody who has been acting as a spy for the Leader of the Opposition, who is not just passing on information but deliberately seeking to undermine, destabilise and interfere with the ordinary functioning of processes of government. That raises pretty clear questions about Mr Grech, but it also raises some very significant questions about the character and integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. He has been behaving pretty much like a KGB colonel handling his spy, his mole, inside the federal government, trying to ensure that he can not only get information but manipulate what is going on within the government. He has been behaving like some kind of shady character in a John le Carre novel.
The question here is: who here is displaying integrity and the kind of leadership that is required for somebody to aspire to lead the Australian nation? The Leader of the Opposition has got a lot of questions to answer with respect to this affair. When you look at the context and the text of all of these emails, both to and from the Leader of the Opposition but also to his key supporter and backer, Mr John O’Sullivan, there are very serious questions to be asked as to whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is a fit and proper person who is qualified to lead the Australian nation.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to withdraw the smear and slur against the Leader of the Opposition at the end of his answer.
Conscious of the tensions, I listened very carefully to the minister’s answer so that he did not transgress into matters that would have required a substantive motion. On the basis that I do not think he strayed into that area, I think the conclusion he may have come to comes under the classification of ‘the cut and thrust of this place’, no matter how harsh people believe it to be.
Mr Speaker, on the point of order: standing order 90 says that all imputations of improper motives to a member and all personal reflections on other members should be considered highly disorderly. I regard the last phrase of the minister for finance as highly disorderly and an imputation of improper motives and a personal reflection. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition I ask the minister for finance to withdraw.
Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: if this house of accountability cannot raise a question as to whether any member is a fit and proper person to lead the nation, then we can no longer have scrutiny in the House of Representatives. If this is unparliamentary, we no longer have accountability in the House of Representatives.
Mr Speaker, also on the point of order: having regard to this being the last sitting day, remarks such as that thrown at the opposition leader are totally inappropriate. The minister that uttered those words was quite prepared to come to the microphone and withdraw them. He should come to the microphone and withdraw them.
Yet again, I remind the member for Sturt that sometimes I have made requests for withdrawals from people who have been interjecting that may not have been the same if that person had had the proper call. I am saying to people that if they want to rewrite history about comments of the ilk of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation they may, but I am not going to on this occasion. I indicated that from very early on in the answer, even before the motion that the member be no longer heard was put, I listened very carefully to the response and I do not think there is anything, given the past practice of this place, that requires withdrawing.
I am mindful that it is less than a month until Christmas and, in a charitable spirit, my question is to the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy—
Government members interjecting—
I will try to address this festively. I refer the minister to Labor’s election promise to introduce BAS Easy and to have government departments pay all small businesses’ invoices on time. When will this election promise be met?
I sure do thank the shadow minister for small business for his question. It must be a blessed relief, because it is 546 days since he last asked me a question. If he had missed out today—and I am glad that the member for O’Connor has agreed, as chair of tactics, that he should finally get a question—it would have been 614 days until 2 February. The clock was ticking. It would have been 53,136,000 seconds since he last asked a question, so he has just slipped in, in the nick of time.
It’s on your hand!
It is on my hand, absolutely. I do it every day—waiting, waiting, waiting. The great moment has occurred just before the reshuffle, just in the nick of time. But to answer the question, in relation to BAS Easy, we have produced a very substantial reform in the form of standard business reporting, which will cut down GST paperwork requirements by up to 70 per cent. We are concentrating on the standard business reporting initiative, which I think was actually supported by the previous coalition government, by the previous member for Higgins. That standard business reporting mechanism is going to be very effective in achieving the very objectives of BAS Easy.
We are nevertheless going through a public consultation process working with the small business community, with those who remain outside of the standard business reporting initiative, so that we can work with them through the simplified accounting methods available under the GST administration, to do everything we can—to do what the coalition failed to do. I remember a book about—
Opposition members interjecting—
You can join the book club. Come in with a few policy ideas. I will tell you where the coalition’s policy ideas come from—from the fellow who challenged the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. That is none other than the member for Menzies. He is nodding, because he was given policy responsibility.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: it was a straightforward question and deserves a straight forward answer.
The minister is required to relate his material to the question.
We were talking about policy development. We were talking about BAS Easy. The point is that the member for Menzies has been given responsibility for policy development by the other side, by the Leader of the Opposition, freeing up the entire frontbench to engage in a campaign of fear and smear—
Order! The minister will relate his remarks to the question.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is on behalf of the small business people of this town, who do not want clowns—
The member for O’Connor will resume his seat.
Wilson, if you keep running the Liberal Party, you will be a small business!
The parliamentary secretary for disabilities is now warned.
Mr Pearce interjecting
The member for Aston should not get so excited, though! The minister has the call.
I will go on to the late payment system in a moment, but I do observe in relation to the point of order that, today, the President of the United States pardoned a turkey. Now, what I am going to suggest is that the Leader of the Opposition pardons the turkey on the backbench!
Mr Speaker—
The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The minister will either relate his material to the question or sit down.
We did make a commitment to the late payment system. We will be issuing a report in the very near future, just after the first anniversary of the commitment coming into force. Of course, we need to report on the first year’s results—
Opposition members interjecting—
but I tell you this: when it comes out, you will be very disappointed. You will be very disappointed with the results, because they are very encouraging results—again, another Rudd government election commitment being met on time. So get in line, support small business in this community and pardon the turkey.
My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the need for civics education and the challenges for our education system in assisting Australians to understand federal politics?
I thank the member for her question. I think we would all agree it is very important that Australians are inspired to understand their democracy, inspired by the prospect of serving in public life, whether that be as a member of parliament or in one of our great Public Service agencies, whether that be in my department or in the Prime Minister’s department, the ministry of foreign affairs or perhaps even the Electoral Commission.
I think we would recognise that there was a sigh of relief from the Electoral Commission after certain events yesterday, because how much public education would it have taken for the 2010 election to be between Kevin and Julia, and Kevin and Julie? It would have been a close election, so close there would only have been a letter’s difference in it! One does wonder whether we would have ended up being a nation internationally ridiculed, as people from around the world concluded that every Australian man must be a serious, churchgoing type called Kevin and every Australian woman must be a former lawyer called Julie or Julia! The nation has certainly dodged a bullet as a result of yesterday’s events. I do note that we should be praising the member for Wentworth for introducing the name ‘Malcolm’ into the election, to stop this confusion!
I do also note, though, from a Mr Grech email that not everybody is a fan of the current leadership team. Mr Grech did say: ‘Agree that MT is doing a good job but he needs to deal with the JB issue.’ It seems to me grossly unfair; I won’t stand for it! I think the team of Malcolm and Julie is doing very well indeed. But that does not mean that we are holding anything against the member for Menzies, and I have actually bought him a small Christmas present as a token: these pens. I know that he is probably feeling a little bit poorly today, so it is something to remind him of those good old days in the past—
The Deputy Prime Minister has made her point.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, there was usage of a prop by the Leader of the National Party which you ruled out of order and it had to be done away with. It was then used by the member for North Sydney; he was told to take his fingers off it.
Government members interjecting—
What is the difference when this prop is introduced? Is there one rule for each side?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Starting from the final point first, I endeavour to make sure that there is one rule for all and I think I can say on safe ground that on props there has been one rule for all, because first of all the Leader of the National Party was given reasonable opportunity to use his prop—
It was nothing like that.
Well, I am sorry; I cannot grade the use of props! I did remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she should not display it too much, and she was good enough to listen—
Government members interjecting—
No, the prop! I think that I will just rule against the member for Mackellar’s point of order and get myself out of the second hole I have dug today! I will just remind the House that, whilst the member for Mackellar was on her feet, I was reminding the Deputy Prime Minister that she had used her prop for long enough, and that is enough. And I will try to be silent for the rest of question time. The Deputy Prime Minister.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I will move right along before we start debating censorship laws, which was where that was all going next, as far as I could tell!
The reason we are also very fond of the member for Menzies is that he is of course a former race caller, and I think one thing he could do next year now he will not have the burden of leadership on his shoulders is call the 2010 election for us. I have got what I think could be his starting call. ‘They’re off and racing, and Kevin, on a horse called the Future of Programmatic Specificity, a well-known horse in Rudd Labor politics, is trying hard. And there of course is Malcolm Turnbull on a horse, Future of Global Conspiracies. But Malcolm is struggling because the back half of the horse appears to be trying to go in a different direction, and he is actually trying to chuck a bit of weight off. There are a few fake emails, there is Grech to get rid of, and of course then there are those climate change deniers.
Honourable members interjecting—
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think I preferred to props.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Can I simply share with the House and with the member for Mackellar, that I have already given an award—I am not sure what the award was, but I was surprised that it was on the last day—but that deserves an award even though it might not have been a point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister will relate her material in some manner to the question and try to get to the final straight of her answer.
I am on my way to the final straight, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much on the question of civics education. I say to the member for Mackellar that in this horse race the old horse ain’t what she used to be. But moving right on, the member for Warringah is there on a horse called Battlelines. It does seem to be stalking the member for Wentworth but it just will not pass. That might cause a stewards’ inquiry at some point of this horse race. The member for North Sydney is riding a clever race but his horse is looking quite tired by now.
I think the minister wins by a nose!
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for New England might have rated it right. I cannot believe that the member for Mackellar could get two awards.
It is true to say that I have a genetic advantage. I am prepared to pay that absolutely. And of course, the member for Mackellar, apart from making an appearance as a warhorse, could make an appearance on a horse called Infrastructure. She has already got the high visibility clothing, though not wearing it today, but she would always fit in well on a building site. The member for Wide Bay I think would be there. He is still flogging a dead horse called the National Party. We would be able to see him in the race. And of course the member for Sturt would be there in the grandstand, squealing to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘Don’t frighten the horses!’ That is exactly what would be happening.
Let me say in the spirit of the season that I wish all opposition members well and I would like to conclude by saying to my old friend the member for O’Connor: I actually do not have a mad uncle in my family, so he is always welcome around at the Gillard family for Christmas and, if he wants to bring his 34 mad mates with him, they are very welcome as well.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence and in the spirit of the minister’s remarks and as a former race caller, can I suggest that she sticks to her day job.
My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Child Care and Youth and Minister for Sport. I refer the minister to the time frame she has set to respond to the Crawford review into sport where she said, ‘Early next year is the end of the year.’ Will the Minister for Sport advise the House whether she will be attending the Boxing Day Test in Melbourne and the New Year’s Test in Sydney? Will the minister also inform the House which of the test matches is at the end of the year and which of these test matches is early next year?
I thank the shadow minister for the first question relating to sport that has been asked by the opposition in two years, and say that some people may know that calendars have not always been my strong point. But just in case there has been any confusion, I am willing to say that the end of the year is indeed the end of the year.
On a more serious point, can I also say that the reason that this has come up—and I know that it is the final day of parliament and we can all have a bit of a joke—is because of the serious overhaul of the Australian sport system. We are committed to ensuring that we strengthen Australian sport at both an elite and a community level. We think that this is incredibly important. It is important to the nation, as the government has pointed out, that we are committed to increasing our support at both an Olympic level and at a community level, and we look forward to responding at the end of the year.
Which comes first?
It is great to see your Christmas spirit over there. With regard to your question, I am very excited about the upcoming cricket season and I hope to be able to get to both the Boxing Day Test and the New Year’s Test, one which will be this year and the other which will be next year. Thank you.
My question without notice is to the Leader of the House. Would the Leader of the House outline the importance of orderly processes to ensure the timely passage of legislation through the parliament?
I thank the Chief Government Whip for his question. Indeed, there is a need for order and unity in both chambers of the parliament if the parliamentary processes are going to function properly. As I highlighted earlier today, there have been 191 bills, 191 pieces of legislation, passed through this chamber this year alone—the highest number of bills in a decade, because this government has a big agenda. This would not have been possible without orderly conduct from united government members. This week has highlighted what happens in the parliament when you do not have unity. Now, on Thursday afternoon, we are not quite sure when the legislation will pass the other chamber that has been agreed to by the government and the opposition. We are not sure when it will pass—if it passes. We are not sure by how many votes it will pass or who will be the Leader of the Opposition at that time.
Yesterday morning the members for O’Connor and Tangney moved a motion to spill the Liberal Party leadership. It is true that there have been spills over the years on this side of the House as well, but never before has there been a case where the choice was between the Leader of the Opposition and nobody, and nobody got 35 votes.
Mr Speaker, I know it is the end of the year and people have been a bit febrile lately, but, quite frankly, this is not within the minister’s portfolio responsibilities. The standing orders make it quite clear that he is not entitled to comment on matters to do with the Liberal Party.
The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The question was in order, but can I suggest to the Leader of the House that he relates his material to the question.
What happens to the CPRS legislation is very much related to the business of the House It is quite interesting that yesterday 35 people voted for the ‘anyone but Turnbull’ ticket. I think I know where they got their inspiration from. The member for Tangney was the seconder of the resolution yesterday. If you type into Google ‘Copenhagen, Jensen and 35 votes’, you actually get an article from the Copenhagen Post dated 19 November 2009 entitled ‘Dead candidate gets 35 votes.’ It is about Mr Jensen, who was a candidate in an election, and he received 35 votes after—
Mr Speaker, under no stretch of the imagination can this be relevant to either the minister’s portfolio responsibilities or indeed the question he was asked. I would ask that you sit him down.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Leader of the House will bring his answer to a conclusion.
What is relevant is getting this legislation carried, and it is quite clear that some of those opposite are determined to stymie the legislation being carried in the Senate and then returning to the House. Yesterday, after the resolution of the joint party room which rejected the leadership spill, Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, went out and did a press conference. He was asked:
Is your interpretation of the result today that 35 people would have preferred you as leader from here on?
He said:
Well, I think that is a reasonable interpretation to make.
I leave it to those opposite—
Mr Speaker—
The Leader of the House has resumed his seat.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister—
How much tobacco money did you get?
Order! The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support will withdraw the remark.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
I thank the parliamentary secretary. The member for Stirling.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of his explicit commitment that he would reject all political donations to the Labor Party from Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald of the West Australian division of the CFMEU and to his commitment yesterday that since the year 2000 the federal Labor Party has ‘not received any donations from the Western Australian construction division of the CFMEU’. I further refer him to the following comments by Mr Reynolds in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election:
Interviewer: How much of that money has been budgeted for Western Australian seats?
Reynolds: $40,000.
Interviewer: Okay, whereabouts?
Reynolds: Stirling and Hasluck., 20 grand each.
Prime Minister, as Stirling and Hasluck are federal seats, do you still claim that you kept your promise?
As I said in response to the honourable member’s question yesterday, and having sought at the end of question time to obtain advice from the national secretary of the Australian Labor Party, it is as I said yesterday. If there is anything further to add then of course I will. But I can only act on the basis of the advice of the national secretary of the party, as would the Leader of the Opposition respond if he was asked a question about donations to the Liberal Party.
I am glad also, though, that the honourable member continues to return to the refrain of campaign donations and campaign finance reform. One of the matters which now lies blocked in the Senate is a proposal we have had there for a long time to reduce the disclosable donation limit from the $10,000 to which those opposite raised it under the Howard government to the $1,500 which we have proposed instead.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This was a very specific question about commitments that the Prime Minister gave in relation to funding of the Labor Party, and I ask you to return him to relevance.
The Prime Minister is responding to the question. The Prime Minister.
As I said in response to the honourable member’s question that he asked yesterday, having sought the advice of the national secretary of the Labor Party I responded on the basis of that advice having been received. I have received no further advice, and I would simply say on the broader question of campaign finance reform that if those opposite were concerned about integrity on these questions how can they sit there and take $2.1 million from the tobacco lobby and how can they block campaign finance reform legislation in the Senate?
Mr Speaker, this is about the Prime Minister’s promise and his answer yesterday that the Labor Party had not received money from the CFMEU. We have asked him to explain why Kevin Reynolds said they had received $40,000. If the Prime Minister needs to check, he should come back into the House and explain—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
When the honourable member actually refers to particular amounts of reported donations, she should reflect fully and carefully on the laws the opposition are blocking in the Senate to bring about decent campaign finance reform. That is one of many which are currently lying in the Senate. Those opposite, frankly, are not committed to reform at all. On the question of fundraising, I simply quote, as I believe the Minister for Finance and Deregulation did before, a certain Godwin Grech in his email to, it seems, ‘MT’ or someone like that:
I am also doing some fundraising for MT—he tells me the cupboard is bare.
Order! The Prime Minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
Mr Speaker, can I suggest that those opposite engage in fundamental commitment to finance reform.
I am sure the members opposite will be very interested in the answer to my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on the achievements of the first two years of the Rudd government and the challenges that lie ahead for Australia?
I thank the honourable member for his question, which goes to what working families across Australia have been fundamentally concerned about these last two years and that is the state of the economy and its ability to withstand the worst global crisis that we have seen in 75 years. What the government has been doing in that period of time is acting to build a better future for all Australians notwithstanding this crisis—acting through the agency of economic policy, infrastructure policy, skills policy, education policy, health policy, housing policy, pensions policy, Indigenous policy and right across the spectrum of what the government has been engaged in over these last two years.
Those opposite have disengaged from the economic policy debate because they know that they have not prevailed in it. As the Treasurer said in question time earlier today, it is because they know they made a fundamentally wrong play in opposing the government’s stimulus strategy in February of this year.
What we are wrestling with is the worst global crisis in three quarters of a century. What did we have to do? We had to actually step up to the plate and make a difference. How did we make a difference? First of all we provided, for the first time in this country’s history, a guarantee for the 15 million bank deposits held by working Australians everywhere in order to underpin security and confidence in our financial system. The second thing we had to do was to engage in the support of the economy through cash payments to pensioners, carers and low-income families to keep the wheels of the economy turning. Thirdly, we invested in a medium- to long-term infrastructure strategy in order to provide continued activity now, supporting jobs, apprenticeships and small businesses today while investing in the infrastructure we need for tomorrow.
As a result, I believe that those opposite and I would think those on the government benches should be proud of the fact that we are out there engaged right now in the biggest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. Each and every member—at least on the government benches—is welcoming that investment. Those on the government benches welcome the trebling of the first homeowners boost, they welcome the increase of the special investment allowance for small business from 30 per cent into 50 per cent, they welcome the investments that have occurred in social housing—20,000 units of social housing—and they welcome also a commitment to the repair of up to 50,000 units of social housing which need fundamental repairs.
These are the things in which we have been engaged to make a difference for the economy today. What is our report card, for those opposite, if they are interested in the economic debate? First and foremost, this economy, unlike the other major advanced economies, has so far not gone into recession. Secondly, of the major advanced economies we have registered the second-lowest unemployment. Thirdly, we have done so on the basis of the lowest debt and the lowest deficit of the major advanced economies. Finally, across the 33 members of the OECD, the advanced economies worldwide, ours was the only economy to register positive growth in the year to July this year. This is the report card of what the government has been doing for working families. I would have thought that those opposite would regard this as a reasonable achievement given the challenges we have faced on the back of the global crisis.
The other thing we have been seeking to do is to build the economy for the future—to engage in a productivity revolution; an infrastructure investment program, which is led by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; a skills revolution, which is being presided over by the Minister for Education; and a micro-economic reform agenda through the Minister of Finance and Deregulation and the Minister for Small Business and Competition Policy. It is all about how we create a seamless national market. What is the objective? The objective is to boost long-term productivity growth so that we create the capacity in the economy in the future to deal with the pressures of recovery when they come.
Globally what we have been seeking to do is to make sure Australia’s economic voice is heard. For the first time in the country’s history, what we have actually managed to land is a place for Australia at the top economic table around the world. I would think this is a good achievement for Australia, whichever government happens to occupy the treasury bench in the future. It is a sound an enduring reform for the future.
In the process of dealing with these challenges for the economy, we have also been mindful of the fundamental need to build a fairer Australia as well and that is why I would commend the Minister for Education, the Deputy Prime Minister, for her work in bringing about the death of Work Choices as a piece of legislation in this country and instead creating Fair Work Australia to make sure we can provide proper protection for people’s penalty rates, their overtime and from unfair dismissal. These are the things which actually make for a decent society, for a fair Australia underpinned by fair and reasonable industrial relations laws.
Also we have delivered some $46 billion worth of tax cuts for working Australians. Working families are also benefiting from the increased assistance we are providing to child care, from the introduction of the education tax refund and from our commitment now to introduce paid parental leave for the future. On top of that, we have dealt with the troubles and challenges of times past—delivering, as we should have, apologies to the First Australians and the forgotten Australians—and engaged in the processes of repair and building for the future.
This is part and parcel of building a fairer Australia for the future. In preparing for that future, a cornerstone of what we seek to do is to build the education revolution. Again, I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for her work there: the extraordinary investment which is now being undertaken in early childhood education, with our objective of bringing in universal preschool by 2013; a $2 billion investment on the way in computers in school, with some 790,000 computers planned to be landed in schools. On top of that, there is investment in quality teaching, investment in school transparency and investment in extra university places, with a plan to bring about 50,000 more students at our universities, many—most, in fact—from the most disadvantaged areas of Australia. We are investing on a large scale in our universities and TAFE colleges across the country.
We have been debating health reform here in recent days, but I simply say to those opposite: we have increased the overall investment in the Australian Health Care Agreement by some 50 per cent to bring it up to some $64 billion, to provide for 212 additional GP training places, to provide for the rollout of GP superclinics across the country and to provide, on top of that, $419 million for a teen dental program.
When it comes to fairness for Australians, fairness for all working Australians, we have brought about the single greatest reform to the single age pension which we have seen in 100 years.
This is the business of creating a fairer Australia for the future. The government, as we approach this season which involves many important international conferences, must now deal with the challenge which we were elected to deal with two years ago, and that is climate change. The fact that we have now brought about—
Five per cent!
the introduction of the renewable energy target through legislation, the fact that we now have the support of the party represented by the member for O’Connor—the support of those opposite—for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the fact that we have now ratified Kyoto and the fact that we are now active around the global table mean that this government, when it comes to dealing with the challenges of climate change, has not only runs on the board; it has a plan for the future as well.
So, whether it is dealing with the strength of our economy against the challenges of the global recession, whether it is building a fairer Australia through the building blocks of pension reform, housing, education, health and dealing with the challenges of Indigenous Australia, or planning properly for the future and climate change—not just pushing it away but getting on with the business of long-term reform and, with other countries around the world, putting together the building blocks for a proper global agreement—this is the proper business of a national reformist government of the type that we have now. This government is proud of the record of its achievement so far. There is much work still be done. We intend to get on with the job.
Mr Speaker, 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.
Please proceed.
This morning we had a game of soccer down on the Senate field, between the staff and the MPs. It was played in good spirit. The staff won the game of soccer 3-2. Since then there has been an email circulating around—and it was not Grech who sent it—saying that I happened to be the worst player on the ground. I can categorically say that the member for Dobell, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the member for Moreton were certainly worse than me on the day.
Having got to that point, I am not giving equal time to those mentioned!
I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 15 of 2009-10 entitled AusAID’s management of the expanding Australian aid program - AusAID.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 25 June 2009, the date of the last schedule, and 25 November 2009. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members.
The document read as follows—
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS
RESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON 25 JUNE 2009
Circulated by the Leader of the House The Hon Anthony Albanese MP 25 November 2009
ABORIGINAL TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (House, Standing)
Indigenous Australia at work: Successful Initiative in Indigenous employment
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Open for business: Developing Indigenous enterprises in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY (House, Standing)
Taking control: a national approach to pest animals
The response has been updated to reflect consultation with Australian Government agencies and recommendations from the Quarantine and Biosecurity Review. It is expected to be tabled in early 2010.
Skills: Rural Australia’s need
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
AUSTRALIAN COMMISSION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEGRITY (Joint, Statutory)
Inquiry into law enforcement integrity models
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Examination for the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2007-08
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION (Joint, Statutory)
Review of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Examination of the Australian Crime Commission Annual Report for 2004-05
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian society
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Examination of the Australian Crime Commission Annual Report 2006-07
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the Australian Crime Commission Amendment Act 2007
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Examination of the Australian Crime Commission Annual Report 2007-08
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS (House, Standing)
Digital Television: Who’s Buying It?
The government is finalising policy options in relation to digital television switchover. The government’s proposals will take into account the report’s findings.
Community Television: Options for digital broadcasting
The government has announced its policy for community television to make the transition to digital broadcasting through a temporary allocation of spectrum until switchover. A response to the report is being prepared.
Report: Tuning in to community broadcasting
The government response is being finalised and is expected to be tabled soon.
COMMUNICATIONS (House, Standing)
Phoning home
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 9 September 2009.
CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES (Joint, Statutory)
Report on aspects of the regulation of proprietary companies
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 16 July 2009. Tabled in the Senate on 11 August 2009. Tabled in the House of Representatives on 13 August 2009.
CORPORATIONS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES (Joint Statutory)
Report on the regulations and ASIC policy statements made under the Financial Services Reform Act 2001
A number of recommendations outlined in the report have been addressed, while others overlap with reviews/reports currently in progress. The government will take appropriate action once these reviews are completed.
Review of the Managed Investments Act 1998
Some issues raised overlap with other reviews/reports in progress and could be considered in those contexts. The government will take appropriate action once these reviews are completed.
Inquiry into Regulation 7.1.29 in Corporations Amendment Regulations 2003 (No. 3), Statutory Rules 2003 No. 85
The key issues in the report overlap with reviews/reports currently in progress. The government will take appropriate action once these reviews are completed.
Money matters in the bush: Inquiry into the level of banking and financial services in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia
The Treasurer’s office has advised that the government does not intend to respond to this report. There have been significant changes to banking and financial services regulation since the inquiry.
Report on the ATM fee structure
This report is a subsidiary report to Money Matters in the Bush. The government does not intend to respond to this report.
Corporations Amendment Regulations 7.1.29A, 7.1.35A and 7.1.40(h)
The key issues in the report overlap with reviews/reports currently in progress. The government will take appropriate action once these reviews are completed.
Corporate responsibility: Managing risk and creating value
The government is considering the report and will respond in due course.
Structure and operation of the superannuation industry
The government is considering the report and is preparing a response for tabling in due course. The government announced the details of a review into the governance, efficiency, structure and operation of Australia’s superannuation system on 29 May 2009.
Better shareholders – better company – Shareholder engagement and participation in Australia
The government is continuing to consider the recommendations in this report.
Opportunity not opportunism: improving conduct in Australian franchising
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 5 November 2009.
ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (House, Standing)
Review of the Australian Competition and consumer commission annual report 2003
The government is considering the report and will respond in due course.
Improving the superannuation saving for people under 40
The report recommendations are out of date having been overtaken by subsequent changes and review of the superannuation system. The government therefore does not intend responding to the report.
Australian manufacturing: Today and tomorrow
The government is considering the report and will respond in due course.
Inquiry into home loan lending practices and processes used to deal with people in financial difficulty
Phase 1 of the National Consumer Credit Reforms addresses the report recommendations. The government does not intend to provide a response to the report.
ECONOMICS (House, Standing)
Competition in the banking and non-banking sectors
The government is considering the report and will respond in due course.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING (House, Standing)
Review of the Department of Education, Science and Training annual report 2006-07
The government response has been prepared and will be tabled in due course.
ELECTORAL MATTERS (Joint Standing)
Report on the 2007 federal election electronic voting trails – Interim report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 election and matters related thereto
The government response was tabled on 17 September 2009.
Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto
The government response has been prepared and will be tabled in due course.
Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral (Above-the-Line Voting) Amendment Bill 2008
The committee made no recommendations. No response required.
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION (House, Standing)
Making it work: Inquiry into independent contracting and labour hire arrangements
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE (House, Standing)
Sustainable cities
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Sustainability for survival – Creating a climate for change: Report on the inquiry into a sustainability charter
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES (House, Standing)
Balancing work and family
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The winnable war on drugs: the impact of illicit drug use on families
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
FAMILY, COMMUNITY, HOUSING AND YOUTH (House, Standing)
Who Cares…?: Report on the inquiry into better support for carers
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 29 October 2009.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Joint, Standing)
Review of the Defence annual report 2006-2007
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Australia’s relationship with ASEAN
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
HEALTH AND AGEING (House, Standing)
The Blame Game: Report on the inquiry into health funding
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Weighing it up: Obesity in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION (House, Standing)
Research Training in Australian Universities: An Interim Report
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 17 September 2009.
Building Australia’s research capacity – Final Report
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 17 September 2009.
INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (House, Standing)
Rebuilding Australia’s coastal shipping industry: Inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Funding regional and local community infrastructure: Proposals for the new regional and local community infrastructure program – Interim Report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Funding regional and local community infrastructure: Proposals for the new regional and local community infrastructure program – Final Report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Level crossing safely: An update to the 2004 Train Illumination Report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY (Joint, Statutory)
Review of the re-listing of six terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (House, Standing)
The long road to statehood: Report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 22 October 2009.
Inquiry into older people and the law
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Reforming the Constitution: A roundtable discussion
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Whistleblower protection: a comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth public sector
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Access All Areas: Report of the inquiry into Draft Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
MIGRATION (Joint, Standing)
Negotiating the maze – Review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Temporary visa…permanent benefits: Ensuring the effectiveness, fairness and integrity of the temporary business visa program
The government response was tabled on 10 September 2009.
Immigration detention in Australia – A new beginning – Criteria for release from detention
The government is considering its response following consultation across relevant portfolios.
Immigration detention in Australia – Community-based alternatives to detention
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES (Joint, Standing)
Inquiry into the Immigration Bridge proposal
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND RESOURCES (House, Standing)
More than honey: the future of the Australian honey bee and pollination industries
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 12 August 2009.
PROCEDURE (House, Standing)
Motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a Member: Report on events of 10 October 2006
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Re-opening the debate: Inquiry into the arrangements for the opening day of Parliament
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT (Joint, Statutory)
Report 413 – The efficiency dividend and small agencies: Size does matter
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 414 – Review of the Auditor-General’s reports tabled between August 2007 and August 2008
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PUBLICATIONS (Joint, Standing)
Printing standards for documents presented to Parliament
The government response was tabled on 10 September 2009
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION (House, Standing)
Between a rock and a hard place: The science of geosequestration
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES (House, Standing)
The great freight task: Is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
TREATIES (Joint Standing)
Report 91 – Treaty tabled on 12 March 2008
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 94 – Treaties tabled on 14 May 2008
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 95 – Treaties tabled on 4 June, 17 June, 25 June and 26 August 2008
Response to chapter 2: Convention on the rights of Persons with Disabilities is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 99 – Treaties tabled on 3 December 2008 and 3 February 2009
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 100 – Treaties tabled on 25 June 2008 (2)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 102 – Treaties tabled on 12 and 16 March 2009
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
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 Act 1997—Report on the operation of the Act for 2008-09.Australian Public Service Commission—State of the service—Report for 2008-09.Crimes Act 1914—Authorisations for the acquisition and use of assumed identities—Reports—2007-08—Australian Crime Commission—Correction.2008-09—Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for the period January to June 2009.Department of Finance and Deregulation—Reports—Former parliamentarians’ travel paid by the department for the period January to June 2009.Parliamentarians’ overseas study travel reports for the period January to June 2009.Parliamentarians’ travel paid by the department for the period January to June 2009.Department of the Treasury—Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits and Wholesale Funding—Report for the period October 2008 to November 2009.Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004—Report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 2008
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
I present a copy of the statement by the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon. John Faulkner, on Afghanistan made in the Senate on 26 November 2009.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Government business Order of the Day No. 1 being brought on straight away.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have contributed to this debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 for the second time within a matter of months within this House. Particularly I would like to acknowledge the contributions from this side of the House, which recognised that this is an incredibly important bill because it goes to protecting our universities and ensuring that they remain world-class institutions which are capable of delivering services and enabling representation of our students but which also are capable of attracting overseas students, something that we know is incredibly important.
We have had a number of speakers talk about the importance of this bill, but we have also seen that, whilst there is a rational and common-sense approach on this side of the House, it stands in stark contrast to some of the views and contributions of those opposite, who persist in arguing debates of the past along ideological fault lines which are long past. During this debate we have once again heard a barrage of ridiculous arguments against this bill which have absolutely no foundation in fact.
The conservative cheer squad come out in force at the mere mention of the term ‘student union’, let alone ‘student services’ or ‘looking after young people on campus’. They egg each other on as they cling onto their outdated debates of the past. Sitting up the front here we have the member for Indi who was on her feet the other night spruiking like we were in the middle of a war, mentioning gems like ‘standing up for freedom’ and spouting conspiracy theories galore about student media, propaganda and those alleged militant student unions. My favourite of this debate was actually the member for O’Connor. Once again the member for O’Connor has made a fine contribution to this chamber’s debate when he made some particularly insightful remarks criticising students for engaging in frivolous activities like, ‘Going off to counselling,’—frivolous to be sure. He also does not mind money going to, ‘The Woop Woop rowing club.’ Yes, indeed, member for O’Connor, we understand that.
In contrast this government is determined to deliver upon our election commitment to rebuild essential student services and amenities on university campuses. We made this commitment because, unlike those opposite, we understand the critical importance of ensuring that students have access to these vital services. We made this commitment because, unlike those opposite, we know that the previous government’s extreme and ideologically driven voluntary student unionism legislation is having a devastating impact on both our students and on our higher education sector. This government does not intend to return to the past. We are proposing in this bill a balanced, practical approach to funding campus services and amenities. It is not about returning to a system of compulsory student unionism. In fact we have not changed the clause in the act from the previous government’s legislation which prohibits a provider from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. We have left that entirely unchanged.
I could once more go through the piles and piles of evidence of the devastation that has occurred on our campuses since the previous government’s legislation. We have one university reporting an 83 per cent drop in the use of advocacy services. When it comes to sporting membership fees, we heard how the University of Sydney had increased their fees by 550 per cent. We heard at Townsville university of fees being increased by 800 per cent. This is causing a massive drop in the participation numbers of people playing sport.
Mr Pyne interjecting
I am nearly there, do not worry. We are very passionate about this issue. We know that you are.
Mr Pyne interjecting
That was a good one. It is so lovely when we can relive our finest moments together over and over again in this chamber, which is a little bit of what we are doing in this debate. We are very pleased to once more be having this discussion because we know this is vital legislation. We know that our higher education sector is reliant upon us passing this legislation. I would also like to note that, since the last time we had this discussion in the chamber, the National Party have changed their position and at their national conference advocated that they support the introduction of a fee for students in order to deliver these vital services on campus. Once again we call on the National Party not to just talk the talk when they are out in their communities but, when they have the chance, to stand up and deliver for their constituents and to vote accordingly in this House. I urge all members to support this bill.
Question put.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
On indulgence: I am compelled to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009, because it is a broken promise. We had the former shadow minister for education just five months before the last election say in black and white that he was not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement, that he was not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. But what did we see in February 2008, just a few months after the Labor Party were elected to government? The Labor Party did what we knew they were always going to do: they set up a so-called ‘review’—a pretext to reintroduce compulsory student unionism by the backdoor. They wanted to say to tertiary students: ‘Do you know what? You’re adults. We think you’re smart enough to vote but you’re not good enough, you’re not smart enough, to decide which organisations to join and how to spend your money.’ Students know that, particularly those 130,000 external students who have no choice and very little opportunity to use the so-called services on campus. This is an attempt to breathe life back into unrepresentative, unaccountable student organisations.
We on this side of the House have nothing against any club or any association. If you think you are good enough and worthy enough of membership, make the argument for people to join you. Do not expect automatic membership and some sort of free ride. The government say that this bill is about freedom—the freedom of young adults to decide how to use their money—and that it is about accountability. We on this side of the House will continue to oppose these nefarious measures to bring back compulsory student unionism that uses compulsorily acquired funds to operate and to pay for the activities that they cannot convince the students are worthwhile. This legislation gives students no choice. It is a disgrace; it is a broken promise. We will continue to oppose these measures.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Whilst I think we have all received a little Christmas wish in finishing the year listening to the member for Indi talk about student unions once more, I am not going to hold up the—
Mrs Mirabella interjecting
I was not being at all nasty, but I will now take the opportunity—
The minister will sit down. The member for Indi was granted the ability to make a statement with the indulgence of the chair. I believe that she is now honour bound to allow the minister to be heard in silence.
The final note on this debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009, I would like to point out in response to some of the comments made opposite, is that it is not only that students are directly missing out on accessing services but also that students are indirectly suffering as a consequence of the previous government’s extreme and ideologically driven legislation. We have heard that universities’ budgets are under such strain that they have been forced to redirect funding away from teaching and learning and research budgets into propping up vital student services. In fact, the former Chair of Universities Australia, Richard Larkins, said that the Liberal Party’s approach:
… directly impaired our ability to deliver quality education and research. We had to use money … for research and teaching and use it to support the student experience on campus.
This is not just a small section of students who are suffering as a result of the previous government’s legislation. It is all students and it is our university sector as a whole. I urge all members to support this bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
For the benefit of members, it is the case that when the House adjourns at a later hour, very soon, the Speaker will suspend the sitting of the House until the bells ring. It is the government’s intention for the House to be resumed on Monday morning at 10 or 11 am or thereabouts. I say it is the intention because we are obviously going to deal with the CPRS. I can inform the House that there are 295 amendments to be moved in 35 groups. So far, two of the 295 amendments have been debated by the Senate. Therefore, it is the intention of the government to consult with the Speaker, as is proper practice. We will also consult with the Manager of Opposition Business about the precise time of recall. A recall time of 10 am does allow members in South Australia and Tasmania, I understand, to come here on Monday morning, but it may well be that if the Senate continues then to save the cost of bringing back the House the recall will occur at a later time. I am sorry that we cannot be more precise—
Honourable members—A later day?
Or perhaps a later day. That is in the hands of the Senate. We will, as we have on these matters, continue to consult the opposition. We have been constructive in how we have tried to do this.
And the crossbenches!
And of course the crossbenches. That is as precise as we can be at this moment. Some people will be able to get home this evening and spend tomorrow in their electorates. But people can expect to be back here on Monday morning to deal with the amendments. It is also envisaged, following discussions between the government and the opposition this morning—both the House of Representatives and Senate office holders—that we would have an agreed time of conclusion of that debate in this House so that there can be some certainty about members’ travel times and also, it must be said, certainty for the staff not just of members of parliament but of the parliament itself. I thank the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would make an observation to the Leader of the House on indulgence. I appreciate that you cannot give us a definite time, and I am not being critical of that at all, but many members actually have to leave home on Sunday at midday or thereabouts. So if perchance the House is not sitting on Monday notification on Saturday would be very helpful.
The intention and understanding of the Senate was that the Senate committee stage would be completed by 3.45 pm on Friday. That is a reasonable thing for the Senate to have done to allow proper debate. That will allow members to be notified late on Friday about whether this sitting will resume at 10 am on Monday.
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: today marks the first anniversary of the tragic terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The attacks, which began on 26 November 2008 and lasted until 29 November, involved more than 10 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across Mumbai. Terrorists attacked the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, the Oberoi-Trident Hotel and the Orthodox Jewish owned Nariman House, as well as the main railway terminal, the Leopold Cafe, cinema and two hospitals. Over the course of 62 horrifying hours, 164 innocent people were killed and hundreds more injured.
Today we remember the attacks and we remember those who lost their lives, including two Australians: Douglas Markell, from Woollahra, and Brett Taylor, from Turramurra. Today our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims of this senseless attack. Our thoughts are also with the survivors who suffered through this ordeal. We also pay tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of all those who risked their lives to save others. In difficult conditions, Indian security forces battled bravely and successfully to rescue hundreds of innocent people who were caught up in the attacks. From across the Indian Ocean, Australia was deeply shocked and appalled by the deadly and horrific Mumbai attacks. Australia applauds the efforts of the Indian government to bring to justice the perpetrators of the callous and despicable attack.
Today, as we remember the victims, we need to remind ourselves that the threat of international terrorism remains. We must remain vigilant and work together to defeat terrorism in all of its forms. Australia and India are united in the fight against terrorism. We share a desire to promote regional and global security as well as a common commitment to democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law. Together, we are building a comprehensive and enduring strategic partnership. In recent years we have expanded our cooperation with India in the areas of intelligence, border security, terrorism financing and money laundering. Earlier this month Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Singh announced during Prime Minister Rudd’s visit to India that they had agreed on a joint declaration on security cooperation that will further strengthen our cooperation, including on counterterrorism.
The Mumbai attacks were a grim reminder of the serious threat terrorist groups in Pakistan pose to the international community and to Pakistan itself. Pakistan is making progress in defeating extremism. We commend its recent successes in Malakand division and the ongoing operations in South Waziristan. We welcome yesterday’s indictment by the Pakistani court in Rawalpindi of seven suspects alleged to have been involved in the Mumbai attacks under Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act and Penal Code. Pakistan will need to continue to take determined, sustained and effective action against extremists, including bringing the perpetrators of all terrorist attacks to justice. Australia will continue to do its part to support Pakistan in these efforts. A memorial service will be held in Mumbai on 26 November, organised by the Maharaksha government. The Australian Consul-General in Mumbai will participate in this official commemoration. Today, all of us remember those events of one year ago.
On indulgence: it is a sombre duty to respond to this statement on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Terrorist attacks rock a nation to its core, and India continues to struggle with the aftermath of the attacks which began on this day 12 months ago. Today, our thoughts and sympathies are particularly with the families of the two Australians killed, Brett Taylor and Douglas Markell. The grief of their families will be felt keenly today. Our sympathies also go out to the Indian citizens and the other international guests of India who were killed. More than 170 people died and more than 300 were wounded in the 10 attacks that occurred between 26 and 29 November 2008.
The first attack, in a public transport terminal at 9.30 at night, was a cowardly act of opening fire with AK-47s on a crowd of unarmed commuters. Fifty-two innocent civilians were murdered and 109 were wounded while in the act of travelling home to be with their families. It is hard to think of a more heinous act than opening fire on a crowd of unarmed people, but such is the character of these terrorists, who lay false claim to religious justification for their acts. This attack was followed by attacks on cafes and bomb blasts in taxis. However, the images that gripped the world were the attacks on the two international hotels. These were emblematic targets for the extremists, as they apparently represented the ideology to which they were fundamentally opposed. One can only imagine the fear and the chaos in the Taj Mahal Palace and the Oberoi-Trident hotels as the heavily armed terrorists went from room to room searching for hostages and executing people.
Presumably unknown to the attackers, there was a trade delegation from the European Parliament staying at the Taj Mahal hotel. They barricaded themselves in their rooms or escaped during the early stages of the attack. Thankfully, none were injured or killed as no doubt they would have been prime targets for the terrorists. Another emblematic target for these cowards was Nariman House, which accommodated a Jewish outreach centre and other activities. The guns were turned on the residents, with six killed and no mercy shown to the pregnant wife of the rabbi.
While it is impossible to understand the types of beliefs that have infected the minds of the terrorists, we have some understanding of their goals—from the one terrorist captured alive, who confirmed he was a member of a radical Islamist organisation in Pakistan. The attacks are aimed squarely at the psyche of the citizens of free and open societies. They seek to destroy the confidence of people going about their daily lives. The fact that terrorists strike without warning and murder people indiscriminately is deliberately calculated to strike fear in the hearts of all citizens, to paralyse the target society. What is the ideology that so offends these people that they are driven to seek to destroy it using bombs and weapons? It is an ideology of an open and free society. They abhor our freedom—principally our freedom of thought and our religious freedom.
The impacts on society as a whole can be devastating, but it is the impacts on individuals that are most raw. One report from India today is about a 29-year-old man who is still coming to terms with physical and mental scars from the attacks. He reports a fear of crowds and that people with strange faces now cause him anxiety and he has essentially retreated from society. The buildings can be repaired and the blood washed away, but the emotional damage to individuals can take many years to repair, and some will never truly be healed. We support the efforts of the governments of India and Pakistan in pursuing and taking action against these terrorists. It is a sad reminder of the extremists at work.
Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate insists upon the amendments disagreed to by the House.
Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the valedictory, and forgive me for starting with the retirement of the Clerk of the House, Ian Harris, who served many years in this place. I have reflected on my relationship with the Clerk and I regret to say that I have probably caused him more headaches than anything else. I recall a number of intense discussions about standing orders, none of which I really ever won. He was most helpful when I first became Chief Opposition Whip and we worked together to develop a greater understanding amongst the opposition of standing orders. To Ian and Erika: I sincerely wish you all the best in your retirement. Clerks are held in high esteem and I am sure you will be reassured by the fact that Bernard Wright is taking over your role.
I will make a couple of observations about whips. We depend on the goodwill, cooperation and assistance of our members, and I must say I have always received that in abundance. On my side, I have worked together for a very long time with Jill Hall and I very much value her contribution to the whips team. I suppose in the spirit of Christmas I could say some people might remark that someone who is really soft Right should get on with someone who is so effectively hard Left, and perhaps that is the magic of the combination. But, truly, she does play a very important role and, together with Chris Hayes, is responsible for the whips’ aspects of the Main Committee.
I am under no illusions in respect of my own office, of course—and that is that there is just one undisputed boss, Anna George, much beloved by everyone. Like everyone else, I try to conform and comply as much as I can. I would like to thank Anna, Joy Brogan and Matthew Tredwell and David Field in my staff and Mark and Chris, in Jill’s office, who provide support to members. We have a lot to do with the PLOs from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who have the tiniest of offices in the parliament but nevertheless do sterling work. I would particularly like to thank Henry Thomson, Alison and Tim for all the good work they do and the assistance and cooperation they provide.
Whips are required to work closely with the Leader of the House, Anthony Albanese, who takes his role very, very seriously but who, I must confess, has an enormous portfolio to administer as well. With no reflection on Anthony whatsoever, it is Jo Haylen who makes it all work. Jo is one of those outstanding women in the building who makes a tremendous contribution or, as blokes would say, punches well above her weight. I thank Anthony for all his work and leadership in the past 12 months and I thank his team.
I have to say some nice words about my counterpart the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. I put on the record I am not compelled to, so this is voluntary. Can I personally say to Alex that we are all hoping the next few days and weeks are going to go very well for him. Chief whips make handshake agreements all the time and only have their honour as an insurance policy, so I thank Alex for his great cooperation and the way we are able to work together in the best interests of our sides. I would also like to thank his staff.
In this parliament we changed the way private members’ business was selected. We got rid of the selection committee and, strictly speaking, the authority for selection of private members’ business rests with the Chief Opposition Whip and me. That can sound very draconian and almost as though the House is moving backwards rather than forwards. However, all whips are invited to attend, and they do. So Kay Hull from the Nationals is there and Chris and Jill when they can, and Nola and Michael are invited to attend as well. One of the things I am very pleased about and that I could not have done without Alex’s cooperation is including the Independents, so they too have a seat at the table and a voice. It operates through the good offices of James Rees and is very informal: we do not have minutes or have masses of papers before the meeting, but we do get through our business in a very cooperative way.
Some people have mentioned the fact that it is Daryl Melham’s birthday. I can confirm that it is Daryl Melham’s birthday. He is of course chair of the caucus. Daryl and I work closely together on a range of matters and I am always very, very careful to ensure that Daryl is properly consulted. I must say that there was one instance last week where I did not; I was a bit frazzled. He gently reminded me of my lack of consultation in the nicest possible way. Again, I think these things are very important.
Last but not least, as chief whips we have occasion to visit the Prime Minister’s office. I would very much like to thank his staff for their assistance and cooperation.
I am very conscious that members put in time here. We squeeze in a lot of activity. Most Australians do not know that we have two chambers operating simultaneously most of the time. Members are not only making speeches but working on parliamentary committees, caucus committees and doing a whole variety of other things here. But, unfortunately, all too often the people from the electorate just do not have a real grasp of what has been going on. Members are under tremendous pressure during their time here in parliament, so I want to congratulate them all and acknowledge this pressure on both sides. I do hope all members will be able to spend some time with their families back in their electorate and get fired up for the ensuing year, which of course will be an election year.
We are not unique, as others have said, in spending a lot of time away from our families. My wife, for the record, says that the strength of our marriage rests on two factors. The first is that I am only there half the time and the second is that the one who wants to leave should have to take the children with them, so we have stuck together. But being a member of parliament does put a lot of pressure on families. I do hope that we will be able to spend time with them. I am certainly looking forward to spending time with my family and the added pleasure of having some grandkids come down from Brisbane.
I should acknowledge all the other workers in this place, particularly the humble workers whom we utterly depend on, like the cleaners, the Comcar drivers and the attendants, who do such a wonderful job. I wish everyone a very happy and holy Christmas and everything that they may wish for themselves and their families.
Before I call the Chief Opposition Whip, I would also like to confirm on the record that it is the Chief Government Whip’s birthday today. On behalf of the House, we would all like to wish him a happy birthday.
I do not know whether I should sing Happy Birthday or go on with the valedictory. Congratulations, Roger. It is a great pleasure to support the Chief Government Whip’s comments on my friend and colleague Ian Harris. Ian, you have had a distinguished career in serving the parliament. You and I have a few mutual friends, like Geoff Wilkes from Newcastle. Ian and I discovered, when we first came to Canberra many years ago, that we had played football for the same side. After all these years I serve in the parliament and Ian is in the parliament. I wish you all the best, Ian. I know I chaired the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry that reformed the Public Service Act, which meant that your appointment was for only 10 years, so I guess it is my fault that you are retiring at this time. I wish you and Erika all the very best in the future. I know that the skills that you have are in great demand around the world. I know that you will continue to serve the concept of parliamentary democracy in Australia and other countries.
Parliament sometimes is like a duck pond. It is tranquil, the ducks are all moving in the right direction, but under the water there is furious activity going on. In the parliament a lot of the furious activity happens in the whips’ offices. As Chief Opposition Whip I have a very close liaison with Roger as Chief Government Whip. We work very, very well together. We trust each other. Roger’s word is his bond. He said about me last year that he could bank my word. I have to say that Roger’s word is also bankable, and the same can be said for his other whips, Chris and Jill.
I would like to thank the two opposition whips on our side, being Nola Marino and Michael Johnson, and of course Kay Hull, who is the National Party whip. A whip’s job is very much like herding cats, with two chambers working. Nola Marino is in charge of the second chamber. I notice she has just walked into the chamber. I have not had to intervene once in two years, not once, in the conduct of the second chamber. I congratulate you, Nola, for the way you run the second chamber, and I acknowledge how valuable it is to the parliament.
I want to make mention of Roger’s staff and my staff because they also have their legs working furiously under the water to make sure that this place works very smoothly. I thank Anna, on Roger’s side. I thank my team, led by Nathan Winn, Denise Picker and Robert Hardie. I thank my electorate staff: Lorraine Fox, Sue Quinn, Gillian Taylor, Judy McArdle and Dr Paul Manuell, who has filled in temporarily for six months.
I also acknowledge the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business and the work that they do together with the whips in making sure that this parliament runs smoothly in the interests of the democratic process. I also acknowledge Henry Thomson and his team in the Parliamentary Liaison Office. The parliament could not operate without the close cooperation between the whips and the PLO. The PLO is there to serve the parliament and the executive to make sure that government business is handled in an appropriate way. We have a terrific relationship with the PLO, and Henry is an excellent successor to quite a number of parliamentary liaison officers who have had distinguished careers as officers of this parliament.
I acknowledge, as has my leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and as has Roger Price and the Prime Minister, the people who work in the parliament—the ones behind the scenes whom we never see, particularly the clerks and the attendants in the parliament. I particularly want to acknowledge Rosemary, who brings the cold water up to me at question time. Thank you, Rosemary. Of course, there are also the Comcar drivers and everybody else who keeps this place operating.
I also acknowledge my family. None of us can work here successfully without the cooperation of our family. Roger mentioned that I have a little problem at the moment. I was in hospital for a couple of weeks up until last week. Roger had been ringing me every day. My phone started ringing just as I was coming out of general anaesthetic, and it was Roger Price asking, ‘Are you all right, mate?’ That is the type of relationship we have got—genuinely working together and also caring for each other. I might have a bit of a hard time between now and when the parliament resumes. I hope that the treatment might be successful, and I hope to come back in full health.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to pay tribute to Ian Harris AO, Clerk of the House of Representatives, who retires on 4 December after devoting more than 37 years of service to this parliament. I note his presence in the chamber right now. In the speeches about Ian Harris’s service that have already been made in this place, the words ‘professionalism’, ‘commitment’ and ‘integrity’ have come up again and again. There is a reason for that: he epitomises those attributes. The clearest abiding memory I will have of my beginnings, as a member of parliament who celebrated two years in this place on Tuesday, is the welcome and encouragement I received from the Clerk and his staff, who have exercised infinite patience, kindness and wisdom in educating the new arrivals.
Being here for more than 37 years and sitting through countless question times, a person could be forgiven for developing a certain degree of cynicism, yet Ian Harris emanates at all times a positive respect for the institution of the parliament. That is not to say that he does not wish to see reforms in this place. Ian Harris has been interested in pursuing worthwhile changes to the system to improve it. He was instrumental in the establishment of the Main Committee, which has been so successful in making a lot more parliamentary time available to MPs that it has been emulated by the UK House of Commons. As part of a recent inquiry into parliamentary procedures, Ian Harris raised the idea of allowing MPs to use PowerPoint presentations during their speeches, saying:
If we continue to operate parliament as it did in Dickens’ days, it runs the risk of becoming less relevant to the people it represents in the 21st century.
As the first President of the Association of Secretary-Generals of Parliaments to come from the Southern Hemisphere, Ian Harris helped establish parliaments in East Timor, Cambodia and Laos—and he learned French, which is the other main language of parliaments worldwide, including incidentally that place known as the parliament of man, the United Nations.
As I read in an edition of The House Magazine from 1997, Ian Harris had humble beginnings, growing up in the small town of Kurri Kurri in the Hunter region in New South Wales as part of a coalmining family. His family saw education as a means of liberation, and he went through the state school system earning bursaries and scholarships, followed by university in Newcastle, where he gained a BA (Hons) and a Master of Arts specialising in Australian constitutional history, as well as a Diploma of Education. He had various experiences as a university tutor, schoolteacher, journalist and radio broadcaster and knocked back several lucrative offers of employment from banks and corporations before he settled on a career in the Public Service. Fortunately for all of us in this place, in 1972 Ian Harris joined the House of Representatives, where he has at all times embodied the values of the public service code; hence, the oft-repeated descriptors applied to Ian Harris of professionalism, commitment and integrity.
Ian Harris, we salute you and thank you. We also wish you every happiness as you move on to other things—although we suspect that you may not be able to resist tuning in to question time every now and then.
I also offer my congratulations to Ian Harris’s successor, Bernard Wright, on his appointment as Clerk from 5 December 2009. This is a very popular appointment and clearly one based on outstanding merit.
I will finish with a quote, which I hope I have remembered correctly, as a tribute to Ian Harris and all the parliamentary staff. The quote is from one of my heroes, the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold, who was an incredible public servant. He was killed in rather mysterious circumstances in the Congo in September 1961. Nine days before he was killed he gave an address to United Nations staff where he said something like this:
It is false pride to register and to boast to the world about the importance of one’s work, but it is false humility, and finally just as destructive, not to recognise and recognise with gratitude that one’s work has a sense. Let us avoid the second fallacy as carefully as the first, and let us work in the conviction that our work has a meaning beyond the narrow individual and has meant something for humankind.
Thank you, Ian.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: I would like to join with previous speakers and pay tribute to Ian Harris, the Clerk of the House of Representatives. I have been very fortunate to have known Ian the whole time I have been in parliament. In fact, I have been fortunate to know, so far, four clerks of the House—and the Clerk in waiting will make five—starting with Doug Blake when I first came in, and then Alan Browning, Lyn Barlin and now, of course, Ian Harris. One of the things that have struck me is the extraordinary professionalism of all of these people. I think people in this chamber do begin to understand the extraordinary work and support that the Clerk gives, but I think, in Ian’s case, he has done an absolutely outstanding job and he should be recognised as one of the great clerks of the Australian parliament. I know that could probably slightly embarrass him, but I think it is deserved.
I think we have been extraordinarily fortunate to have had the services of Ian Harris since he first came to this parliament in 1972. He has seen many things, of course, in that time. Clearly, he started in the old building and knows how different it was in those days, including some of the different working conditions. Then he was integrally involved in the move up here to the new Parliament House in 1988. He has seen many other changes. There was the introduction of the Main Committee, in which he was very much involved and which has been such a success—and I think the ultimate compliment was that Westminster had to copy something that was done out here in Australia. Other changes he has seen are the televising of parliament and, one change that members would think back on with a slight smile these days, the Clerk no longer wearing a wig. I am sure it is much more comfortable without it.
Ian has done many other things. One of the points that ought to be noted is that Ian has been the editor of two editions of House of Representatives Practice. This is unique. Remember, there have only ever been five editions, so the last two, two out of the five, have actually been edited by Ian. I think that shows just how active he has been in so many ways. He has also held the position of President of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments, in 2003, which I think is international recognition of his very high standing and of the very high regard in which he is held throughout the world. It is a tremendous credit to Ian that he had that position. He was awarded an AO in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2007, which I think was most deserved.
I would like to just add how fortunate I was, when I was privileged to hold the position of Speaker to have Ian Harris as the Clerk. It is one of those roles which again most people are not fully aware of, but one that is absolutely integral to the role of the Speaker. In fact it would be fair to say—and I am sure the current Speaker would agree—that it would be impossible for the Speaker to operate without a very close working relationship with the Clerk, his deputy and his staff. One has to rely very heavily on the Clerk, in so many ways, with regard to not only procedural matters in the chamber but also many other matters within the House of Representatives. So I just want to put on record how much I appreciated the tremendous support that Ian gave me. It is interesting to note that, since he was appointed Clerk in 1997, Ian has in fact seen five Speakers come and, obviously, four go, and I think all of us would have the same very high regard for Ian.
He has upheld the finest reputation and traditions of the parliament in every way. He has recognised and actively promoted in the community the importance of the democratic process. Again, I think that is something that we take for granted, but democracy can be very fragile and it is only by nurturing it, by working on it, that we can ensure that we continue to benefit from the wonderful opportunities that it presents to this country. There are many words we could use to describe Ian: a total professional, totally committed, a man of complete integrity, always impartial and always discreet. I think members have appreciated all of those things.
I want to say a special congratulations to Ian for his extraordinary service to the parliament since 1972, culminating of course in being the Clerk. I would also like to make special mention of his wife, Erika, who is here today. I know she has always supported Ian in what he does and I have certainly appreciated not only the professional support from Ian but the friendship of both Ian and Erika. I know there has been a very close, careful process for selecting Ian’s replacement; it was not automatic. So I would like to also congratulate Bernard Wright, who went through a very rigorous selection process to be appointed the next Clerk. I know that he will uphold all the traditions that Ian has always supported.
I would also like to mention Laraine Brennan, who has been Ian’s secretary the whole time I have known him. She has always been totally professional, the model of discretion. I know Laraine is retiring as well, so I would like to place on the record my appreciation to her and the appreciation of all members.
I know that the Speaker will probably want to say something further, and I would like to take this opportunity, as he is in the chamber, to commend the Speaker on the way he has conducted the affairs of this chamber since his election and particularly this last year. Again, I know more than many some of the pressures that can be on the Speaker, and I think he has at all times acted very fairly and done everything to uphold the very important democratic processes of this chamber.
In conclusion, I wish all colleagues a safe and happy Christmas and all the best for the new year. I again say to Ian and to Erika, congratulations. Ian, you have done a wonderful job. I am sure that you will continue to be very active and will no doubt always be available to assist members in some of the difficult processes that we go through but to always do it in a manner that is discreet, friendly and impartial. Congratulations.
I also add my congratulations and thanks to you, Ian, on your retirement and on your 37 years. That is an enormous contribution not just to this parliament but also to this nation. I believe that history will show that you have been a very integral part in the management of this House and the governance of Australia, and I can only say thank you. I wish you well in your retirement. Enjoy your time with your family. Your commitment to this nation certainly will be recorded in history, and appropriately so.
Ian, let me just say that as a new member, you were one of the welcoming people when we first came here a couple of years ago in 2007. You led us through the process so carefully, so gently and with a couple of warnings of what was ahead. It was done in such a positive way that I say from my point of view as a new member it was done so well I can only thank you so much for that process. I would like to acknowledge Mr Wright as well. I am sure that you are very pleased to see the processes handed to someone that you can trust, knowing that he will bring the same qualities to his role that you have.
I would also like to thank the Speaker, who is sitting quietly there. Thank you very much for this session, Mr Speaker. I know that we try your patience but it is appropriate that we acknowledge your efforts. You certainly do things in your own particular style. I include Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, as well, as the hours that both of you commit to this job cannot be underestimated. I thank you as well for your efforts. I also thank the Serjeant-at-Arms. I would like to acknowledge the Parliamentary Library people. They do an extraordinary amount of work and always do it efficiently and quickly.
There are people in this House that we never see, and they have been mentioned today. There are the attendants who sit in this chamber who assist us at all times, the people in Hansard and everybody who is out there who make this centre of government work so well, and they do it in such a positive and encouraging way for all of us, whichever side of the House we sit on. We certainly appreciate all of their efforts. I acknowledge them and I thank them very sincerely.
I also want to thank those people like the cleaners, the unseen people, who are here making sure that everything runs smoothly. There are the security people and even the transport people, the Comcar people, who put up with us no matter where we are. Then there is Peter and the prayer group. I think that for several of our members at different times in our period here in this House they have done a great job and we certainly appreciate their wise counsel and support, so I thank them for that.
Seeing that I assist with the Main Committee, as you do, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a frequent basis, I acknowledge the Main Committee staff and attendants. They are also a wonderful integral part of the smooth running of this House. I acknowledge both sides of government, the opposition and the government. As for all our members—my leader, Malcolm, Julie, the shadow ministers and all my coalition colleagues; to Warren and to Kay—I really think we all come here with the very best of intentions. To the committee members who support our work, the very important work of this House, I say thank you. There is so much work done by the committee members and for me, Kate and Julie and those in communications have been exceptional and I am sure that Kay will also support that.
I want to support my own members for their support and cooperation. As the chief whip said, as a new member I took on the job in the Main Committee and I have had extraordinary support, and I thank you, Kay, as well for assisting in that smooth running. In my whips’ team—and I call them a team because they are—there is Alex, and I wish him well in what is ahead for him and I thank him most sincerely for his support. There is the irreplaceable Nathan, and Robert and Sue and Denise. Kay, I cannot thank you and your staff enough. To Roger and Jill on the other side—and Chris, sitting there—I thank you so much. I think that we all work effectively to get the business of this House done in the way that it is intended.
Then there is my personal team. Vicki—and we do not call her the ‘ice queen’ for nothing—gets the job done and is very efficient and I appreciate her support. To Cass, Lara, Jas and Kerry, all my support team, my fabulous family and the people in my electorate, I wish them, as I wish everybody in this place, a very safe, healthy and happy Christmas and New Year. I look forward to serving ahead in this House. To you, Ian: as to whatever lies ahead of you, I can only imagine that you will bring the same qualities to what you do in the future as you have in the 37 years in this parliament. I congratulate you. I thank you not only on behalf of the people who sit here but on behalf of those in Australia who do not quite understand the debt that we owe you. Thank you so much.
I rise today to pay tribute to Ian and his wife Erika—because, Ian, behind every good man there is a very tolerant and very good woman. So we thank Erika for allowing you to give such amazing service to this parliament and we parliamentarians. Obviously we have been a trial to you over the years but always you have given us the most devout courtesy and respect, so I thank you from the bottom of my heart. As a member of a minor party, it is not always easy for us to have our presence known here and it is not always easy for us to have the information that we require to enable us to correctly carry out our duties. Ian, you have always been there for us. As the Nationals, we salute you. You are the most amazing man, a wonderful friend, a wonderful Australian patriot, and we are proud and privileged to have been a part of your life. I have been here only 11 years but in those 11 years you have been here for me. For that I thank you very much, Ian, from the bottom of my heart.
I have had some difficulties at times in this place and I have valued my ability to come and confide in you and ask you for some guidance and a direction as to how I should be professionally carrying out my task in whichever way I choose at the time. You have seen me through some enormous struggles in my time here. I hope you enjoy your future life. For every door that shuts, one more opens. I really wish upon you and Erika the most wonderful companionship years of your life. Again, I thank you.
We welcome Bernard Wright. Bernard, they looked all over the world and they found the best right here. I think that is testament to the quality of Bernard and the fact that you, together with Ian, have been the most formidable team. You have been able to support each other in order that Bernard could be the selected person out of the world’s best people. I am sure that Bernard would also attribute some significant role to Ian. To Bernard, it is going to be wonderful to be able to work with a wonderful person as well.
To Alex, my good friend and the Chief Opposition Whip, I wish him well as to his health. Alex has been absolutely marvellous to work with, and I say that as the Nationals’ chief whip. I wish him all of the best and say to him that we did respect his privacy as he wished when he sent out his notification to ask us to respect his privacy, but each and every one of us rang his staff each day to make sure that he was all right. To Alex, you have some trials ahead but our thoughts and prayers and good wishes will be with you.
To his staff, Nathan, Robert and the team: thank you very much. To Nathan, you have been an absolute giant of a backstop for all of us. Thanks, Nathan, and to Robert as well and to Denise and all of the team. To Michael, thank you for being my counterpart here and to Nola and Vicki, for all the work that you have done in the Main Committee to keep this Main Committee operational. You have done a mighty job and we certainly do appreciate it.
To Roger and Anna and the team in your office, Roger, you are a tough master but you have equipped us all very well to cope with the last two years. We certainly thank you and thank Anna for the wonderful way in which she deals with my office. To Chris and Jill, it is wonderful to be part of a very good team that I am sure have equal respect for one another on the floor of this House during the counts. It is not always an easy task and it has been tremendous to see that we can fulfil this role in a dignified manner and one that I think befits this parliament.
To my staff, Joe Dennis is not a paid whip’s clerk but is so fantastic and has absolutely dedicated himself to ensuring that our Nationals members are meeting their commitments to the House. Joe is an absolutely inspirational young man and I am sure we will hear more of Joe Dennis in the future. I am very blessed to have Joe as my whip’s clerk but he is actually my electorate staff member. He takes a lot from many of the members who just assume that he is paid by the House to do the whip’s clerk position, but he is most certainly not. He is an electorate staff member and he carries out his duties in the most amazing way, and I thank him. To my staff who fill in occasionally over here, to Lucy and Joan, it is wonderful to have the support of each of you to come here and feel confident that you are going to fulfil your duties not just as my electorate staff but also to ensure that we contribute to the House and meet our commitments. As I said, it is not easy to be the minor party, to negotiate your presence in this place, but certainly we have been ably assisted by the wonderful and well-meaning presence of many people.
To the Speaker: thank you, Mr Speaker. You have done a sensational job and we really do appreciate the effort that you go to to include us in the very important Speaker’s dinners that you hold. I for one sincerely appreciate that consideration by you and the team in your office. I really do genuinely thank you, Mr Speaker. You are a very fine Speaker and we certainly appreciate that. To the Deputy Speaker, Anna: we really appreciate the effort that you have put into ensuring that you are aware of the way in which the House should run. And to the Speaker’s panel, I think each of them have equipped themselves very well over the past 12 months and so, again, you have contributed to keeping this House orderly.
To our attendants and the House staff, including security, to the Comcar drivers and operators, to all of the people who provide us the support we need, we really do appreciate it. Whilst you may not get the significant praise and public praise, we most certainly appreciate each and every one of you and the contribution that you make to all of us, not only as attendants and House staff but as friends. I would go as far as to say that I have more friends in the staff and the attendants in this House than I have among anyone else in this place. I genuinely cherish that friendship and that support that I receive.
I wish each and every person—Hansard and all—a very merry Christmas and a wonderful new year. I am awaiting the birth of a grandchild at this very moment. I am keen to get home and, should he be arriving just that little bit late, I suspect that may jeopardise my travel to Canberra next week if he is deciding to make his entry into this world then.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the indulgence of providing my tribute to a great man in Ian Harris, welcoming another great man in Bernard Wright and also paying tribute to the people who have supported me so ably over this past 12 months.
I too would like to pay my respects to Ian Harris, who has made an outstanding commitment not only to this parliament but to the nation over 37 years, which is an extraordinary contribution by anyone’s standards. I am in one of those exclusive clubs: I came here in a by-election. It was only in about May 2005 that I was admitted into the parliament. I came in here and, not having a class to build around me and to be tutored in what you do as a member of parliament, Ian took me under his wing and tried to explain the niceties of parliamentary life to me. I can remember after one session we had, during which we enjoyed a very nice afternoon tea, he said to me, ‘Chris, do you have any questions?’ I said, ‘I just really don’t know enough to ask the questions yet.’ I have got to say that Ian has been outstandingly patient. My relationship with him was of someone needing advice and Ian and his staff were always there to help. The fact that he had 37 years experience in this parliament and held down the position of Clerk of the House of Representatives did not deter him from sitting down—and it might be on the most paltry of issues—and trying to advise me. Ian, on a very personal note, I would like to thank you not only for your contributions to this parliament but also for your advice to me, my staff and anyone else in this building, quite frankly, who has needed assistance. Ian, I know you have always been there for them.
I would also like to congratulate Bernard Wright on his promotion. Bernard also is an outstanding member of this parliament, a person again who epitomises the principles of professionalism and dedication. These are things we come to expect but are things we should never, ever take for granted.
I will also spend a little time speaking as government whip—and I am now joined by my fellow whip, Jill Hall. Most members probably do not appreciate the level of liaison that does take place between the whips on all sides of this parliament. Roger runs a pretty tight ship, despite what we might say at certain times, and we get the job done. Through his leadership and certainly through the absolutely sensational staff that Roger has in his office—namely, Anna, Joe, Matthew and David—the level of coordination out of that office is exemplary. Roger, apart from being the Chief Government Whip, has been a good friend to everyone on this side of the House and no doubt, having listened to the comments of Alex Somlyay, who similarly expressed the view, is held in high personal regard by the opposition as well. In Roger’s case, without making him sound older than he is—because I do appreciate it is his birthday today and I do not would to embarrass him by saying which birthday—
It is his 70th.
Let’s go with 17th; thank you. I understand Roger has had about 23 years in this parliament. Roger brings to this organisation, being the parliamentary process, experience over a lengthy period. The constructive contribution that he makes is based mainly on experience and a degree of soundness that comes with maturity in the job. I am sure he will not like me saying that, but it is true.
Jill Hall, the member for Shortland, and her staff members, Mark and Chris, have played an extraordinary role in the running of the Main Committee. Most people outside this place do not appreciate the role of the Main Committee—the fact that we can run debates simultaneously in the main chamber and in the Main Committee. We improve the efficiency of the parliament as a consequence. But there will not be any greater efficiency extracted unless the Main Committee works effectively. With Jill and her staff, we have been able to ensure that it is an effective organ of this parliament. I acknowledge Jill and her staff for the way that it has been run in the last couple of years in particular.
A number of changes were instituted to the Main Committee, mainly at the instigation of the Chief Government Whip. There are greater opportunities for members to speak, particularly in relation to constituency statements. Whilst most of us like to participate particularly in matters of policy and the debating of legislation, sometimes members must realise that they have a genuine need to look after their constituencies, and using the opportunity to speak in the Main Committee on constituency statements is a good thing for every member of this parliament to do.
I would like to pay regard to my own staff. Melanie Attlee, who accompanies me in Canberra, plays the role of chasing up and making sure that we have all our acting whips in the Main Committee. Melanie is also my senior adviser in my electorate office. I also pay regard to my other staff there, who do an extremely sterling job: Gai Coghlan, my office manager; Leah Whalan, electorate officer; Alicia Bowie, newly employed—she came to me from one of my local newspapers, and she is a very gifted writer, a very talented young woman and someone I have known since she was about seven years old; and Vicki Meadows, who has worked with me for at least the past four years. Vicki brings a unique set of skills to my office. Vicki has a profoundly disabled daughter who is autistic. Her daughter is now 19 years old and never quite speaks.
There is one thing I can be assured of with Vicki: people who come to my office, particularly people with disabilities or those who live with people with disabilities, will never be fobbed off. They will always be treated seriously. We may not be able to personally help them on each and every occasion, but if we cannot help with an issue directly perhaps we can refer it to our state colleagues or other agencies, or simply lend an empathetic ear. Vicki is a person who has lived with disabilities for the whole of Melissa’s life. Having seen the difficulties she has had to endure over that period, I have the utmost respect for her. Everyone who comes to my office and deals with Vicki knows that she has warmth and compassion beyond measure.
In relation to my colleagues on the other side of the House, Alex Somlyay, the Chief Opposition Whip, and his staff do an absolutely wonderful job. We work very closely with them, and this place would not function if there were not that level of trust between people who are doing their best to organise things in the normal cut and thrust of this place. Alex has had some time off recently and I know he is going to be in hospital for a little while to come. Our thoughts and prayers are with him. I am sure he is going to be back here bigger and better when we resume in February.
The Opposition Whip, Michael Johnson, along with the Opposition Deputy Whip, Nola Marino, and the Chief Nationals Whip, Kay Hull, work as a carefully crafted, close-knit team. With respect to the political divide that exists between us, we can nevertheless work quite effectively in promoting the efficiency of debates in this House.
There is one person I should not forget, because I have done so before and I have been reminded before—my wife.
The wonderful Bernadette!
The wonderful Bernadette—just in case I needed additional reminding! Bernadette accompanies me when I come to Canberra, which is very good. I get the opportunity to go home when we adjourn here and have a normal life. Parliamentary life is pretty hard on partners—I think that goes without saying. Ever since my by-election, Bernadette has thrown herself into this life. At a recent function I attended Aaron Rule charitably said that Chris Hayes and Bill Clinton have something in common. I knew it was not height. It was Bill Clinton’s comment that when you vote you get two for the price of one.
I have a very active time in my electorate, and Bernadette and I tend to spread our time over the things we can go to. She gives speeches at Rotary Club meetings and visits aged-care facilities. We share all those sorts of things between us. I am indebted to her for the role she plays. She has certainly developed quite an interest in the electorate and plays a very constructive role.
Here in Canberra, Bernadette is President of the Parliamentary Partners Association, a bipartisan organisation operating across the party divide. It is a support group for all spouses of members of parliament. I think she plays a very constructive role there, together with Allison Parry, the wife of the Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate. Along with Adriana Murphy, they have done a lot over the last couple of years to ensure that partners have the opportunity to participate effectively in life if and when they come to Canberra.
I conclude by wishing all members of this place a happy, safe and holy Christmas. Next year is going to be a big year for a range of different reasons but principally because we will be heading towards an election. It is essential for people to become focused on that. I say that quite honestly. I think elections in our democracy should be fought and fought vigorously, and it is one of the treasures of our democracy that we can do that. Having regard to the fact that that is what we will be addressing next year, it behoves all members to spend time with their families and loved ones over the Christmas period. Next year will be hard.
We in this parliament should always think back and recommit ourselves to the reasons we came here in the first place. It is all very well to be involved in party politics and to go through polling and election days and everything that goes along with that; but, in all sincerity, I have not met a person in this place who in my opinion came here for the wrong reasons. I think parliament is a very special place. Very few people in our community ever get the opportunity to do what we do, to participate in making laws for the future of this country. It is with extreme honour that we occupy our places here. That being the case, our role is to work as diligently as we can to make a difference. If that is not our commitment, we should question whether we should be here at all. Regardless of what side of politics they are on, the people I meet here bring that commitment and that aspiration to this place. I wish all members and their families a very happy and holy Christmas.
I must say that the member for Werriwa’s speech is a hard one to follow. It was an outstanding speech. At the risk of covering ground that he has already covered, I would like to place a few comments on the record. Firstly, I would like to start where he finished. I feel extremely privileged to be a member of this parliament and I feel extremely privileged to represent the people of the Shortland electorate. I believe one of the greatest honours that can be bestowed on a person is to be elected to this House. People can be quite cynical about members of parliament but I say unreservedly that to be elected to the parliament gives a person a unique opportunity to make a difference and a unique opportunity to serve their community. In accord with the member for Werriwa, I believe that all members in this House, whether I agree or disagree with them, are committed to their electorate, the country and this parliament. So the first thing I would especially like to put on the record is my thanks to the people of Shortland. I give them an undertaking that I will continue to work as hard as I possibly can so that their voice is heard in this parliament and their interests are taken care of.
This is an important time to recognise the enormous contribution of Ian Harris. Ian, you are respected by both sides of parliament. Your contribution to this place has been enormous. You have left your mark on this parliament. When you leave, this parliament will be a different place to the one it was when you came to it. You will be missed by all members of this House. I wish you and Erika a wonderful time together. I am sure you will enjoy retirement but I also suspect that retirement will not be about doing nothing. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be up my way every so often, considering that you have family living in Wallsend. That is not far from the Shortland electorate—and I see the member for Charlton at the table gesturing, rightly, that it is in his electorate.
It is well looked after!
I know that he is very pleased to have Ian’s family living in his electorate. It is always true to say, ‘Once a Novocastrian, always a Novocastrian.’ We up in the Hunter always stay true to our area and I know that Ian, as a graduate of Newcastle University and as a person that grew up in our area, will always hold it in that very special place in his heart. So, Ian, you will be missed. I know that Bernard will do a good job once you have gone. He will move into the job and then seek to make his mark on it in the same way that you have. He has learnt a lot from you and now it will be his time to see if he can make a difference within this parliament. But please accept my good wishes, and I would like you to pass them on to Erika as well.
There are a number of people I need to thank. I could not do my job here in this parliament, or back in my electorate, without the assistance of these people. I am always reluctant to thank people because when you do so there is always someone you forget. So if I do forget anyone—please, you are incorporated into my thanks. To all the clerks and everyone who works in the committees, I give you my thanks for the assistance that you have given me and my staff. I also thank the attendants, who look after us so well. Lupco always asks me how I am going by saying, ‘Kako si,’ and I come back with my ‘dobro’. I think he has taught every member of this parliament to answer in that fashion. The way they look after us is amazing. They seem to anticipate our needs every time before we actually ask for anything. I thank, too, the Comcar drivers who provide us with transport here in Canberra, and the security staff. We must also not forget the cleaners. When I leave my office it can be less than tidy with a lot of papers in the garbage, but when I come back each day it is clean and tidy and we are ready to start another day.
Without the assistance of the library, and those that work in the library, I think each and every member of this House would find it a lot harder to do their job. The research that is available through this library is second to none. The Bills Digest that we receive when we are researching to speak on legislation is outstanding. And if you need a little extra information, the staff in the library will always be there to help you. I also thank the sergeant’s office. Being a whip, we have to work with the sergeant’s office. When I say ‘have to’, I have to say that we rather enjoy it because they are very easy to work with.
I would like now to move to the subject of the Main Committee. I see that the Deputy Speaker is present here in the chamber as I am making this speech and I really need to put on the record my thanks to her. Anna Burke is responsible for making sure that the Main Committee runs. Her staff and my staff communicate a lot, and I might say that Anna does not just leave it to her staff to communicate with my office. She always comes around and talks to those in my office and does not leave it to someone else to let them know what she wants. She is a real leader in that Main Committee and she has done a great job. She has put her own touch on the way the Main Committee operates. It is different to the main chamber of the parliament I am in now, the House of Representatives. It is a chamber where some different and innovative things are done. When a member is making a speech, another member can ask them a question and they have to answer that question whilst they are speaking. It is called an intervention. It is something that is very different and something that really tests whether or not a member knows the topic that they are speaking on.
In the Main Committee you are a lot closer to the opposition when you are speaking and there is a lot more interchange. There is a spirit of goodwill that exists within that chamber. So, Anna, thank you for the work you do. Thank you to Mark and Chris in my office for the work that they do in organising the speakers to be up there in time. Thank you to Vicky in Nola Marino’s office, because she works really closely with both Chris and Mark. Also thanks to Mel Ackley in Chris’s office. They are quite a team. They really work together to make sure that that committee functions. So I would like to put on record my thanks to all those people.
Roger Price is the Chief Government Whip. What can I say about Roger Price? I think the first thing I would say is that I really enjoy working with him. He has brought a different perspective to the role of Chief Government Whip. He very much has the interests of all members of this parliament at heart—not only government members but also members of the opposition. He has introduced a number of very different programs and approaches that all members of this House can access. He works very closely with the Chief Opposition Whip, Alex Somlyay. Roger is a person I respect and somebody I enjoy working with.
I would like to say a few words about Alex Somlyay. Alex was chair of the health and ageing committee in the last parliament and I was deputy chair of that committee. We developed a really close relationship and I was pleased when he was selected as the Chief Opposition Whip because I knew I would continue to have a relationship with him even into this parliament. He and Roger really have a very strong relationship. Both of them tell me that their word is their bond, and that is very important in that job. Alex is a person who has been committed to this parliament as a member of this parliament for a long time. He is a former minister and now Chief Opposition Whip. Alex has recently had rather a nasty health scare. He has been in hospital. He has to have some ongoing treatment after this parliament rises, and I know that it is going to be quiet a trial. He will need the support of his family. He will have a very different Christmas to the Christmas that he usually has. But I am quite sure that he will be able to overcome his illness and that he will be back here fighting fit next year. I really do look forward to continuing to work with Alex. I have also enjoyed working with Nola Marino and Michael Johnson, particularly Nola because she is responsible for the Main Committee and, as I said, there is a close relationship between our two offices.
I would like to thank my staff back in the electorate office. I have wonderful staff who truly care about the constituents in the Shortland electorate, staff who will go right out of their way to make sure that the needs of the constituents in Shortland are taken care of. They care about each person who comes into the electorate office—the constituent’s problem is their problem. In my electorate office I have Kay, Cathy, Jan, Vicky and Melanie. Some of them work part-time. Each of them is dedicated to serving the people of the Shortland electorate. I would like to thank them very much for all the long hours they put in, for putting up with my unreasonable requests and for not walking out every time I walk into the office and say, ‘I have an idea.’ I know that they know that when I have an idea it usually means that there will be extra work for them. So thank you very much. You are a really good team and I appreciate everything that you do for me and the people of the Shortland electorate.
Finally I would like to thank my family, particularly my husband Lindsay. Lindsay stays home while I am down here in Canberra. We have two dogs. Over the time I have been a member of parliament our children have grown up and left home. Lindsay is the last person remaining in the house besides me. He often tells people that, as people are gradually walking out of the house and leaving, there is only him and the dogs left; and his main worry is that those dogs will get up and leave as well! So, Lindsay, thank you very much for all the support you give me. I could not do it without you.
Mr Speaker, I would also like to give one final thankyou, and this is to a very special person who gives me a really hard time—that is you, Mr Speaker. If there is anyone who is going to take the micky out of me or give me a little bit of cheek then it is always you. You can always bring me right back down to earth. I thank you for that. I appreciate your friendship, as I do the friendship of all my colleagues in this parliament. I wish everybody all the best for Christmas. I know that members of the opposition are going through a hard time at the moment. Once they leave here, I recommend to them that they have a nice relaxing family Christmas, as will we. There is life away from parliament and it is important that all members of this parliament have a good break and come back refreshed next year.
Earlier today in the Main Committee I took the opportunity to wish everyone in my electorate a merry Christmas and to thank the Speaker’s panel staff. But, given the opportunity has arisen because I am not getting on my plane to go home, I would like to take the opportunity with everybody else to thank the Clerk, who is retiring after 37 years of outstanding dedication to this parliament. I want to thank him on a very personal note. Two years ago I decided to tempt fate and seek to become the Deputy Speaker. I had never sat in the chair before and, although I had been in the parliament for nine years, I actually had no appreciation of what the job was.
I remember that when I first became a member of parliament I actually did not expect to win and when it looked like I was going to I said to somebody, ‘What does a member of parliament actually do?’ When I became Deputy Speaker two years ago, I went to the Clerk and said, ‘By the way, what does a Deputy Speaker actually do?’ It was through the good graces of Ian and his staff that I managed to survive the experience. I will admit that my first week was a baptism of fire. We had no Speaker’s panel, we were sitting ridiculous hours, we were arguing over a Friday sitting, we had the apology and then we had the cardboard cut-out. So the sheer fact that I did not resign after the first week I have always put down to Ian’s good graces and magnificent help, because this place is a weird beast. As we are seeing today, it is an incredibly weird beast. The rules are arcane. There are only about two people in the place who I think fully understand them, and that would be Ian and Bernard. Without them, their guidance, their understanding, their patience and their magnificent generosity with time and information, this place would not run.
I personally can say that my experience was much the easier because of them. A couple of days in I was thinking of saying, ‘Look, I’ve changed my mind—I really don’t want to be the Deputy Speaker anymore,’ but I knew that there was always phenomenal backup and support from Ian and his staff. I want to take this opportunity to wish him well. I know he is not retiring; he is just leaving this place. Earlier this year I had the joy of travelling overseas and visiting many parliaments. Tragically, Mr Speaker, most of the people I met did not know who you were, but in every parliament I went to they all knew who the Clerk of the Australian parliament was. Everybody wanted me to wish Ian Harris all the best, because they knew it would be his final year because his 10 years were up.
I want to thank Erika, who was in the gallery. She has had to go because Ian’s grandchild, who has been incredibly patient through all this, has probably decided it is a tad boring. I want to say thankyou to Ian’s family, particularly Erika and his children, for all they have done in their support for him in this role. It is not just members of parliament who sit these weird and wonderful hours; it is the clerks, the attendants and everybody else. Their families are sitting at home wondering when they will come back as well.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Speaker for his guidance and patience through my rather steep learning curve. I also thank the Speaker’s staff and his wife, Michelle, who is also a delightful person and a great support. We often fail to remember those people who put up with so much. I forgot while I was upstairs to say thanks to my staff, particularly Lindy, who really does run the place and help me do my job. I would never forget that, so I am going to tell Lindy how wonderful she is. To Joe, Jason, Rick, Louise, Janet, Liana, Sophie and David back in the electorate: thank you for all you do. To my wonderful Steve, Maddy and John: it does not look like I am getting home tonight, so I put on the record my appreciation and thanks to you. I thank my phenomenal mother, Joan, who makes sure that I can do much of this. Also to my father, Bernie, who has had a really tough year: I give my thanks to you for your support.
I know that Ian’s great day was actually yesterday, when he was inducted into the Hall of Fame at Cessnock, and today will pale into insignificance. But, again, thank you for everything and I hope you have a wonderful time in the next phase of your life.
I, like the member for Chisholm, would like to put on record some recognition of the great work which has been done in this most significant year. To begin with, I would echo the Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible events of 7 February—the bushfires—and some of the fires in the days preceding and the days afterwards. I believe that what we have seen since 7 February has been the most remarkable unity of spirit in the community. We saw national leadership from our Prime Minister and my senior minister, the member for Jagajaga. We also saw great leadership from the state government, led by Premier Brumby. We saw a genuine outreaching of effort and commitment from political representatives from all sides of politics.
This will be a difficult Christmas for those who went through the terrible events of 7 February. You cannot expunge memories. You cannot, nor should you, expunge the conversations which you will no longer hear, the people who will no longer come through the gate of an evening anymore. But I do know that in the bushfire communities they are very resilient people. Recovery is an individual process; it is a family process. The hills, the creeks, the roads and the paddocks where people have grown up are still there, and it is upon those that we will no doubt see this Christmas some remarkable progress, but there is much more progress to be made.
It would be remiss of me not to recognise the contribution of the Deputy Prime Minister and her great work, particularly in abolishing the demon of Work Choices—the interring of what was never a terribly good idea to begin with. Also, consistent with the other speakers, it would be entirely appropriate for me to acknowledge your work, Mr Speaker, and the efforts to which you have gone to ensure that this most important institution in Australian democracy, the parliament, functions well. Your sense of humour, your sternness, your constant attention to detail and your Solomon-like rulings—including warning me today—have left me in awe of your capacity to administer this parliament. It is also highly appropriate to acknowledge the work of the staff of the parliament. I too wish to echo the comments of everyone and wish the Clerk the best in the next steps in his life.
When we look at what has been done well by this remarkable Rudd government, I should probably start with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, not least because on the chart I have he is the person most to the left. He has been doing a great job in agriculture, equally matched by the Minister for Resources and Energy. He has been doing great work, including helping set up the arrangements for the Gorgon development.
Then we move to the Minister for Trade, whose indefatigable efforts to breathe new life into the Doha Round reflect well both on him and on the attitude of this great trading nation. Then we move to Minister Roxon, the Minister for Health and Ageing. Her effort of reform is, again, remarkable, with the 70 consultations she has undertaken and the visits she has undertaken to that very important medical institution, the Sunshine Hospital, in my own electorate. She shows an ongoing and consistent interest in the needs of people who are often too vulnerable to look after themselves.
Then we have the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose deft handling of many issues has demonstrated that he is performing his task as foreign minister with great credit to the Labor movement and in the great tradition of Labor foreign ministers, including Gareth Evans, Doc Evatt and a range of others. Then we come to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and Leader of the House. His work on infrastructure matches the comparables outcomes of the other members of the frontbench—at least of the Rudd government, which appears to have more members on its frontbench than are on the frontbench of the opposition, who are not so numerous. It is hard to keep up with what is happening there.
Then we come to our Treasurer. What a magnificent and sterling job our Treasurer has done, especially when tested in the white heat of the global financial crisis. Then we see the Minister for Finance and Deregulation doing a great job, in particular removing the mandatory tendering guidelines within Commonwealth procurement for tenders which go to Australian Disability Enterprises. At Australian Disability Enterprises there are 20,000 people working on a supported wage at 600 different enterprises. They now, for the first time, have the opportunity to really get a red-hot go at the $26 billion worth of Commonwealth procurement contracts allocated every year. Wouldn’t it be great to see more people with a disability being employed through the opportunities in Minister Tanner’s reform of procurement?
Then we have my own senior minister, Minister Macklin, who is almost everywhere. In fact, some days she is everywhere. Between Indigenous affairs and the apology to forgotten Australians, she has been really implementing reform in the best traditions of the Labor government. Then we have the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. He has been doing a great job too. Many of the issues he has had to deal with are complex, such as, most recently, his decisions around dams in Queensland. The Attorney-General has been a real stalwart for the rights of people with disability, helping to drive through the ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of people with disability. He has also been very vigilant and active in terms of the promotion of Emergency Management Australia and the work which he has done to help make sure that we can best protect Australians from bushfires, especially since the tragic events of 7 February. The work he has done to help drive the COAG reform agenda about early warning systems I honestly believe will help save lives in the future. There is no greater contribution that a member of this place can make than to help improve the safety and personal security of their fellow Australians.
The Minister for Housing has been rolling out a very ambitious pattern of work with social housing, including in my own electorate. It is great that we will finally be able to do something about tackling the scourge of homelessness and providing secure housing for tens of thousands of people, which is a fundamental need in order to be able to establish a share of the great Australian dream of a secure financial and social setting. Minister Bowen has been working very hard in a range of portfolios. I know that in Centrelink he has made sure that those agencies are working responsibly for the needs of people with disabilities. The Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy has been working on, amongst other things, improving the national accreditation of skills across our nation, trying to finally beat down some of the vestiges of our colonial structure of 107 years ago.
Then we have the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. He has been doing a fabulous job in two very complex portfolios requiring a lot of attention to detail. Certainly his leadership in this place on the climate change legislation has been, I think, consistent with the aspirations of many of the people who voted for the Rudd government at the 2007 election. Then we come to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. How could I have not mentioned the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs? With a twinkle in his eye, he is out there promoting the interests of veterans in every RSL hall across this nation. Minister Elliot, the Minister for Ageing, is making sure that as Australians grow older they have the opportunity to enjoy the later years of their lives with support from the federal government. It is fundamentally a very important role.
We have the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery. He is very active. I should also mention the work he did in his previous portfolio in trying to identify all the great Australian diggers from Fromelles and at last bring some closure for families who wondered all those years ago what happened to their loved ones at that terrible battle in World War I. Then we have the Minister for Home Affairs. I thought his answer in question time certainly rescued the question when we saw four different attempts from the shadow minister. At least, I think she is still a frontbencher at the moment, but it is hard to keep up with what is happening in the opposition as I talk. The Minister for Home Affairs answered that question eloquently. In short, it was an exemplar—
That was his limit—a one-word answer.
The member for Paterson is criticising the Minister for Home Affairs for giving a short answer, but I sat here in question time and watched members of the opposition beg for answers of perhaps seven or eight words in length. I just think there is no making the opposition happy sometimes with the length of answers. I am here to perhaps break his heart yet again by continuing with this valedictory talk.
Then we have the Minister for Sport and Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth. Isn’t she doing a great job? One of the best things she has done in the last 12 months is promote the issues of Paralympians. In fact, she and I both attended the announcement and launch of the Winter Paralympics team who will be going to represent Australia at Whistler. We have the largest squad we have ever sent going to Whistler.
The good news is that I can now move on to the parliamentary secretaries and acknowledge their contributions. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to start with the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services. The member for Reid has done a great job—even though Reid no longer exists, and we wish him well in his future adventures in preselection. Then we have the member for Corio, a new parliamentary secretary, who has been working very well with the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and working hard on a range of issues.
I would also like to acknowledge all the disabled people in Australia. We hope the announcement this week of a national disability insurance scheme to be studied by the Productivity Commission can bring them some sense of optimism this Christmas.
I will start with a few general, but hopefully truncated, comments about the parliament and the parliamentary departments. I start by congratulating everyone who works in this building for the way they have ensured the smooth functioning of the parliament over the course of this year. It has been a challenging year, characterised by significantly increased workloads and limited resources. Thanks to all the speakers in these valedictories, in two parts, for their contributions today. It has been a busy and successful year for all areas of the House of Representatives department. Until yesterday, 52 reports from House and joint committees supported by the department had been presented; 220 bills had been introduced and 200 were passed; the House sat for 67 days and the Main Committee for 55 days; there have been 145 petitions and 14,079 documents tabled, and there were 573 questions in writing; 15 incoming parliamentary delegations have been received; and there have been 13 outgoing delegations and 16 other parliamentary visits.
Over this year the House department, like the Department of Parliamentary Services, has continued to find budget savings while trying to maintain core services and high standards. In that regard it is very pleasing to see the good work being undertaken with other departments on wider issues and on common services. I am sure that members will appreciate the way the department is looking forward to further ways of modernising the house and increasing community access and engagement.
I could not undertake my duties of the House without the assistance of my esteemed colleagues who occupy the chair. I could not have wished for a more loyal assistant and a more capable person who is willing to learn than the Deputy Speaker, the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke. I think that her friendly demeanour is of great assistance to the way in which we carry out our duties. The Second Deputy Speaker, the member for Maranoa, Bruce Scott, could well and truly be identified as a true parliamentarian, and his assistance is appreciated. There are the members of the Speaker’s panel, who do a lot more than just preside over the sittings. I pay tribute to the guidance that the Clerk and his colleagues provide to the department and the support they provide to me and my office and occupants of the chair.
This year has seen quite a deal of change in the staffing of the department. I note the retirements of long-serving staff: Peter Mason, Judy Middlebrook and Robyn Webber; the pending retirement of Laraine Brennan and Paul Thomas; and, most importantly, the achievement of 40 years of fine service by Peter Buckley.
All members would be aware of the critical role played by the Department of Parliamentary Services. I thank the staff of DPS, led by Alan Thompson as secretary. Staff of the department have provided high-quality day-to-day services throughout the year, much of which goes unnoticed by building occupants and visitors. This is a reflection of the professionalism in the way these services are provided. DPS staff include: Broadcasting; Hansard; Security Operations; Facilities; Art Services; maintenance staff of all skills and trades; parks, gardens and landscaping staff; the Nurses Centre; the recreation centre; information technology and communications services; the Parliamentary Library; as well as project management and corporate services staff. DPS oversees a number of contractors around the building: cleaners, Aussies, the cafeteria, IHG, the hairdresser and the florist.
I am very pleased to note that the department has achieved some major outcomes this year, which include: the construction and opening of the Capital Hill childcare centre; refurbishment of the staff dining room; implementation of wireless connectivity for the computing network; security x-ray machine replacement; upgrade of broadcasting infrastructure to improve televised broadcasts; upgrade of internet security; the xerophytic grass trials to save water; and the publication of Women parliamentarians in Australia, 1921-2009. I look forward to next year. I am pleased to advise that work is being undertaken on the Parliament House website, the Hansard Production System and digitisation of many of our vital records, as well as environmental, safety and security initiatives.
I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business and the whips. To all of you: your leadership and professionalism is essential to the successful functioning of the House.
The robust debate and the passion that we see in the chamber every day quite often provide something of a spectacle, but it does demonstrate the desire by all members to contribute and try to make our nation a better place. I thank all members and staff of the parliament for the cooperation and courtesy you have extended to my office. I express great gratitude to my staff for their forbearance and guidance. In the Speaker’s office: Christopher, Debra, Cora, Yvonne and Penelope. And who could forget the Speaker’s attendant Lupco. To Lupco: ‘Nova godina.’ In my electorate office, I thank Berna, Sally and Jim. Sam had to resign earlier this year because of changes to the Victorian Local Government Act.
I thank the people of Scullin for their faith in me and support. Finally, I sincerely thank my family, especially my wife, Michele, who throughout my parliamentary career has many times had to be a single parent. Earlier this week, on Tuesday night, I took a little bit of truancy and returned to Melbourne for my daughter’s year 12 speech night. When I was feeling a little bit of guilt about taking time off, I realised that I had not attended any of her school activities for the whole of her year 12. It was a special night for her as she was the outgoing SRC president and was receiving an award. I was very proud to be able to witness how she has managed to get over the trials and tribulations of being the child of a member of parliament. To my oldest son, Ben, and his wife, Kerry, and their two lovely daughters, Zara and Asha, thank you for always being there. To Emlyn and his friend Clare, who will spend Christmas in Bogota, in Columbia, we will all be thinking of you.
As we are approaching Christmas, I wish everybody in this place—members, senators, all the staff and their families—a safe and happy Christmas. We all know the importance of family and I am sure that you are all looking forward to a well-deserved break. May you all come back in 2010 for inspiration.
Tonight I would especially like to pay tribute to Ian Harris. As we know, Ian Harris will shortly retire from the position of Clerk of the House of Representatives after a long and distinguished career in the parliamentary service. In the first part of today’s valedictory, when I was waiting to get the MPI for today, I was handed a letter and I recognised the signature. I thought: what is happening? Is somebody playing a joke on me about the MPI? I will now read this letter—and you will understand that, because I recognised the signature, I was a bit bemused by the fact of the signature:
Dear Mr Speaker
I understand that Ian Harris will retire today as Clerk. I imagine that there will be some tributes paid to him by, amongst others, your good self. Given that Mr Harris served as Clerk during most of the time that I was Prime Minister I wonder if you would be good enough, in your remarks, to publicly convey to Mr Harris my warm thanks and respect for the wonderful job that he did as Clerk. I always found him courteous, professional and thoroughly even-handed in the assistance and advice he tendered.
With all good wishes.
Yours sincerely
John Howard
That is a well-deserved comment by the Prime Minister about Ian’s role.
Ian was born in Kurri Kurri, where he attended high school before going to university at Newcastle. He did a bit of teaching, tutoring and broadcasting before he found his calling and joined the parliamentary service in 1972. Ian became Clerk of the House of Representatives on 27 July 1997, having served as Deputy Clerk since 1991. So he has had 18 years at or near the top. I think we can say that he is largely responsible for what we have today—a department that provides very effective and valued support to the House of Representatives and the parliamentary institution as a whole.
One of the features of Ian’s clerkship has been the outward focus of the department and the House. This has been achieved through a strategic engagement with the community in order to promote the parliamentary institution and knowledge of the parliament. This has involved an engagement at the international level with a view to promoting good governance support for parliamentary administrations in emerging democracies.
I am not going to list all of Ian’s contributions as that has been done elsewhere, but I do note that he has done a great deal to promote knowledge networks among parliaments around the world and has considerably enhanced Australia’s reputation and international credentials. Notably, in April 2003 he was elected as president of the international Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments, the ASGP, having previously served as vice-president and executive committee member. He remains an adviser to, and honorary member of, the executive committee. Ian’s work in the international environment has benefited many parliaments in our region and further afield. The benefits to our parliament, through contributing to democracy strengthening and the improved understanding of other parliaments and cultures, will last for many years.
Ian’s contribution has been acknowledged in the past. He was awarded the University of Newcastle Convocation Medal for Professional Excellence in 2000 and the Australian Centenary Medal in 2001. Most significantly, in 2007 he was made an Officer in the Order of Australia for service to the Parliament of Australia, particularly through the administration of the House of Representatives and its committees, to promotion of parliamentary practice and procedure and to assisting the understanding of the functions of the parliament internationally.
Ian has had a strong commitment to the community and to sport, having served as president of ACT Public Service Rugby League from 1993-95 and as secretary of the Tuggeranong Rugby Club in its early years. In an earlier draft of this speech it was noted in brackets that these years were not too successful—that has been deleted, but I thought I should add that for the record! Ian was also chair of Queanbeyan Skillshare from 1996 to 2005.
As noted earlier, Ian is married to Erika. Ian and Erika have four daughters and four grandchildren. I take this opportunity to thank Erika for her support and contribution over the years, and I am pleased to see that she is still in the gallery, having managed to listen to most of this valedictory discussion.
One of the things I have to bring to the attention of the House is that, whilst Ian is a Kurri Kurri boy, yesterday he was inducted into the Cessnock Hall of Fame—and I look forward to this event being featured in the local member’s newsletter!
On behalf of the House I wish both Ian and Erika all the best for their future endeavours—personal, family and professional. I doubt whether we could ever say enough to truly indicate Ian’s value to the institution of the House of Representatives and, through it, the Australian parliament. I wish you all the best.
One of the quirks of being the Speaker is that you often get notes passed up to you by, as I describe them, ‘the unwigged’. But I have said enough about the unwigged and the view I get of Ian from my position, and I will leave it at that. Ian knows that from time to time I ignore his advice. This has led to the great weight of ‘Harris 2’—other paragraphs had to be added because I created new precedents. But on this occasion I am quite happy to read verbatim a note that has just been given to me by the Clerk. It says:
Mr Speaker,
Would you mind accepting from me, and passing on to the House, my thanks for comments by you, by other members and by the former Prime Minister about the service I have been privileged to provide. In recognition of bursaries and scholarships that helped with my education, I always wanted to work in the public sector. To work for the House and the parliament is like winning the lottery of life.
I am also extremely grateful for the support I have received from the Speaker’s office, from parliamentary colleagues, especially Laraine Brennan—also retiring, as has been mentioned—and from my wife, Erika.
I have great pleasure in reading those comments into the record.
Sitting suspended from 6.22 pm until the ringing of the bells
Monday, 30 November 2009
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.00 am
The Leader of the House is overseas on government business, so for today and probably tomorrow I will act on his behalf. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be Acting Deputy Leader of the House.
As members know, the House continues to sit today awaiting the receipt of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related legislation from the Senate. As is often the case at this time of the year, we are—some would say regrettably—in the hands of the Senate, but we will patiently wait until we see the legislation emerge from the Senate. I advise members—and I have had a conversation with the Manager of Opposition Business about these matters—that, whilst the blue lists us as sitting until five o’clock this evening, it is possible that we may sit as late as seven o’clock but not later than seven o’clock. I will keep the House informed about this in the course of the day. In the meantime, whilst we patiently await the CPRS outcome from the Senate—which, of course, is very important to the government and the nation—we will deal with government legislation as listed.
It has been agreed between the Manager of Opposition Business and me—and I hope it is agreeable to the Independent members whom, regrettably, I have not had the chance to consult—that we will have an unofficial break for lunch from 12.30 to 2 pm. By this I mean that there is an agreement that neither quorums nor divisions will be called between 12.30 and 2 pm, which will enable members to have an agreeable lunchbreak if that is their desire.
Hopefully not a disagreeable one!
That is entirely a matter for the exercise of members’ discretion. Agreeable lunches may be more convenient on this side of the House today than on the other, but it is entirely a matter for the discretion of members. Thank you for that opportunity, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his cooperation.
I notice that almost the entire Labor caucus is in the chamber this morning to hear from the member for Paterson on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009, but I can assume that it is because that was the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ leadership pitch speech this morning. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister is looking particularly pale and nervous this morning. She thought she would in fact be the next leader of the Labor Party. Good speech, Steve. I am not sure that it will necessarily convince the caucus that you are the man, but good luck to you.
The Acting Leader of the House and I had a conversation this morning and we understand the process. The House of Representatives often finds itself in this position at this time of the year. Because of the mismanagement of the current government, it is particularly vexed at this stage. Of course, we are particularly disappointed that there is no question time today, because we wanted to hold the government to account for its failed policies in areas of border protection and interest rates and inflation and unemployment and debt and deficit and defence, in particular—defence personnel, materiel and science—all the areas that we know the government is very vulnerable on and the government would hate to be held account for in question time today. We are happy, if the government chooses to, to have a question time today. We are quite prepared to come into the House and ask the questions that need to be asked about the government’s failures. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister would admirably take up the cudgels against the opposition, as we would to them.
So we do call on the government to respect the parliament and have a question time. We understand this mechanism for the suspension of sittings means that this is not a new sitting day—we may have done that ourselves in government on occasion. However, we think this new broom sweeps clean all the fine talk from the Labor Party, the now government, when they were in opposition about the importance of the House of Representatives and question time and short answers and so on. We would expect them to do that in government and have a question time today and give us the opportunity to hold them to account. We call on the government to do so.
We in the opposition will patiently go through the processes today. We have some fine speakers ahead and we look forward to an early resolution of this delay by the Senate which is causing us to be here rather than at home in our electorates with our families, working for our good constituents.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his remarks, for his cooperation, for his spirit of generosity and for his sense of humour in the face of adversity!
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I would like to make a brief statement in respect of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011. As members may be aware, last week the Prime Minister and I attended the 60th anniversary meeting of the Commonwealth foreign ministers and, more importantly, of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, in the Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago. I am pleased to advise the House that the CHOGM in Port of Spain resolved that Australia will host the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. This is a welcome decision.
Australia, of course, has previously hosted CHOGM, in Melbourne in 1981 and in Coolum on the Gold Coast in 2002. Australia has also of course hosted the Commonwealth Games, in Melbourne in 2006, in Brisbane in 1982 and, importantly, in Perth—then the Commonwealth and Empire games—in 1962. So I am very pleased to advise the House that the host city for the 2011 CHOGM will be Perth. I am very pleased to indicate that to the House.
The Commonwealth heads of government resolved that Australia would host in 2011, Sri Lanka would host in 2013 and Mauritius would host in 2015. This does draw important attention to the fact that Australia is an Indian Ocean rim country and Perth is an Indian Ocean rim capital, and the focus of the next three Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings will include the Indian Ocean, South Asia and Africa—Mauritius being both an African Union country and in the Indian Ocean.
Perth is very appropriate for the hosting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011. It is now an international city, one of Australia’s fastest growing cities, and it is expanding its great links to Asia but also looking west to India and to Africa. Perth’s having been chosen by the government as the host city for the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting reflects the fact that the government is giving great priority to its engagement not only with Africa but also with India and South Asia. So I am very pleased to announce that today.
I also indicate that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has decided that Australia will join the current Commonwealth ministerial action group. The current CMAG members are Ghana, Namibia and New Zealand, and new members include Australia, Bangladesh, Jamaica, the Maldives, Trinidad and Tobago as the chair and office, and Vanuatu. CMAG is the ministerial institution which manages Commonwealth affairs on a regular and ongoing administrative basis.
So that is very good news for Australia and it is very good news for Perth and Western Australia. Over the last 24 hours I took the opportunity of speaking to the Lord Mayor of Perth, and before I left for CHOGM, when this prospect was raised, I had a good conversation with the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Barnett, who, it would come as no surprise, welcomes the decision as much as I do. Indeed, one of my colleagues said to me earlier this morning, ‘You can take the foreign minister out of Perth, but you can’t take Perth out of the foreign minister.’
On indulgence, Mr Speaker: it is not often that I welcome home the Minister for Foreign Affairs from a trip overseas with such enthusiasm as I do today. As I too come from Western Australia, I congratulate him on his persuasive advocacy to ensure that the next CHOGM meeting, to be held in Australia, will be hosted by the magnificent city of Perth. It is obviously an opportunity for us to showcase the development of Western Australia. Perth is one of the world’s great energy cities, and it will be a magnificent opportunity for Australia to showcase the fact that we are leaders in energy efficiency, energy development and mining and resources. The issue of the next meeting of CHOGM has been shrouded in some controversy. I commend the government on its ability to come up with a situation which will take away that controversy, with Sri Lanka to be the host, presumably, in 2013. I think that is a very good outcome for the Commonwealth.
As to the future of the Commonwealth, that is obviously a matter to be discussed at the meeting in Perth. A recent report questioned its relevance. The challenge for the leaders of the Commonwealth nations will be to show that it has an agenda that is relevant not only to the Commonwealth nations but also to the globe generally. I am sure that in a Liberal state, with a strong Prime Minister of this country, we will be able to forge an agenda that will take the Commonwealth forward.
I recall the last meeting of CHOGM held in Australia, in Coolum, in 2003. The current Prime Minister and I were both in Zimbabwe at that time. The Commonwealth had to deal with the extremely thorny issue of the presidential election in Zimbabwe. The very dramatic step of expelling Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth was taken. The Commonwealth still has challenges. Commonwealth countries such as Fiji and Sri Lanka are struggling to come to terms with democracy, one of the fundamental principles of the Commonwealth and one that we should continue to support and advocate for around the world. I am very pleased to join with my Western Australian colleague the Foreign Minister in congratulating the government on ensuring that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting continues, that Australia will play host and that my city of Perth will be able to showcase itself to the world.
Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. This legislation encourages overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students to practise in rural areas of Australia, as well as in those regions suffering from a shortage of doctors. These regulations came about in the mid-1990s when society began to notice an increasing doctor shortage in rural areas. Policy thinking started to change and the Howard government introduced initiatives to address the inequitable distribution of our medical workforce between country and city, the latter being the most popular for medical professionals.
Our Constitution prevents governments from using legislation to conscript Australian doctors to work in particular regions based on geographic location, demographics or otherwise; thus, these initiatives soon focused on overseas trained practitioners, as is the case with this bill. Normally, overseas trained doctors cannot provide services which attract Medicare benefits until a decade after they become both a medical practitioner and a permanent Australian resident or citizen. However, these doctors can claim exemption from this moratorium if they work in an area of dire workforce need or in rural and remote parts of the country.
One of the main provisions in this bill would remove current restrictions on New Zealand doctors who have attained their qualifications at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. The change would reclassify these doctors so they are no longer considered overseas trained and thus would not be subject to the 10-year moratorium. The bill would also establish a time period in which doctors can appeal against the refusal to grant an exemption or a decision to impose conditions on an exemption which has already been approved. Further, this legislation would allow doctors to start this 10-year period without having both Australian permanent residency and medical registration. Instead, these doctors would be able to start work and be recognised in retrospect as long as these conditions were met any time within the decade of practice. As a result, it is expected that upon commencement of the bill a number of overseas trained doctors will have completed the moratorium. If a doctor should complete his or her decade of service without having become a permanent Australian resident or a citizen then the restrictions will remain current until they do so.
One of the main technical aspects of this bill is to replace the term ‘former overseas medical student’ with ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’ to minimise confusion amongst doctors. It is hoped the new term more aptly conveys its meaning—that is, a person who gained their qualification from an Australian medical school but was not a citizen or a permanent resident of this country at the time they enrolled. Another term will explain the definition of an accredited medical school as one accredited by the Australian Medical Council and located in either Australia or New Zealand.
I am generally supportive of this bill and I hope it will encourage medical professionals to practice in my electorate of Paterson. Locally, residents battle with a chronic shortage of doctors, in particular general practitioners who bulk bill their services. Just last week the headline of our local newspaper, the Newcastle Herald, screamed ‘Doors close as Hunter GP shortage hits critical’. The articles reads:
DOCTORS in the Hunter treat twice as many people as some of their Sydney counterparts and are increasingly shutting their doors to new patients due to overwhelming demand.
… … …
Figures obtained from GP Access, formerly known as the Hunter Urban Division of General Practice, show that about 40 per cent of the region’s 145 urban practices in Lake Macquarie, Maitland and Newcastle, can’t cope with the demand for services and have closed their books.
A further 27 per cent will accept new patients only if they live in the postcode of the surgery or have a relative who is an existing patient.
In some parts of the Hunter there are more than 2000 residents for every full-time GP, while there are fewer than 800 per GP in some areas in Sydney.
The Hunter urban division has an overall ratio of 1595 people for each GP, about 40 per cent higher than the state average at 1120.
GP Access chief executive Mark Foster said the area would need an additional 95 doctors to bring it in line with the industry accepted standard of one GP per 1200 people.
Dr Foster said GPs were free to choose where they wanted to work and traditionally gravitated to large urban centres.
These figures explain the critical shortage of doctors in the Hunter region. One such crisis area in my electorate is Dungog, where there are 2,189 people for every doctor. This ratio of people to doctors is almost double the industry accepted standard. Similarly, in Maitland the ratio is 1,951 to one and in Port Stephens it is 1,547 to one. Clearly, my residents struggle with a lack of doctors, forcing them to wait long periods for medical help or otherwise seek assistance from the emergency departments of nearby hospitals. Unfortunately, these facilities are also stretched to the limit.
In the first quarter of this year, for example, half of all patients at the Calvary Mater Newcastle emergency department who needed to be admitted waited more than eight hours for a bed. The NSW Health benchmarks also reveal one in five had to wait longer than eight hours to be admitted to the John Hunter Hospital, and it was the same at Maitland Hospital. Many constituents from my electorate are serviced by these hospitals and, once you include the distance they must travel to reach them, it is abhorrent that they then have to wait more than eight hours for a bed. It is also important to note that one of the main reasons suggested for this poor performance is a lack of beds because our state and federal governments simply have not provided life-saving doctors and nurses with all of the facilities they need. In terms of elective surgery performance, the numbers should also be a lot better. The average wait time for category 3 surgery at the Calvary Mater was 220 days, 240 days at the John Hunter and 150 days at Maitland. This is simply not good enough.
Two years ago, our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, promised he would take responsibility for fixing our health system and that the buck stopped with him. As these statistics prove, he clearly has not done so. In fact, the only part of his promise he seems to have kept is to stop the buck, which in this case means stopping the provision of vital health funding for those who need it the most. While these hospitals are not positioned within my electorate, they do service thousands of my constituents every year who are forced to travel for treatment to a major hospital. As a result, they desperately need more cash to upgrade facilities and ensure they can cater for further rises in population and demand.
The Maitland Mercury reported the shocking experience of one such patient from my electorate in last Monday’s edition. It reads:
When Wallalong’s Peter O’Brien was diagnosed with prostate cancer in January he knew it would be a long hard road to recovery.
But what he didn’t realise was that road would be literal when he was forced to drive the 72km round trip to Newcastle five days a week for two months to receive radiotherapy.
Mr O’Brien spoke to the Mercury on Friday ahead of the airing of ABC’s Roadblocks to Radiotherapy—stories behind the statistics.
He was one of more than 260 callers who flooded the Cancer Council Helpline in March to share their personal experiences with radiotherapy in NSW, leading to the report highlighting the issues that leave up to 5000 patients without treatment each year.
The 69-year-old completed his treatment in April of this year, but said he couldn’t have made it through without the support of family, friends and neighbours.
‘Being diagnosed with cancer is traumatic enough without having to worry about how you’re going to get to your treatment,’ he said.
‘I was quite surprised when I was diagnosed that there wasn’t somewhere in Maitland that could help me.
‘The commute wasn’t so bad to begin with, but after a few weeks you start get tired.
‘If it wasn’t for my neighbours and friends, who started a roster to alternate who would drive me to my treatment, I don’t know what I would have done.’
Cancer Council Hunter Region manager Christine Roach said something had to be done to unblock the State’s clogged radiotherapy services.
‘Enough is enough,’ she said.
‘Patients shouldn’t have these pressures piled on them when going through one of the most stressful periods of their lives.’
Here is a man who is battling with a traumatic and life-threatening cancer and yet he cannot access the services he needs locally. I wonder whether the Rudd Labor government really cares about, let alone understands, the needs of these people who are clearly being failed by the Rees state Labor government and need support from our nation’s leader.
Another constituent, Bill Seoullis, moved to Mallabula with his wife, Carol, three years ago from Sydney. Bill has a heart condition and needs to see a GP on a regular basis. Soon after moving to Mallabula, Bill contacted a doctor on the Tilligerry peninsula for an appointment and was told, ‘The books are closed.’ So he tried another and another and another, but the answer was the same. Bill, having moved from Sydney, did not even contemplate that a simple visit to a GP would pose a problem—and it should not. Yet sadly it has and, sadly, Bill still has to go to Sydney for treatment.
The New South Wales President of the Rural Doctors Association and Hunter-New England Area Health Advisory Council member, Dr Ian Cameron, has also raised fears. In last week’s Newcastle Herald, he questioned the effectiveness of federal and state government initiatives designed to attract doctors to areas in need. These initiatives have failed to stop the decline in qualified GPs in my electorate, with many more approaching retirement. In fact, in the greater Hunter region more than half of the doctors are more than 50 years of age and, even more concerning, one in five is over 60 years of age. Thus, in little more than a decade we look set to lose more than half the region’s current doctor workforce. This is a shocking and worrying statistic for the thousands of residents across my electorate, who are already facing long delays in appointments. It is of major concern that there is no action to attract young doctors and their families into regional and in-need electorates such as Paterson, where most of the doctors are in the latter part of their professional careers. Further, since overstressed GPs have already started to close their books, where will patients go when their family doctor closes shop to enjoy his or her own retirement?
The issue of age is also concerning when taking into account local residents and their needs as patients. Much of Port Stephens and Forster-Tuncurry is coastal land popular amongst retirees. Thus, a large portion of my constituents are elderly, and this number is only expected to grow. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of Australian residents over 65 will double within three decades. Local councils, including Port Stephens, have identified the need to plan for our ageing population and improve pertinent services including public transport and community support networks, but what are Kevin Rudd and his Labor colleagues doing to prepare? GP Access chief executive Mark Foster has explained that the elderly need triple the care of younger people. In Paterson, where the number of elderly is already higher and growing, this means the number of patients demanding medical services is climbing at an exceptional rate. Since our health system is already struggling, I fail to see how it will cope with such a massive rise in demand.
The stories of our doctors go a long way towards putting this crisis into perspective. My local constituent and fellow of the Australia College of Remote and Rural Medicine, Dr Warwick Yonge, is among those who will establish and run a GP super clinic at Nelson Bay. He has complained during discussions with my office there is not one doctor on the Tomaree Peninsula who advertises bulk billing. He also tells me there is a severe shortage of doctors in the community, which has in turn lowered competition and led to a rise in consultation fees. These consultation fees sometimes can be $75 for a short consult and patients can only claim a small fraction—often less than half—back from Medicare. Doctors complain that these rebates are moving further and further away from reality, making it harder for GPs to cover day-to-day costs.
This is yet another price tag local families simply cannot bear. Since the Rudd Labor government started its attack on our health system, we have seen the rebate cut for pain-relieving joint injections which improve the lives of so many and we have seen the rebate cut for cataract surgery, which is truly a life-changing procedure and will now be out of reach for so many. These cuts hit hardest on the hip pockets of our most vulnerable residents—the sick, the poor and the elderly. And yet the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, has pushed ahead without regard, to save a few pennies.
Where were these budget considerations when the Rudd Labor government was handing out $900 stimulus payments, many of which were lost overseas? Where were these budget considerations when the Rudd Labor government was handing out $1,600 insulation rebates, inflating the cost of roof batts and costing taxpayers millions of dollars in excessive rebates? I can only surmise that Kevin Rudd no longer cares about the sick in our community.
Last Tuesday marked two years since the Prime Minister was elected—two years since he promised to fix our hospitals, and yet nothing has been done. My constituents are sick of Kevin Rudd’s hot air, his spin, his inaction. Last Tuesday in question time, despite his promises two years ago, Kevin Rudd was forced to admit ‘there is a huge problem in the nation’s public health system’. Yes, Prime Minister, we realise that, but where is the action?
Another of my constituents, Dr Malcolm Fairleigh, has been trying to attract a second doctor to help run his practices for the past three years, without success. He stresses that while overseas trained doctors are sometimes available, his offices at Pacific Palms and Nabiac are not sought-after work destinations. According to Dr Fairleigh, this is because there are plenty of other practices in areas of need which are closer to major regional centres and therefore more attractive.
Dr Farleigh now faces the prospect of having to close both his practices if he cannot find a colleague in the next six months. He is tired after not even being able to take a holiday without having to close both offices and deal with anger from residents, who are unable to sit and just wait for a GP. This would be a massive loss to both the Pacific Palms and Nabiac communities, which rely on his services so they do not have to travel for medical help. This is not to mention the relationships and knowledge which will be lost if he is forced to give up after years of commitment to our local community—a community which might never see another doctor’s surgery, under the current lack of Rees state Labor and Rudd federal Labor government action.
These examples highlight the need for many more doctors across my electorate of Paterson. The Rudd Labor government has not done enough to ensure that incentives are in place to attract doctors to centres which need them the most. Hardly a week goes by when I do not meet or speak to a local constituent who is unhappy with the provision of GP services, and this is clearly a reflection on the state and federal governments. They owe it to those doctors who give up their holidays and weekends to facilitate a health system where the needs of both patients and doctors are met.
That is not to say, however, that the staff at hospitals in my region do not do an outstanding job with what little they are given, because they do. I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to the doctors and nurses within the Paterson electorate at Gloucester, Bulahdelah and Dungog public hospitals, at the Tomaree polyclinic and at Forster Private, which leases 20 beds to the public system. I would also like to recognise the staff who support locals who cannot be treated in these facilities; namely, those at the Maitland Hospital, the John Hunter and Calvary Mater.
Local nursing homes also play a massive part in catering for the health needs of my elderly constituents. In my constant travels across Paterson and visits to aged-care homes I have met many amazing people whose kindness and care have allowed patients to live with dignity and largely without pain. The Regis Gardens nursing centre, at Salamander, is one such facility which does amazing health work in our local community. It was opened just five years ago by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julie Bishop, and now boasts 150 beds and professional consulting rooms. Other aged-care facilities include the Gloucester, Great Lakes, Bulahdelah and Forster/Tuncurry nursing homes; Lara Aged Care at Dungog; the Raymond Terrace Gardens Nursing Centre; Stroud Lodge; Myall Lodge; Kularoo Gardens and Barclay Gardens at Forster; Beaumont Terrace and Glaica House at Tuncurry; Shoal Bay’s Harbourside Haven; Fingal Haven Village; Uniting Care at Salamander; Tanilba Bay Hostel and Largs Lodge. I would like to say thank you to all those staff in my electorate who work in collaboration with local GPs and who keep their centres running despite the shortage of doctors. These doctors usually run their own practices, fill in at the local hospital or a polyclinic and service the nursing homes. The strain placed on them is so high I can only pay tribute to them for their commitment and battle here today on their behalf to help find a solution.
All this paints a scary picture for patients in Paterson. Emergency departments are overstretched, waiting times for GPs are growing, doctors are closing their books and demand from the elderly is increasing. While this bill will go some way towards encouraging more medical practitioners to set up practices in our region, what we really need is more action from the Rudd Labor government. We need more incentives to encourage doctors to practise in areas of workforce shortage. Without them families across my electorate will continue to suffer, both from unnecessary delays in treatment and from the physical ailments which forced them to seek help in the first place. If the Rudd Labor government cannot provide adequate medical services for the nation, then it has failed the people who believed in Kevin Rudd’s promises to fix our ailing health system.
I rise to speak in favour of the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. Before I launch into my prepared speech, I would like to address some of the issues that the member for Paterson has raised. I would like to ask him, through you, Mr Speaker, this: what did the Howard government do for the last 11 years? We do not just suddenly have this situation after two years. We have a situation where for 11 years the previous government failed to invest in extra doctor and GP training, extra nurses and extra provisions for the healthcare service. That is why the Rudd Labor government has had to come on board and do a complete review of the whole national health service across this nation. We have come up with 123 recommendations which are now before the government for consideration. So to the member for Paterson I say let us not have any more of this blame game, which you have continued with for 11 years, between the federal government and the state governments. You ripped $1 billion out of the states’ healthcare systems. Let us have no more of this deceit. Let us have the truth on the table. Why didn’t you have the political will to train more GPs in rural areas? Why didn’t you double the number of GPs being trained? You did not have the political will and you did not have the courage to take on the real hard issues and the hard causes of the nation. That is why it has been left to this Rudd Labor government to truly deliver for the nation of Australia, and I know we will deliver for the people of Dawson.
I now want to go to the substance of the bill. Its substance is to streamline the operation of section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 2009 and to remove a number of anomalies. Section 19AB of the act provides that overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students are not able to provide professional services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years, otherwise known as the 10-year moratorium. The bill amends the class of persons subject to the restrictions of section 19AB and amends the start date of the moratorium period. This bill is about providing for New Zealanders who study in Australia to be treated in no different way from Australians studying in Australian universities.
This bill benefits the many Australian citizens who elect to study at New Zealand medical schools. These are medical schools which are accredited by the Australian Medical Council, the AMC, to the same standards as Australian medical schools. However, as these Australians did not gain their primary medical degree in Australia, they are also subject to section 19AB of the act—being trained overseas.
In the medium to long term it is likely that changes in the bill will see an increase in the number of doctors working in non-metropolitan areas. A larger number of properly trained doctors is a win for our system and something which the previous government should have addressed in its 11 years in power but obviously failed to do.
As stated before, the main provision in the bill relates to the removal of current restrictions applicable to doctors who are New Zealand permanent residents and citizens who have obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. The change effectively removes these doctors from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’ and the ‘former overseas medical student’, now to be termed ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’ in section 19AB of the act.
Another important provision in the bill is the removal of the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have both Australian permanent residency or citizenship and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium to commence. Specifically, the bill will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, known as ‘the act’, to make four major changes: (1) removal of persons who are permanent residents or citizens of New Zealand and who obtained their primary medical education at an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’; (2) amendment of the classification ‘former overseas medical student’ to ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’; (3) removal of the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have both permanent residency and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium period to commence; and (4) introduction of a maximum period of 90 days in which medical practitioners can appeal against a decision to refuse to grant an exemption or a decision to impose conditions on an exemption pursuant to subsections 19AB(3) and (4) of the act.
The amendment takes into account the awareness of the Department of Health and Ageing that overseas trained doctors enter Australia via New Zealand, with the majority of these doctors obtaining New Zealand passports as a result of New Zealand’s different entry and citizenship laws. It is not intended that this proposed amendment be extended to medical practitioners whose primary medical education was obtained outside New Zealand or Australia. A significant number of temporary resident doctors, including New Zealand trained doctors, work in a district of workforce shortage for two to five years before gaining permanent residency or Australian citizenship. When the 10-year moratorium is applied to their tenure, these doctors may be obliged to work in a district of workforce shortage for up to 15 years.
This amendment proposes that the 10-year moratorium will commence from the time the medical practitioner is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia and will cease after 10 years, provided the medical practitioner has gained Australian permanent residency or citizenship during that period. It is anticipated that a number of overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school will be taken to have completed the 10-year moratorium at the commencement of the amendment. Documentation will not be required to transfer the status of persons following commencement of the bill—that is, the department will not require the lodgement of any documentation; for example, visas or citizenship documentation in support of the change in status at the commencement date of the bill. Should the medical practitioner not have obtained Australian permanent residency or citizenship by the conclusion of 10 years from first gaining registration, the restrictions will remain in force until the medical practitioner gains permanent residency or citizenship.
I speak with some authority on this, having been the owner and financial director of two medical centres in Mackay, looking after the healthcare records of 40,000 people and managing 10 GPs and 30 staff. I know the difficulty there is in obtaining medical care for urban rural areas such as Mackay, and also areas such as Proserpine, the Whitsundays, Bowen, Ayr and South Townsville. I know these dilemmas of registration. I know that attracting Australian-trained doctors is difficult, even to somewhere as beautiful as the seat of Dawson, with over 74 tropical islands—possibly the best in the world; yet we still have trouble attracting Australian-trained doctors.
As I mentioned earlier to the member for Paterson, the reason for this difficulty is the failure of the last 11 years of the previous Howard government to have the political will to invest in more GP training. And I do take on board that there need to be incentives to move to rural and regional Australia. I know from my own personal experience that if we were to say to all the people who are not trained in Australia as doctors to leave, I can tell you now that Mackay Base Hospital would close down and a lot of the surgeries across Mackay and the seat of Dawson would also close. That is quite a damning indictment of the previous government because, as most people know, it takes at least 10 years to train a medical student and then take them on to GP training as well.
I am glad to say that JCU in Townsville is training up doctors, and I will give credit where credit is due—that was done by the previous government. But the criticism that we had at the time, as a medical centre owner and also politically, was that it was not enough. It was a good start—we recognise that—but it could have been so much more. If the capacity had been built when those original decisions were made the supply would be a lot stronger right now and we would not be having the problems that we are having in trying to meet the healthcare needs of our good citizens in rural and regional Australia.
I can say from my own personal experience that that was a good move, but the best move is what the Rudd Labor government is doing. We are taking on a full and comprehensive analysis of the whole healthcare system across Australia. The final report on the national healthcare system of Australia has been presented to the government with 123 recommendations. Those recommendations have been taken far and wide by the members of this House, by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Health and Ageing. Over 70 consultations directly with peak bodies in the health profession have taken place. I organised one at the Mater Hospital in Mackay. Through the Mackay Division of General Practice I invited GPs and peak leaders of the health profession from hospitals and all of the specialities to come along and give their views. Many have also given their views by emails as well and those emails have all been submitted to the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Prime Minister.
This is exhaustive consultation and it should have happened in the last 11 years. The previous Howard government has left us with a healthcare system that was not efficient, that was riddled with problems and that was underfunded to the tune of $1 billion—it was ripped away from the states by the previous federal government. We are addressing workforce issues; we are investing in more elective health surgery—we have done that; and we are investing profusely across the nation in training up more GPs and nurses. This is the way to go. This is what should have been done previously.
My experience with overseas-trained doctors is that they are really diligent when they come to this country—as my former wife did—and work hard to make a difference in the communities in which they serve. Obviously there is due process and due accreditation, which are the right and correct things to go through.
I can truly say thankyou to all the overseas trained doctors who come and serve due to the lack of our own Australian trained doctors. Again, I put that squarely on the former government of the last 11 years. It was squarely their responsibility to foresee the population increases. They knew that the population was going to grow and yet they failed to meet the capacity demands that were coming. Any government with vision can see these things coming. Any government with an eye on the long term and not the short term can see these issues coming down the track. We, the Rudd Labor government, are a government of vision. As I have said before in this place, and I will say it time and time again, the Bible is true when it says that a nation without a vision is perishing, a leader without a vision is perishing and, where there is no vision, the nation does perish. We need to have vision in health, in education, in housing and in industry. We need to look after the citizens of Australia. We need to give them the best health care, the best education, the best housing and the best opportunities in life as our nation grows.
We also need to have the best education to understand the complexities of climate change—which, as we know, is very topical at this moment in time, particularly with the opposition party completely and utterly divided. The old adage is true that division is death. If you cannot govern yourselves, you cannot govern the nation. You failed to govern the health system proficiently to provide for the future. This bill goes towards that. This bill helps make the capacity designs that we need in our health service by allowing New Zealand and overseas trained doctors to come on board and to be recognised equally alongside Australian trained doctors. I wholeheartedly back what this government is doing in its complete analysis and review of the whole healthcare system in meeting the true healthcare needs of this nation. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009, which aims to streamline the operation of section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and to remove several anomalies. The bill will remove the restrictions imposed by the act on New Zealand citizen and permanent resident doctors in relation to their access to the Medicare benefit arrangements. It will also remove current restrictions on New Zealand doctors educated at accredited medical schools within Australia and New Zealand. Under this legislation they will no longer be subject to the 10-year moratorium on access to Medicare benefit arrangements and will be removed from the classifications of overseas trained doctor and former overseas medical student.
The bill will also change the start time of the moratorium for other overseas trained doctors, who are currently required to have both residency or citizenship and medical registration before the moratorium begins. Under this legislation the moratorium will start from the time doctors receive medical registration with consideration given to doctors’ working visas before obtaining residency or citizenship. Another change is the introduction of the time period in which medical practitioners can appeal against the refusal to grant a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose conditions in connection with an exemption that has been granted. Currently, the act does not have a time limit to apply for the review of a rejected exemption application. This amendment will create a provision in the act that will allow applicants to apply for a review of a decision within 90 days of that refusal. The legislation would also include a 90-day period for a review of a decision to impose one or more conditions on that section 19AB exemption.
This bill could be considered uncontroversial—and it is—with major stakeholders including the AMA, rural doctors and the RACGP supporting the bill and considering it a positive change. Furthermore, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs had no comment to make on this bill and it has not been referred to a senate committee for inquiry or report. Overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students have generally been restricted from providing professional services which attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years commencing on the date that the person becomes a medical practitioner and a permanent Australian. However, overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students may be granted an exemption from these restrictions.
Plans to increase the number of medical student places is extremely important, as we have heard in this House today. Attempts to increase the supply of Australian trained doctors in the future is also very important, but, as we know, given the amount of time it takes to train a doctor the effect will not be felt for many years. It should be noted that increasing the number of graduates will not necessarily result in increasing rural, regional and remote practising doctors; the two are not a mutual arrangement. It does not necessarily happen that those trained doctors will actually go out to rural and regional areas like my own.
As the Bills Digest states, in the mid-1990s doctor shortages in rural and regional and remote areas, such as my electorate of Forrest, became increasingly obvious. An article in the Sunday Times on 15 March this year stated:
… new figures show that WA has fewer doctors, as a percentage of population, than any other state or territory in Australia.
That is certainly the case in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia. According to a West Australian newspaper article from July this year, there were at least 54 vacancies for GPs in country WA and regional areas. When you consider the distances involved in accessing medical attention in the regions, this is a really significant number. And despite an increase in medical students in Australia, rural, regional and remote communities in Western Australia continue to rely on overseas trained doctors, like those from New Zealand. This is largely due to the two requirements that must be met before an overseas trained doctor is considered eligible for employment in WA: the location must have been classified as an ‘unmet area of need’ by the WA government and a ‘district of workforce shortage’ by the federal government.
One of the well-known and experienced doctors in my electorate recently reinforced the importance of overseas trained doctors in our particular area. He is a person with a great interest in the medical profession and sees it right across the state. He said, ‘Overseas trained doctors are the backbone of general practitioner services in country areas.’ For those of us who live there, there is no doubt that this is the case. The general practitioner shortage is so severe in my electorate of Forrest that a medical attraction task force was developed as a result of the work of Dr Ron Jewell, who saw a particular model operating elsewhere in Australia and believed that this was what we needed to attract and retain GPs in Forrest.
The medical task force got together to address the challenge of sustaining the services of medical practitioners in communities right across the south-west. The greater Bunbury area, which is the largest population centre in my electorate, is currently classified as an area of unmet need for GPs. The doctors have also stressed the terrible situation that faces many smaller country towns. Even Bunbury itself, which was voted the Best Tourism Town in WA in 2009, still cannot attract general practitioners. I noted the comments of the previous speaker, and Bunbury is also a part of the world that one would expect could attract and retain professionals of all types, particularly doctors. I understand that the shortage of doctors in the Bunbury region is largely contributed to by the fact that GPs service not only the Bunbury area but also the smaller surrounding towns. So many people from around the area actually make appointments to see the doctors in Bunbury itself, so their workload is quite significant. Also, disturbingly, in September 2006 it was estimated that Bunbury was short of at least 10 medical practitioners and that the average age of general practitioners in the area was mid- to late-fifties.
Let us look at what has actually happened from the task force that I referred to. I will quote from an article from my local newspaper by Lee-Maree Gallo. I am really pleased that the South West Medical Attraction Task Force has reached stage 3 of its objectives. It has been working hard at implementing a plan to get GP and specialist practitioners into the region and to retain them there. According to the article:
Twelve local government councils in the region are involved including Bunbury, Capel, Harvey and Dardanup.
Consultant Alison Comparti was quoted in the article as saying that at the moment in the south-west there was one GP per 1,700 patients when it should be one GP per 1,200 patients. ‘Some areas have enough doctors but then others don’t,’ Ms Comparti said, and Bunbury is one of those areas. She also said:
… the taskforce had several ideas to entice practitioners to the region such as using the Bunbury Regional Hospital as a training hospital for medical students, professional linkages for spouses and partners of practitioners and linkages with educational facilities for spouses and children.
“Medical graduates are more likely to return to the region if they have had experience down here,” Ms Comparti said.
“We also want to set up a network with local schools to ensure the children of doctors can gain a place at their preferred school.”
I note that the task force will release its report next month.
It was interesting that one of the reasons for the shortage given at the forum that I and the member for Bunbury, John Castrilli, who is also the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, were part of was that, even when doctors were attracted to the area, they looked around at the facilities and opportunities not only for themselves but for their families—and that could also include the professional opportunities for their partners—and made judgments on that basis. So these are all part of the assessments that a doctor might make when considering where he will locate and choose to practise.
A doctor in my electorate also stressed, as I said, the terrible situation for many small regional towns. Often these are overlooked. Our major centres often attract more doctors than small regional centres, where you will find perhaps a GP or even two working so hard and such long hours to service the needs of their patients. And they do take it very personally. I know the Western Australian government has tried various methods, including funding grants for general medical practices to extend their opening hours. However, it often comes down to the simple fact that rural, regional and remote areas cannot even attract enough doctors for adequate services during normal working hours, let alone those outside normal working hours.
I am still concerned that some of the proposed youth allowance changes could work against increasing the number of medical students. I was contacted during this time by a sole income earner with eight children. She provided her financial details to show the impact that the youth allowance changes will cause to her. She said that the total cost for her to send one child to university is nearly a whole year’s income. She is ineligible for any assistance under the youth allowance changes and will have to find an alternative way of financing her children’s attendance at university. But they are intending to become doctors.
We really need to encourage and foster young people from our regional areas who want to become professionals to go away and train but come back to our regional areas. Their knowledge and experience of, their empathy for and their commitment to their own regional area could not be questioned. We need to get these bright young people to train to become GPs but come back to our rural and regional communities. The government’s expectation of a student who wants to study medicine that they will take two years off to become eligible for independent youth allowance and then complete at least a six-year medical degree really does compromise this outcome.
Retaining and attracting doctors is really vital and it is of immediate need. An article that appeared in the Sunday Times in Western Australia during March of this year quoted that more than 60 per cent of doctors working in rural and remote WA have been recruited from overseas. The article went on to say that the doctors are being used as a last resort to relieve pressure created by the severe shortage in the region. They include eight New Zealand doctors working on a part-time basis.
The main provision of this legislation is in relation to the removal of current restrictions applicable to New Zealand permanent resident and citizen doctors who obtain their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. Effectively this will mean that these doctors will be excluded from the classification of overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students under, as I said earlier, section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act. It should be noted, however, that, like all Australian trained doctors, New Zealand graduates of Australian medical schools will be required to gain postgraduate specialist medical qualifications or be in approved placements before they are eligible to access Medicare.
In conclusion, I support this legislation in its aim to streamline the operation of section 19AB and remove the anomalies. Given the impact that additional numbers of overseas trained doctors from New Zealand could have on my regional and rural electorate, let alone other similar electorates throughout Australia, I certainly support this legislation.
The government’s Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 is integral to maintaining a viable health system in our country. The health system of our country, and indeed any country, relies heavily on government support and the continual updating of legislation to match the requirements of the time. We live in a time when many laws of previous governments either have grown outdated or have failed to fulfil their intended purpose, resulting in complications for the people or issues they sought to assist or regulate. The act we are proposing to amend is a prime example of laws that hinder people unnecessarily because they never fulfilled their intended purpose.
We live in a country where our health system is largely supported by overseas trained doctors. Without their work and commitment to Australian health, our medical system would collapse. The bill today will make life easier for many of these doctors working here in Australia. By changing the ways our laws dictate the ability of overseas trained doctors to access the full benefits of Medicare, we can open up our health system to more government supported medical professionals and remove many of the complications associated with achieving this support.
The Australian population is growing at a faster rate than the medical workforce. Over the decade 1996-97 to 2006-07 the population grew by 13 per cent but the full-time workload equivalent of GPs only rose by 10.9 per cent, enhancing the shortfall in an area that was already struggling to keep up with demand. The changes in this amendment bill are absolutely necessary if we are to ensure that the capacity of our medical system does not continue to be outgrown by the ever-increasing population of our country. The amendments proposed by this bill have the potential to increase the number of government supported medical professionals working in Australia by increasing their capacity to be eligible for Medicare benefits, a change that will effectively benefit all Australians.
The major problem with the current legislation is the implications it has for New Zealanders. As many New Zealanders elect to study in Australian universities and are treated equally to Australians in terms of their eligibility to study, a large number of them enrol in a medical course before they discover that they are not considered a permanent Australian resident under the act. The problem with this, of course, is that eligibility is measured from the time of commencement of their primary medical degree and once they have commenced the degree any changes to their status, such as citizenship or permanent residency, will have absolutely no impact on their eligibility.
Another major problem with the legislation as it currently stands is the effect that it has on the Australian students who elect to study at New Zealand medical schools. As these medical schools are accredited by the Australian medical council to the same standard as Australian medical schools, many Australian students elect to study in New Zealand without understanding the dire impacts that this will have on their future ability to attract Medicare benefits. Due to the fact that the schools are overseas and not Australian, these students become subject to section 19AB of the act and, effectively, the 10-year moratorium if they choose to register as professional medical practitioners in Australia after they have completed their studies in New Zealand.
The amendments proposed in this bill aim at bringing the legislation in line with the Australian Medical Council’s recognition of New Zealand medical schools and will change the laws so that permanent residents of New Zealand are treated similarly to citizens and permanent residents of Australia under section 19AB of the act. One issue that could arise from this is the exploitation of this change by the large number of overseas trained doctors that use New Zealand as a back door into Australia because of the different entry and citizenship laws there. As this is not the intended purpose of this amendment bill, the term ‘former overseas medical student’ to be renamed ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’ will continue to include any persons who were not an Australian or New Zealand permanent resident or citizen at the time they were enrolled in an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school. This is just one of the many far-reaching, positive impacts that the amendments in this bill will have on both Australian and New Zealand medical students.
It is indeed quite clear that the significant amendments in this bill will have major positive impacts on New Zealanders who wish to work as professional medical practitioners in Australia. It will remove persons who are permanent residents or citizens of New Zealand and who obtain their primary medical education at an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’. Under the act, overseas trained doctors are considered to be any professional medical practitioners who obtain their primary medical degree from a medical school outside Australia. This amendment is proposing that New Zealand citizens or permanent residents who obtain their medical degree from either an Australian or New Zealand medical school are completely exempt from the 10-year moratorium. This effectively allows them to practise as registered medical practitioners with Medicare benefits from the date they register, which will not only increase their accessibility, but also increase the viability of New Zealand doctors working in Australia.
The second amendment will also assist New Zealand citizens to avoid the 10-year moratorium by renaming the term ‘former overseas medical student’ to ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. This simple yet irrefutable crucial amendment clarifies the meaning of the term and completely revolutionises its impact on New Zealand citizens who have obtained their medical degree from an Australian medical school. Under the current legislation, New Zealand citizens can stay permanently in Australia on a special category visa. Because they are not permanent residents or citizens, they are restricted by the 10-year moratorium after they obtain their medical qualifications and register as a professional medical practitioner. It is undeniable that these students, who study at medical schools that are accredited by the Australian Medical Council, should not be hindered by the legislation based on a technicality of citizenship and residency when they are already treated equally to Australians for the purpose of attaining their qualifications to be professional medical practitioners. This clearly highlights the complications of the current laws and makes it openly obvious that these amendments must come to pass.
Another of the significant amendments introduced by this bill will rectify an anomaly in section 19AB of the act to change requirements for the commencement of the 10-year moratorium for medical benefits. Currently, the 10-year moratorium will not commence until the person is both registered as a medical practitioner in Australia and a permanent resident or citizen of Australia. As many overseas trained health professionals enter Australia through the temporary skilled visa categories for periods of up to four years, the current legislation prevents the 10-year moratorium commencing until they become permanent residents or Australian citizens, meaning that it could take in excess of 10 years for these professionals to be eligible for Medicare benefits for these services.
The intent of the original act was for the 10-year moratorium to commence when the medical practitioner was first registered in Australia, but because of technicalities in the legislation this was not the case. The amendments eliminate this significantly detrimental delay by commencing the 10-year moratorium from the date they first register as a medical practitioner in Australia. With the amendments, the moratorium will cease once the 10 years have transpired, provided that they have become a permanent resident or Australian citizen during that period. If the 10 years have transpired but they have not attained permanent residence or Australian citizenship in that time then they will be ineligible until such time as they achieve it. This will effectively reduce the length of time that overseas trained doctors must work without Medicare benefits, increasing their capacity to service people of the public and making it more viable for them to do so.
It is also important for me to note here that the 10-year moratorium will continue to be used, along with reforms that are to be implemented under the Rural Health Workforce Strategy, to recruit and retain GPs in rural and remote Australia. These measures make sure that the system is fairer and recognises service to districts of workforce shortage. And, as part of our $134 million rural package in the 2009 budget, the 10-year moratorium will also be scaled so that the more remote the places doctors go, the shorter the moratorium. This year’s federal budget also delivers more than $200 million to help tackle the shortage of doctors and health workers in regional and remote areas of Australia. For the people of my home electorate of Flynn, this is great news, as all of these actions will culminate in an increased quality of services to regional and rural communities and therefore result in an improvement to rural health. I am proud, as the member for Flynn, to say that we as the people’s government are working to improve the quality of health of the people of rural and regional communities.
The final amendment in the bill that I will talk about today pertains to section 19AC of the act. It proposes that a time limit of 90 days be allowed for an applicant to seek a review of a decision to refuse an application for a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose one or more conditions on a section 19AB exemption. This is a vital amendment that allows applicants nearly triple the time allowed in the current act, enhancing their ability to pursue what they perceive to be a viable reason for the exemption.
The amendments in this bill will ensure that the original act fulfils its intended purpose and does not cause any further unnecessary detriment to overseas trained workers. Our health system is heavily supported by overseas trained doctors and without them, as I have previously said, it would collapse. As a government we have been granted the opportunity through this bill to streamline the processes for overseas trained doctors to provide professional medical services that attract Medicare benefits, which will increase the amount of medical services available to the public and therefore increase the quality of the health of all Australians. I am a firm supporter of the amendments and believe that the changes that they will make are imperative to ensure that our health system has a bright and healthy future. It is for these reasons that I commend the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 to this House.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. I call the member for Herbert.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I was just asking if there were any applications to join the Australian Labor Party on that side of the parliament. It was not for me, I might add!
I do not think that is the bill before the House; the bill is the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. I draw the member’s attention to the bill before the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps I do need some health advice at this stage. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me. I want to speak on this particular bill because it talks particularly about policy in relation to overseas trained doctors. I want to draw the parliament’s attention to the inadequacies of the current policy on overseas trained doctors. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Townsville Hospital, which is a level-6 hospital, in the fair city in the north. And you will know the Mater hospital, which provides a private service for the citizens of the north. Both hospitals are extraordinarily good in the services that they provide. But they cannot provide them without doctors. They cannot provide those services, those high-quality, high-level specialist services, without having the doctors to deliver those services. And while this bill addresses that issue, it does not address the current situation that we face in Townsville. It is a disgrace.
Currently there is a shortage of anaesthetists, and Dr Charmaine Barrett, who is a specialist anaesthetist, alerted me a day or so ago to the current problem at the Mater hospital and at the Townsville Hospital in relation to overseas trained doctors and an inability to recruit them. Dr Barrett tells me that her practice has been advertising on her college’s website for an anaesthetist for the past three years. There have been no Australian replies; in three years there has not been one Australian apply for a specialist anaesthetist job at the Mater hospital. And on top of the Mater hospital advertising, the Townsville Hospital is currently advertising for a specialist.
This situation has become critical with the loss of the current anaesthetist, Dr Christoph Frahm, on 9 October. He went to the Royal Brisbane hospital; he went to fill in a temporary position. With the loss of him from our local community, in fact the North Queensland community because both hospitals provide services across the north, an area larger than the size of Victoria, if we do not get an overseas trained doctor appointed immediately because there are no Australian doctors then surgical lists will be cancelled. How do we run a health system in this country when overseas trained doctors are available but they are not allowed to be employed and so we cancel surgery lists? How can we run a health system like that? I saw this morning in the Townsville Bulletin that the Townsville Hospital’s emergency department was named as the emergency department that has the most number of walkouts in the state. That means people present at the emergency department and give up waiting so they just leave. It is very significant that that should be happening in Townsville.
But back to what this bill is about and what I am on about. Dr Barrett says:
We have a UK anaesthetist who is immediately available to work, as a deemed specialist, at the Mater.
Having filled in innumerable forms—
and we can all understand that—
over months to the AMC, ANZCA, Medical Board, Area of Need Section of Medical Board, I now discover that the [Department of Health and Ageing] have decided that we are not an area of workforce shortage for anaesthetists.
Therefore we cannot employ this UK doctor who is available immediately for appointment and to start work.
Dr Barrett has also discussed this with Dr Isaac Seidl. Dr Seidl is the Deputy Executive Director of Medical Services at the Townsville Hospital. He agrees with this situation. Both the Townsville Hospital and the Mater hospital will continue to cancel lists until this particular situation is resolved. The British anaesthetist is without a job and he has a family to feed. He is ready to come to Townsville and he is ready to provide these much needed specialist services, but the department says we are not an area of workforce need, despite the previous anaesthetist being employed on the basis that we were an area of workforce need. So what has changed? Why is this happening? Why is the department not allowing the appointment of an overseas trained doctor when, clearly, three years of advertising did not produce an Australian for the job? Why is it that we have to cancel surgical lists when a specialist is available to supervise those operations? Why is that? All of us in this parliament must surely be very concerned that this is happening. It is probably happening across the whole of Australia if it is happening in Townsville.
This is not satisfactory. This is not the way we should be running our health system. I appeal to the Minister for Health and Ageing to intervene on this. I appeal to the department: for heaven’s sake, have a modicum of common sense and see that you cannot leave our community in a situation where we are cancelling people’s surgery. You cannot leave us like that when we have doctors available to take over and manage that surgery, particularly when it is a doctor replacing a similar overseas trained doctor who was deemed to be working in an area of workforce need. I support the medical fraternity in Townsville in relation to this issue. I support my community and demand that the department immediately clear the way and give the green light to the Mater hospital to employ the UK specialist. Let us get our lists back on track and have our people looked after.
I welcome the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. It has been a long time coming; it is a long time overdue. It is welcomed universally by the community and the medical profession. I would like to thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for her responsiveness on this matter. The matter has sat inert for some years. It was in the too-hard basket, there was lack of interest or it was overlooked, but the fact is it is before us today and deserves support across the board in this place. This bill corrects the problem that excludes New Zealand citizens and New Zealand permanent residents who are doctors from accessing Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years after first being recognised to practise as a medical doctor after 1 January 1997, which was the operative date. It is known colloquially as the 10-year moratorium. It is to do with provider number restrictions. The current system is that overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students may be granted an exemption from the provider number restrictions et cetera. It is said that the primary consideration—and, from my perspective, it is the primary consideration—in granting this exemption is that an applicant must work in a district of workforce shortage, or area of need, as we call it.
The operative part of the Health Insurance Act is section 19AB. Section 19AB provides that Medicare benefits are not payable to an overseas trained doctor or a former overseas medical student except in certain circumstances—and generally, as I referred to, in a district of workforce shortage. I noted the comments by the member for Herbert in relation to the particular problems he has with workforce shortage in his area. In 2007, when Labor came into government, I had a look at the figures that were used to assess the areas of need. They were still using data from the 1991 census, which is a bit outdated to determine an area of need. There were some other factors implying that that needed to be changed, and that whole system has been reviewed. Also, in general, the mechanism I am referring to has been used to assist rural and remote communities where Australian doctors do not practise so that the public can get access to well-trained doctors—because that is what we need. It follows then that there are more overseas trained doctors in some rural and remote areas. For a whole range of reasons, some doctors do not want to go to rural and remote areas. Sometimes it is because of the changing nature of medical practice. Sometimes it is about wanting to get a balance between family and work. Sometimes it is about wanting to work with other doctors so that you can actually do that.
In her second reading speech the minister said that 41 per cent of all doctors in communities of greatest need are in rural and remote areas. The government has also created more places for medical students. Part of the policy approach is that they will be in rural and remote areas, but this will take some time to kick in because of the time it takes to train our doctors. It seems to take a long time, but I know it is essential that they have that long training.
I welcome the extra student placements in country areas. There are some in my area, where we have the university’s department of rural health, and quite an influx of rural medical students and allied health students as well. It is great, because they work under a collaborative model but they are effectively under the university’s department of rural health. Dr Sue Page, a very active health advocate in our area, has said that what is also encouraging about getting them into these areas is that the longer they are there the longer they stay. They sometimes form relationships and get married, so they are more likely to stay in the area. That is one of the factors.
The main change that this bill will effect is the removal of the current restrictions on New Zealand permanent resident and citizen doctors who obtained their medical qualifications at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act, which classifies them as ‘overseas trained doctors’ and ‘former overseas medical student’, will no longer apply to them. There has also been confusion about the classification of ‘former overseas medical student’. It actually means a foreign person who graduates from an Australian medical school, but hardly anyone got that upon the first, second or even third reading. It does cause confusion. A ‘former overseas medical student’ will now be known as a ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. This is a better classification than ‘former overseas medical student’, but in my view it could have been made a little bit better. But it is certainly better and removes the confusion of the other title.
The current requirement for the operative date of the 10-year moratorium made it mandatory for the doctor to have Australian citizenship or permanent residency. If they were here for, say, two to five years practising and then acquired either status, the 10-year rule would then start to kick in. Therefore it could be up to 15 years in all before they could access a Medicare provider number in general. That seemed an inordinately long time. It seemed to be an unintended consequence of the way that that section of the act worked. This bill, sensibly and fairly, changes this so that the 10 years start when the medical practitioner is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia and becomes a permanent Australian, as it will be known, at least in that 10-year period. The definition of ‘permanent resident’ will be repealed and the ‘permanent Australian’ definition will be amended to replace ‘permanent resident’ with ‘a holder of a permanent visa’, thus making ‘permanent resident’ redundant.
The new definition accords with definitional consistency with the Migration Act 1958. New Zealand citizens are entitled to take up what is called a special category visa that enables them to stay permanently in Australia, but this category of visa is not a permanent visa in the sense that I have just been talking about—so that it falls within the definitions of the Migration Act 1958. So that anomaly will be overcome. The good part of this bill is that from 1 April 2010 or on royal assent, whichever is the later date, the New Zealanders who obtained their primary medical degree from an Australian or New Zealand medical school and were previously subjected to the 10-year moratorium or a section 19AB(3) Health Insurance Act exemption will attract the Medicare benefits—that is, a provider number. The moratorium periods of section 19AB and any section 19AB(3) exemptions will no longer have any effect—so, finito.
Another key development is that, when medical practitioners appeal against a decision to refuse to grant them an exemption or a decision to impose conditions on an exemption made pursuant to sections 19AB(3) and 19AB(4) respectively of the Health Insurance Act, there will be a 90-day maximum period within which the medical practitioner must appeal. It is section 19AB(3) that covers exemptions in general and it is section 19AB(4) that covers the conditions on such exemptions. The upshot is that, if a medical practitioner applies for a review of a deemed refusal, such an application has to be made within the 90-day period. That 90-day period begins, so I am advised, on the day after the end of the 28-day period referred to in section 19AC(2). Medical practitioners who have received a decision refusing an exemption or a decision to impose conditions prior to the commencement of the bill will have 90 days from the commencement to make a review application.
It is a welcome change, particularly for my Northern Rivers area, where it did have a dire consequence for a very able and very well regarded general practitioner. I would also like to say thank you to the people who advocated in my area, such as Dr Sue Page and Dr Chris Mitchell, President of the Royal Australasian College of General Practitioners, who also lives in the Northern Rivers area. In something that is sent out to all the GPs he thanked me for my advocacy. The result of that was that I got some feedback from general practitioners around Australia, including from some who are not New Zealand citizens but who have had some ideas about ways of moving forward, particularly on how we can continue to attract doctors to rural and remote areas and other areas in need. It was most welcome. It is something I am reading through now and am in discussions with doctors about.
The member for Herbert prompted my memory on one other thing I wanted to say. Some years back when I was a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council we did not have this system, but there were a lot of doctors who were overseas trained, were trying to practise in Australia and lived in Australia as either permanent residents or Australian citizens. Understandably, there were restrictions on their right to practise, but some of them were without foundation. Those doctors belonged to an association, and some of them went on a hunger strike outside the parliament building. That was quite distressing to some people. The doctors were on that hunger strike for quite some time. I profess to not quite understanding hunger strikes, but I know that when people are desperate they undertake such missions.
I had quite an engagement with those doctors and with the health minister at the time, Dr Andrew Refshauge, and we had some negotiations. Then Stepan Kerkyasharian was commissioned to do a review. He did a review and came up with 28 good recommendations, a lot of which were taken up nationally at the state level—at the intersection of state and national governments, working together to cover these areas. I remember very well what some of those recommendations were. They were taken on board by the AMA and by other associations. When we are dealing with these issues, there is a point at which any government has to make a decision and provide leadership, but there have to be negotiations and consideration, and it is necessary to work hand in glove with the profession. I am sure that in the future we will see some other changes, but this is one that was ridiculous in its application and made a ridiculous differentiation, and that will be corrected. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill.
It is a pleasure to follow on from Ms Saffin, the member for Page. I, too, speak in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973, with the purpose of streamlining the operation of section 19AB of that act and removing some of the anomalies in its operation. Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act was introduced in 1996 and dictates that Medicare benefits are not payable in respect of professional services provided by or on behalf of an overseas trained doctor, except in certain circumstances. The change was made as part of a package of reforms designed to help address shortages in the medical workforce in rural and remote areas.
Under the legislation there is a 10-year moratorium on overseas trained doctors accessing Medicare benefits, unless they are working in an area where there is a workforce shortage. The main provision in this bill removes the current restrictions applicable to New Zealand permanent residents and citizens who are doctors and who have obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. This change will effectively remove New Zealand permanent residents and citizens from the classification of overseas trained doctor and former overseas medical student under the Health Insurance Act. Under these proposals, the term ‘former overseas medical student’ will be changed to ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’ to more accurately reflect its meaning. A time limit will also be introduced for seeking review of a decision to refuse an application for a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose conditions on an exemption.
Finally, there will be a change to the way in which the 10-year moratorium is counted. Currently, the moratorium starts from the time an overseas trained doctor achieves Australian permanent residency or citizenship. Most overseas trained doctors, however, come to Australia through the temporary skilled visa category; hence, the 10-year moratorium could, in effect, last for up to 14 years. Under this amendment the period will commence from the time that a medical practitioner is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia. It will continue to operate for 10 years and then cease, provided that the medical practitioner has gained Australian permanent residency or citizenship during that period.
The moratorium has been effective in helping meet demand in rural and remote areas for medical services, but of course there is still much more to be done. It will continue to be used in order to bring GPs into rural and remote areas, in addition to the measures announced in this year’s budget as part of the government’s $134 million Rural Health Workforce Strategy. The focus of the strategy is to improve access to health services for people in rural, regional and remote areas of the country. To encourage more medical professionals to practise in remote areas, the government is targeting incentives under the banner ‘The more remote you go, the greater the reward’. The 10-year moratorium will be scaled so that, the more remote the area where a doctor practises, the shorter the moratorium.
Financial incentives are also in place, such as a $120,000 grant for a doctor relocating to a very remote area. Under these reforms almost 500 communities around Australia will, for the first time, become eligible for rural incentive payments. As the Minister for Health and Ageing stated, ‘Australia’s increasing reliance on overseas trained doctors is not unique, with other OECD countries experiencing similar trends.’ I believe that, in the longer term, we actually have to address our own shortages and train more local doctors. It is something that we cannot escape. We as a developed nation cannot continue to go on taking doctors from other overseas countries where they have greater shortages than we do.
There is also an impact of not having enough doctors locally. My electorate is most certainly neither rural nor remote—it is very urban—but we have shortages of doctors in that urban setting. We have general practices that are closed down and not replaced. We have waiting lists to see a GP. It is not a simple thing. In many cases, people may have to wait one, two and sometimes even three days for an appointment with their local GP. We do have bulk-billing clinics. There are a few of those around but, even then, there can be long waits and I represent a very populated part of Melbourne. It being hard to find an available doctor is certainly not an isolated incident.
One of the references I always like to use when I talk about health issues is produced by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Their publication Australia’s health 2008 is particularly good when it comes to facts and figures on anything to do with the health system. In the 2008 report they referred to a report put out by the Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee in 2005 which looked at the supply and requirements of the general practice workforce in Australia through to 2013. That report, even at that time, estimated that there was a shortage of between 800 and 1,300 general practitioners. Obviously, as our population grows, that figure will become even greater.
The changes in this bill to the classification of doctors trained in New Zealand are a reflection of the close relationship that our two countries enjoy. Australia’s relationship with New Zealand is probably better developed and more extensive than our relationship with any other country. This relationship brings enormous benefits to both countries. I think we see those every day. Dr Ashton Calvert, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, stated:
… the partnership with New Zealand is of first-order importance.
The historical, economic, social, cultural and political foundations of Australia-New Zealand relations run deep, and will always inform what we do together.
The common background of our two countries, the long history of cooperation both bilaterally and on the wider international plane, and the values we share are all part of the strong base on which the contemporary relationship is built.
Of course, New Zealand citizens enjoy many benefits in Australia. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides New Zealand citizens living in Australia with many benefits and citizenship rights through its provisions, such as permanent residency rights without the requirement of obtaining a permanent residency visa.
Contrary to this, the Health Insurance Act requires the department to use the Migration Act 1958 to determine residency status. This act considers New Zealand citizens to be temporary residents of Australia. Thus, New Zealand citizen doctors are considered to be overseas trained doctors if they registered as a medical practitioner after 1 January 1997.
Many New Zealanders—or Kiwis, as most of us would call them—choose to study at Australian universities. When they do so, they are treated the same as Australian students. They may not be aware that, under the Health Insurance Act, they will not be considered to be a permanent resident. Eligibility is measured from the time a student commences their primary medical degree, so obtaining permanent residency or citizenship after this offers no relief.
Similarly, many Australians elect to study in New Zealand. I know they have many fine universities over there; I have visited them on many occasions. Although these New Zealand medical schools are accredited to the same standards as Australian medical schools, Australian citizens who obtain their degrees at them will fall within section 19AB of the act as they did not gain their primary medical degree in Australia.
The effect of this bill is to remedy these anomalies. Professional services provided by New Zealand residents or citizens who obtained their primary medical degree from an Australian or New Zealand medical school and who had previously been subject to the 10-year moratorium will now attract Medicare benefits from the commencement date—that is, such people will no longer be subject to the moratorium.
This bill does not intend to extend these benefits to medical practitioners whose primary medical education was obtained outside New Zealand or Australia. Former overseas medical students are to be renamed ‘foreign graduates of an accredited medical school’, as I mentioned earlier. This will continue to include people who were not Australian or New Zealand permanent residents or citizens at the time they enrolled in an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school.
The proposals in this bill clear up a few outstanding anomalies and recognise the standard of primary medical degrees from New Zealand. New Zealand permanent residents and citizens will be treated similarly to Australian citizens and permanent residents for the purpose of section 19AB of the act. This bill also makes some other changes to tighten up the operation of the Health Insurance Act, as I touched upon earlier. I commend this bill to the House.
I acknowledge the comments of the member for Deakin and his firm understanding of some of the issues that face our health system in this country. I rise today to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. This is a bill that will make working in Australia easier for medical practitioners from New Zealand and improve administrative processes surrounding overseas sourced medical practitioners in general.
The bill has three main components. The first component is to resolve problems New Zealand doctors can face working in Australia. Current arrangements do not reflect the close relationship between Australia and New Zealand. Under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, people who are citizens of Australia or New Zealand can travel to the other country to visit, live or work without needing to apply for a visa. However, doctors currently fall under the significant restrictions placed on all overseas doctors.
Within the Health Insurance Act 1973, section 19AB is used in effect to place individual overseas doctors in a district of workplace shortage. By restricting eligibility for Medicare benefits, this system makes overseas doctors spend their first 10 years practising in areas of need. This system has been used since 1997 to manage doctor shortages, particularly in rural and regional areas. While effective, it is not reasonable for doctors from New Zealand to face these restrictions.
Importantly, these conditions are faced not just by doctors moving from New Zealand to Australia but also by people from New Zealand who train to become a doctor in Australia. This is because the term ‘former overseas medical student’ in the existing legislation is ambiguous and problematic to implement.
The bill proposes to replace the term ‘former overseas medical student’ with ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. The bill text reads:
foreign graduate of an accredited medical school means a person:
When he or she is first enrolled in an accredited medical school. In turn the bill describes an accredited medical school as:
… a medical school that is:
The consequence of these relatively small amendments is that doctors from New Zealand, educated in an accredited medical school either in Australia or in New Zealand, can be exempt from section 19AB restrictions.
The Health Insurance Act 1973 currently has no application time limits for review of section 19AB exemption decisions. These review requests are made to the minister or to the minister’s delegate and can apply to a decision or conditions of a decision. The second amendment plans to limit the time frame within which a review of a section 19AB decision can be requested. This will be set in a time frame of 90 days, which provides a reasonable amount of time while achieving process efficiency.
As previously noted, section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 is used to restrict where an overseas doctor can work during their first 10 years in Australia. However, the current condition is that these 10 years start when an overseas doctor becomes a permanent resident. Often, an overseas doctor may not become a permanent resident until some years after they begin practising in Australia, so individuals may, therefore, work under restrictions for far longer than the planned 10 years. The third main change proposed in this bill aims to fix that anomaly.
It is proposed to change the term ‘permanent resident’, within section 19AB, to that of ‘a holder of a permanent visa’ within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958. It is proposed that the time spent as a permanent resident working as a medical practitioner in Australia contribute towards the 10-year restriction. Doctors from overseas will be able to start their 10 years on restrictions from when they are first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia, as long as they gain permanent residency or citizenship during those 10 years. In the long term, we must move away from our reliance on overseas doctors. Not only do we have people with sufficient training who are capable of doing these jobs, but other countries need their own doctors. We cannot, therefore, take doctors from other countries where they are also needed.
In the second reading speech by the Minister for Health and Ageing, the bill was placed within the context of a broader health workplace reform. The Rudd government is working through a $1.6 billion COAG partnership to boost Australian trained graduates from 12,700 this year to 14,700 by 2013. We will help to fund undergraduate clinical training for 13,800 medical students, 38,500 nursing students and 18,000 allied health students in 2010. Part of this boost is an increase in the total number of general practitioner places from 600 under the former government to more than 800 from 2011 onwards. These are critical increases needed to manage an ageing population and ageing healthcare workforce.
Many times in this chamber I have spoken about issues within my electorate of Forde. It is an electorate diverse in nature in South-East Queensland with a mixture of rural and urban populations. Many times we have faced issues about the Beaudesert Hospital, which was built over a number of years and which has maintained a certain level of service. But some years ago the obstetrics unit was removed from the hospital. At the time, as a community that often will see certain services change, the hospital’s being downgraded was seen very much as a threat to the community. Essentially, the problem related directly to trained professionals. Even in South-East Queensland, in a region that is much better serviced than other areas—and certainly areas that you represent, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—the fact is that the number of trained doctors available is rather weak.
I have for many years, and certainly prior to becoming the federal member for Forde, advocated the need to continually improve and increase the number of trained health professionals. I must say that the people of the township of Beaudesert in particular have certainly felt the effects of the shortage of trained staff. In fact, there have been a number of schemes over the years to attract other people and trained professionals to the region. When we talk about districts with workplace shortages, quite often if they are less than 100 kilometres from a major city they are probably worse affected by shortages. The importance of providing more trained people for our system and being able to train more people in our own system is very important. In the relationship and the treaties that we have with New Zealand it is very important that we recognise under our own system, and certainly in this bill, the importance of New Zealand training and the doctors or trainees that come from that system.
It is a very good time for this government and for our nation to consider how we deal with training issues in our medical professions. The government has put forward a view in the Bennett report, which is now in circulation, about the major reforms that we need to consider for the future of our hospital system and the entire health system in this country. It is always a problem when you have cyclical issues concerning services, appropriate assets, appropriate training and being able to attract the appropriate people to a system. The health system, by its nature, needs highly professional people. The reality is that we need not only bricks and mortar to provide good services to the communities of Australia but also appropriately trained people. While we recognise that many people from other countries who have trained in their systems are very appropriate for our system, the reality is that we cannot continue to take people and source people from countries that may have a whole range of issues around the availability and supply of their own medically trained people.
I mentioned the Beaudesert Hospital as an example of a hospital that most people in the region always complain about. They argue that it is only a case of putting one or two extra doctors into a hospital to make something work—in this case, obstetrics. The reality is that any service we provide within our medical system is part of an overall model that includes many other professionals that support and supplement any medical procedures that take place. For instance, to deliver obstetrics services within a hospital you have to have all of those other levels of professionals available.
This bill recognises the training of New Zealand doctors and encourages those doctors to move into the system. It will certainly make it much easier for us as a government to provide those 800 training places and have sufficient people taking up those opportunities. It is important that, through this bill and through the health reforms that the Rudd government intends to make, we work together collectively to ensure that we take care of all of these problems that have resulted from legislation that has almost penalised those people who have come to our country in good faith to train and work.
The Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 puts forward a number of improvements to arrangements for overseas doctors in Australia. Our close relationship with New Zealand is reflected by our no longer applying section 19AB to doctors originally from New Zealand. The fair new arrangements in this bill better reflect the enduring friendship and good will between our countries. Improvements have also been made to the review processes and residency requirements within section 19AB. The improvements provide valuable administrative clarity and fairness for all overseas doctors. I therefore commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. The purpose of the bill is to streamline the operation of section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and remove a number of anomalies. The act provides that overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students are not able to provide professional services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years, and that is called the 10-year moratorium. The bill amends the class of persons subject to the restriction in section 19AB, and amends the start date of the moratorium period.
The bill relates to the removal of current restrictions applicable to doctors who are New Zealand permanent residents and citizens who have obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. The change effectively removes these doctors from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’ and ‘former overseas medical student’. The removal of the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have either Australian permanent residency or citizenship and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium period to commence is an important provision of this bill. The bill also makes an amendment to section 19AC of the act, which provides a period in which medical practitioners can apply for a review of the decision to refuse to grant an exemption or to impose one.
The issue is that many New Zealanders elect to study in Australian universities and are treated no differently to Australians. A New Zealand student may enrol in a medical course before they discover that they are not an ‘Australian permanent resident’ under the meaning of the act. Eligibility is measured from the time a student commences their primary medical degree, so obtaining Australian citizenship or permanent residency once they have commenced their studies offers no relief.
Many Australian citizens elect to study at New Zealand medical schools. These medical schools are accredited by the Australian Medical Council to the same standards as Australian medical schools. However, as these Australians did not obtain their primary medical degree in Australia, they are also subject to section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act. The proposed amendment means that Australian and New Zealand students who attended schools accredited by the Australian Medical Council in New Zealand and Australia will be treated the same as students who studied in Australia. The amendment recognises the standards of primary medical degrees from New Zealand universities and will ensure that New Zealand citizens and permanent residents are treated similarly to Australian citizens and permanent residents.
This amendment also addresses the fact that, although New Zealand citizens are generally entitled to stay permanently in Australia on a special category visa, these visas are not permanent visas pursuant to the Migration Act 1958. Currently, New Zealand citizens who complete their medical qualifications at an Australian medical school come within the definition of ‘former overseas medical student’. The effect of this amendment will be that New Zealand residents or citizens who obtained their primary medical degree from an Australian or New Zealand medical school and who had previously been subject to the 10-year moratorium will attract Medicare benefits from the commencement date of the bill, and they will no longer be subject to that moratorium. That will be really good for our health system and good for those New Zealand doctors and former overseas medical students, including Australian citizens who trained and qualified in New Zealand.
This is a very important issue. I represent an electorate where there is a chronic shortage of GPs. This shortage has existed for a very long time and it is an issue that I have been raising in this parliament since 2000. The current minister for health has embraced the issue and acknowledged the fact that there is a shortage of doctors within the Shortland electorate and, for that matter, Australia wide. She has taken steps to address this shortage, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to her for the actions that she has taken.
As I have already mentioned, this is an issue that has existed for some time in Australia. In the mid-1990s it was proposed that there were sufficient medical practitioners in Australia to meet the health needs of Australians. The thinking behind the policy was that there was an oversupply of general practitioners in the city, metropolitan and large population areas, while the rural and remote areas could not attract doctors. It was thought that there was a maldistribution of general practitioners throughout Australia. Of course, because of our Constitution, it is impossible to force doctors to practise in certain areas. So the Howard government, following their election in 1996, introduced legislation and initiatives to address medical workforce maldistribution. Unfortunately they did not think it through properly because, instead of addressing the maldistribution, they created a chronic medical workforce shortage. The Howard government at all levels constantly ignored the fact that this was an issue that needed to be addressed, unlike the current Rudd government and unlike the current health minister.
In 2006 the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing of the parliament conducted an inquiry into health funding. Its report, called The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding, made some very critical findings about workforce shortage. It did identify the fact that, the further you are away from the heart of Sydney in New South Wales or the heart of Melbourne in Victoria, the harder it is for you to obtain a doctor or treatment from nurses and allied health professionals. It identified the fact that the workforce shortages were worse in outlying areas. It also identified that there was a skilled health workforce shortage throughout Australia in particular in relation to GPs. Some areas raised were that there was a constant, continuing, ongoing problem with a shortage of general practitioners and a failure of the government to address this. Part of the shortage of the health workforce was due to—and the report makes this point—the underinvestment in the number of training places. The maldistribution of health professionals across Australia with the shortage of GPs and most other health professionals in suburban, regional and rural areas was also identified as a big problem. Underlying everything was the underinvestment in the training of doctors that we needed.
I was checking the table on health professionals and there is a comparison in the The blame game report between general practitioner numbers per 100,000 head of population in Australia. In 2000 there were 191.5 GPs to 100,000 head of population. In 2005, under the hand of the Howard government, that had dropped to 178.6 GPs per 100,000 head of population. I think that in itself is a comment on the way the Howard government under the leadership of the health minister, Tony Abbott, managed to ensure that people throughout Australia actually could go and see a GP when they needed to.
Shortland electorate is an older electorate. It is the 11th oldest electorate in Australia. We do have a chronic shortage of GPs as I mentioned earlier in my contribution to this debate. As at August 2009, there were 310 GPs working on the Central Coast. At the Wyong end of the Central Coast there were 131 doctors. Shortland electorate fits into the Wyong end of the Central Coast and the northern part of the Wyong Shire Council falls within Shortland electorate. That is the area where there is an incredible shortage of GPs and has been for a very long time.
The average age of GPs in the area is 54.5 years. As that workforce continues to age, that is going to have a further impact on the shortage of GPs in the area. I believe that it is vitally important that this issue is addressed. I see the legislation that we are debating here in the parliament today as providing some relief to the people not only of the Central Coast part of my electorate but the Lake Macquarie part of my electorate as well.
It is interesting to note that the socioeconomic status of the Central Coast population is lower than the average for New South Wales and Australia. People there experience poorer health, have higher mortality rates and have higher rates of behavioural health risks such as smoking and obesity. Poor access to GPs and primary health care further exacerbate the issue. The majority of the area’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations in the northern Sydney and Central Coast area health catchment reside on the Central Coast, and a significant number reside within the Shortland electorate.
I mentioned that Shortland electorate is an older electorate. In the Central Coast part of the electorate, the population is proportionally older and younger and those people have a greater need to access medical services because of the need for support at both the older and younger ends of the health spectrum. Smoking levels among Central Coast residents are approximately one in four males and one in five females, which is well above the average. Risky drinking behaviour is above the average and mental health, drug and alcohol related conditions are increasingly prevalent on the Central Coast. The burden of chronic disease and avoidable acute conditions is increasing across the region.
With figures like that attached to the area, rather than having fewer GPs we need to have an increase in GPs. At this particular point, I thank the minister for the initiatives that she has already introduced to increase the number of GPs that are available. In the Hunter part of the electorate, we will receive an additional four GP allocated places this year, with this continuing to increase over the coming years.
We should not be in the position we are in now. If the former Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, had acknowledged early in the piece that there was a problem with doctor shortage and if the 12 years of poor workforce planning by the former Howard government had not happened, we would not be in a position where we have this chronic shortage of GPs across the country. As I mentioned, there has been an increase in the number of training places for GPs this year. The number will increase further in 2010-11 as part of the government’s $86 million commitment to providing 212 additional ongoing GP training places from 2011. As I have already mentioned, our region—the Hunter part of the electorate—has four new GP allocated places for this year.
I have talked about the Central Coast part of the Shortland electorate. I would now like to turn to the Lake Macquarie area of the Shortland electorate. It has been an area that, over time, has fared a lot better in relation to GPs, but in the dying days of the Howard government the shortage became much more apparent. One of the GPs in an area of the electorate where there are a lot of elderly residents decided that he just could no longer practise. He was about 78 years of age and had a medical practice where he worked full-time. He tried to attract doctors to work in the area, and one person that was very keen to come and work in the area was a person that was trained in New Zealand. He had lived in Australia for about three or four years but, unfortunately, this person was affected by the moratorium that is referred to in this legislation and was unable to take up that position. The result was that the practice closed. The result was that all those elderly people that relied on that GP for treatment and support were without a GP.
I raised the issue with the former Minister for Health and Ageing and got no satisfaction whatsoever. Mr Abbott was not receptive to doing anything to address this chronic doctor shortage within the Shortland electorate. That is why a situation has now arisen where people have to wait not three to four weeks, as I have mentioned in speeches over the last few years, but up to a month or six weeks for an appointment with their doctor. Action has been taken but, unfortunately, the action has been taken when there is a crisis, not at the time it should have taken place. The Howard government and Mr Abbott should have looked at taking some decisions in planning for the future and addressing the chronic workforce shortage that existed—but no, they ignored it. We had to wait until the current Minister for Health and Ageing and the Rudd government came to power to address these issues.
We have legislation before us today that is going to amend the classification of overseas medical students. It will remove the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited school to have both permanent residency and medical registration, for a moratorium of ten years, and will remove the requirement for persons who are permanent residents of New Zealand to obtain primary medical education at an accredited school in Australia. I commend the legislation to the House. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. I would like to thank the member for Shortland for her contribution. I know that she was always a very passionate advocate when we were on the House Standing Committee on Health and Ageing together and she is always raising this as a very important issue—and it is an important issue. This bill is yet another example of the government’s commitment to reforming Australia’s health system and delivering better health outcomes for Australians, wherever they live. It demonstrates that the government is in tune with the needs of both healthcare providers and patients and that this government is proactive about ensuring Australia has a strong healthcare system, staffed by world class doctors, nurses and allied health professionals.
I want to speak from the perspective of my electors in Kingston who, over the last two years, have seen many positive developments when it comes to improving health services. They are beginning to benefit from the substantial federal government investment and assistance—in particular, the availability of general practitioners. When I was running as a candidate in the seat of Kingston, getting access to see a general practitioner was a huge issue. In fact, many residents found it difficult not only to get in to one during the day but also to find after-hours access to GPs. This brought a huge influx of people presenting for accident and emergency treatment out of hours which could have been better dealt with by a general practitioner.
I know that the South Australian government has been doing a lot of work in primary health care. The opening hours of a GP-plus clinic at Aldinga has shown that if you provide primary health services out of hours then you can reduce the burden on accident and emergency facilities. In fact, the state Minister for Health has said many times that from the postcodes of Aldinga and Aldinga Beach there has been a 13 per cent decrease in presentations to the Noarlunga Hospital. We have seen that if you can improve the provision of primary healthcare services outside of those normal operating hours then you can actually reduce the burden on our hospitals.
I have to commend this government greatly for the General Practice After Hours program. The program has been widely taken up by GP surgeries in my electorate. The improvement has been felt by the residents of Christies Beach who now under this program have better access to after hours GP services provided by the Dyson family practice. Likewise, the $95,000 grant provided to the Trinity Medical Centre under the same program has improved GP services for the residents of Seaford. Similar grants have been received by GP centres in Huntfield Heights, Aldinga, Morphett Vale and Sheidow Park. These grants are being used to cover the cost of things such as on-call allowances, training and the running costs associated with longer opening hours. They have made it easier for local residents to find a doctor after hours and receive the primary care that they need to stay healthy, manage chronic disease and, most importantly, as I mentioned before, to stay out of hospital. I know from constituents in the local area that there has been a lot of interest in this and they are very pleased with and greatly appreciate these extended opening hours.
This government went to the election with a platform of providing GP superclinics. This was a very innovative and exciting election commitment and one that this government is now delivering. In particular, there is a lot of work being done at the moment with the creation of the Noarlunga GP superclinic. The development is under way for a new purpose-built facility and also the redevelopment of existing buildings within the Noarlunga Hospital and health village precinct. This is a combined investment between the Rudd Labor government and the South Australian government and it will go a huge way towards providing a whole range of different services to local people who have not been able to access these before. It will include things such as privately practising GPs, practice nurses, specialists, dentists and allied health providers. It will have a particular focus on chronic disease management, which is becoming more and more an important area that we must focus on if we are going to improve this country’s long-term health.
The work on the GP superclinic is well underway. It is my understanding that interim services will be provided to patients from late 2010 before the project is completed in 2011. With an eye on the future, it is pleasing to note that the clinic will incorporate design functions to support teaching, training and education. I have been regularly reminded that if we can make sure that we are putting the best into training our new health professionals, especially in the area of general practice, we actually can get GPs who are very well suited to the local area.
The best way to get and retain doctors and nurses in our regions and outer metropolitan areas is to have local residents trained locally to fill these positions. The training which will be undertaken will complement the $10 million of funding that was provided to Flinders University which will be used and has already been used by the university to equip state-of-the-art teaching and training facilities, which will help Adelaide attract and retain medical, nursing and allied health professionals. This was another commitment that the shadow health minister at the time, Nicola Roxon, made and it has now been delivered. There were huge commitments and investments from this government. We are now delivering. The reason that we had to make these commitments was that the previous government fell far short of delivering decent training facilities and healthcare services to the people in my electorate.
A final development in Kingston that is deserving of mention has been the $295,000 injected for training of local aged care staff. This particular grant is being used to train and develop the skills of 73 local aged care and community staff. Carers for the aged have been historically underpaid and undervalued in this country and I hope that this assistance will not only provide better care for older residents in Kingston but also will go some way towards providing long-term carer opportunities for those in our community who are providing that care.
These and the many other positive developments in the provision of health care in Kingston are part of this government’s larger commitment to delivering better health care to all Australians. At the heart of this project is the $1.6 billion COAG partnership that will help deliver better training for Australian graduates. This funding will help support undergraduate clinical training for over 13,000 medical students, 38,000 nursing students and 18,000 allied health professionals in 2010. The government will also provide $28 million to help train around 18,000 nurse supervisors, 5,000 allied health and VET supervisors and 7,000 medical supervisors. The total number of GP training places will also be boosted to more than 800 from 2011 onwards, representing a 33 per cent increase from the cap of 600 places set by the previous government.
This year’s federal budget also provides for an additional $200 million to help tackle the shortage of doctors and health workers in regional and remote Australia. I think this has outlined just how seriously this government is taking the issue of workforce shortage in the area of health services. From talking to people, I know this was clearly an area that was neglected by the previous government. In fact, it is well known within my electorate that at some point in the previous government the previous health minister decided to cut the number of places for doctors, and the result of that is now hugely strained medical services because of workforce shortage.
Speaking to people in my electorate about getting to see a GP, I know that, while the measures we have introduced have helped ease some of that pressure, there continues to be a great amount of pressure on GPs, who have huge workloads, who often have to close their books and often do want to see more patients with a range of different issues but are unable to service people in their local area. A lot of GPs have said to me that they feel a lot of strain and stress about having so many people they have to service. They are worried that they are not able to service all these people and be able to see all the people who may need to see a doctor. They do feel an obligation. This government has decided that we will take seriously the issue of workforce shortage and ensure that in seats like mine, in outer metropolitan areas, those people too can access a doctor.
The bill before the House will introduce four changes to the Health Insurance Act 2009 and is designed to streamline the operation of section 19AB of the act. This section of the act is important for rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas as it provides that overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of our medical schools are not able to provide professional services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years. Exceptions to this 10-year moratorium are granted, and one of the primary considerations is that the applicant must work in a district of workforce shortage. It is through these exceptions that the government influences the distribution of the medical workforce throughout Australia.
The importance of the scheme is reflected in the higher proportions of foreign trained doctors in rural and remote areas. The first change introduced by this bill is the removal of restrictions imposed by the act on New Zealanders and permanent resident doctors who obtain their primary medical degree from an Australian medical school. Under the existing arrangements, such graduate doctors are unable to access Medicare benefits for a 10-year period. This change recognises the fact that New Zealand medical schools are accredited by the Australian Medical Council under the same standards as those in Australia. It also addresses the inconsistencies between the Citizenship Act 1948, which provides New Zealanders with permanent residency rights without obtaining a permanent resident visa, and the Migration Act 1958, which considers New Zealanders to be temporary residents in Australia.
Secondly, the bill will address an anomaly in the act which means that the 10-year moratorium begins from the time an overseas trained doctor receives Australian permanent residency or citizenship. Under the amendment, this period will begin from when the doctor is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia. This means that, under the new system, years of tenure as a temporary resident will count towards the 10-year period.
Thirdly, the bill introduces a 90-day time limit for seeking a review of a decision to refuse an application for a section 19AB exemption. Under the act an individual who has been refused exemption may apply for a review of that decision by the minister or delegate, but no time limit in which to seek that review is currently stipulated. Introducing a time limit will minimise the chance that the conditions relating to the consideration of the initial application will vary. It is intended that this change will improve the management of the review process.
Finally, under the changes introduced in the bill, students of an Australian medical school who were not an Australian citizen or permanent resident when they enrolled in their primary medical degree at an Australian medical school will no longer be described as a ‘former overseas medical student’ and will now be referred to as a ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. The previous wording was misleading and caused confusion in the medical profession.
The overall impact of this bill will be a medium- to long-term increase in the number of doctors working in rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas. That said, section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act will continue to allow government to influence the distribution of doctors in areas where they are most needed. Importantly, as the projects in Kingston and the government’s wider national health policies indicate, Australia is in the process of investing heavily in training medical professionals close to where they are needed. In the future it will be these graduates who will be meeting the demand of the healthcare profession in metropolitan, regional and remote areas of Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Through the amendments that are contained in the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 it is proposed to streamline the Health Insurance Act 1973 by removing a number of anomalies. As previous speakers have alluded, there has been a chronic shortage of doctors in this country. One of the things that this bill is attempting to do is to address, amongst other things, some of those anomalies that may artificially restrict the health professionals, the doctors, from being able to work within our system.
The Health Insurance Act 1973, amongst other things, currently restricts doctors who are New Zealand permanent residents and citizens who have obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school outside Australia. It restricts them from providing professional assistance that attracts Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years. This is commonly referred to as the 10-year moratorium. So you can see from that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the act currently applies it artificially restricts graduates of New Zealand based medical academic institutions or New Zealand permanent residents, if they seek to practise in Australia, from being able to bill for Medicare benefits over that period.
Overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students may be granted an exemption from these restrictions if they work in a district with a workforce shortage, particularly if it is in a rural, remote or outer metropolitan area. Indeed, we have in the south-west of Sydney sought to have various overseas trained doctors apply under those exemptions in order for them to be able to practise in the south-west of Sydney.
The first amendment in the bill removes from the classification ‘overseas trained doctor’ any New Zealand permanent resident or citizen who obtained their primary medical education at an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school. Previously a person was considered to be an overseas trained doctor if they obtained their primary medical degree from a medical institute outside this country. Given the amount of activity that has occurred in the last decade between Australia and New Zealand, it does seem to be significantly restrictive, particularly where we have cross-recognition regimes in place in just about all professional areas, and I think only recently even in accounting, that we provide an artificial restriction restricting doctors trained in a New Zealand medical institute.
The second amendment in the bill will rename the ‘former overseas medical student’ to a ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. That will more accurately reflect the meaning of the term. This will address issues arising from New Zealand citizens who are able to stay permanently in this country on a special category visa but who are not considered to be Australian permanent residents being restricted under the 10-year moratorium after they obtain their medical qualifications from an Australian medical school.
The third amendment will rectify an anomaly in section 19AB of the act, which currently says that the 10-year moratorium will start from when a medical practitioner achieves Australian permanent residency or citizenship. The amendment proposes that the 10-year moratorium commences from the time the medical practitioner is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia and will cease after 10 years, provided that the medical practitioner has, by that stage, gained permanent residency status in this country. Should a medical practitioner not obtain Australian permanent residency or Australian citizenship by the conclusion of that 10-year period, from when they first gain their medical qualification, the restriction will then remain in force until such time as permanent residency or citizenship is obtained.
Finally, section 19AC of the act will be amended to insert a new time limit of 90 days during which an applicant can seek to a review of a decision to refuse their application for a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose one or more conditions on a section 10AB exemption.
This is a bill which is seeking to streamline the application of those parts of the act but it will also remove some of the artificial barriers for overseas trained doctors, particularly for our colleagues from New Zealand. I will talk later about the number of overseas trained doctors that we have currently working in our system, which as everybody knows has been strained for some time. It is a system that this government is determined to do something about.
The bill will allow more doctors to provide medical services which attract Medicare benefits to patients throughout this country. I am happy to report that I have a facility in my electorate doing almost the same thing. The University of Western Sydney School of Medicine was opened by the Acting Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, in November 2008. The School of Medicine is an 8,000-square metre facility based at the Campbelltown campus of the University of Western Sydney. It boasts an impressive lecture theatre as well as an anatomy laboratory, a computer laboratory, a clinical skills area and eight research laboratories.
The University of Western Sydney School of Medicine is helping to solve the south-west of Sydney’s critical doctor shortage. This shortage is one which I spoke about many times during the term of the previous government and one which we said was, quite frankly, an embarrassment for the people of south-west Sydney to have to endure. The School of Medicine is an institute which is working very well to try to encourage local students—students who have lived and grown up in this area—to stay on, take their medical education in the area and, hopefully, stay as GPs and specialists in the south-west of Sydney.
Approximately two-thirds of the university’s medical students are very much proud local kids from greater western Sydney. It is a very big catchment area, but until the university’s program was established the opportunities for those young people was either to go to one of the sandstone universities of Sydney or to go to Newcastle. Young people can now decide to study medicine locally. We believe this will produce a greater number of local doctors. We are very proud of the fact that two-thirds of the current medical students registered at the university are local to greater western Sydney. It is expected that most of these students will choose to live and work as doctors in the area. This has been borne out by a series of research projects which gave rise to the decision of the former government to place a campus of the university in the south-west of Sydney.
Last year, UWS received 3,000 applications from students to study a medical degree. There are certainly plenty of young people in western Sydney willing to start and commit to a career in medicine. I think that is very important. As I said earlier, for the years and years that I have been in this place I have complained that the number of doctors available, particularly general practitioners, in the south-west of Sydney was a blight on our area.
Under the leadership of the School of Medicine’s new dean, Professor Alison Jones, these medical students will learn and obtain the clinical skills and knowledge necessary to be the medical leaders of the future. Professor Jones joined UWS in October this year. She is an internationally recognised leader and educator in clinical toxicology and a very active clinician in her own right. Professor Jones has been Professor of Medicine and Clinical Toxicology at the University of Newcastle, as well as the director of the National Poisons Information Service in London and Head of Medicine at London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospitals. To say that the medical students at the University of Western Sydney are in good hands would be an understatement.
When the School of Medicine was opened in 2008, the foundation dean of medicine was Professor Neville Yeomans. He said at the opening that the school would provide:
… a state-of-the-art learning environment that seeks to stimulate, challenge and inspire a new kind of doctor—one who understands the importance of doctor-patient communication, primary health, and collaborating with nursing and other allied health professionals to provide a continuum of care for every patient.
The education our students receive in this facility, together with the training they receive in our local hospitals and community settings with specialist doctors, GPs and community health partners, gives them a special perspective on chronic health problems, particularly in Greater Western Sydney, which has high rates of cardiovascular disease, mental illness, obesity and diabetes …
Professor Yeomans went on to say:
Now, for the first time, hundreds of aspiring doctors and medical specialists from across Sydney’s west have the opportunity to stay, train and work in the region they have grown up in and understand so well.
UWS doctors and researchers will be at the frontline of health care, working to significantly improve the health and wellbeing of future generations of Australians.
The University of Western Sydney School of Medicine’s approach to clinical education is one that should be mirrored throughout this country. For the 4½ years for which I have been the member for Werriwa, I have had an association with the practitioners from this institution. I have seen firsthand how they work with various local community groups—not necessarily medically based groups but groups looking after single parents and children with disabilities. These doctors have the opportunity to work with the real people, if you like, outside the lecture rooms of a university, people who reflect the nature of the area in which we live in south-western Sydney. This is something which is quite foreign, as I understand it, to contemporary medical education—actually exposing doctors not simply to the academic aspects of their profession or what they are likely to be coming into contact with in the future but actually showing them the real dynamics of what occurs within a modern society, the one they grew up and choose to live in and which they will hopefully continue to serve as medical practitioners. It is not just textbook diagnosis. It is looking for doctors who actually understand, empathise and will work with their society as it develops and meets the challenges of the future.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Yeomans for all that he achieved at the School of Medicine before his retirement a few months ago. His hard work and dedication over the five years during which he acted as dean of the college have not gone unnoticed by either the university or the School of Medicine. His persistence, dedication and professional approach have certainly meant that his standing in my local community is extremely high. Although Professor Yeomans has retired, I know that he will be a continuing source of advice and encouragement long into the future.
Speaking for the future of the first hundred doctors, who are due to graduate from the School of Medicine in 2011, these young people are about to experience in a very unrestricted way practising medicine in a very different environment from what would have been the case had they selected a different medical school in which to do their undergraduate studies. Bear in mind that the south-west of Sydney is going through an extraordinary growth rate. It is predicted that over the next 20 years there will be an additional 450,000 people based in the south-west of Sydney. As these students graduate in 2011, undoubtedly, through the education they have received at the University of Western Sydney, they will certainly have a very bright but nevertheless very busy future ahead of them.
To help prepare them for that future, students undertaking a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery at the School of Medicine receive an education which, quite frankly, in my opinion is second to none. They are working closely with the clinical staff at the Liverpool, Campbelltown and Camden hospitals, where they are getting very much a hands-on experience of what it means to be a doctor. From week 1, students are placed in a hospital based environment, learning skills that will equip them for the future. But one of the main things they learn—and this is what Professor Yeomans had always stressed ever since I first met him some 4½ years ago—is to do no harm. This is not experimenting on patients; this is understanding the patients. The approach that has been established at this School of Medicine is unique.
One of the people helping to guide these students is the state Labor member for Macquarie Fields, Dr Andrew McDonald. I happen to know Andrew very well. As a matter of fact, I was heavily involved in recruiting him to stand for the seat of Macquarie Fields not all that long ago. Both Andrew and his wife, Jenny, are paediatricians. Jenny is still a paediatrician practising at Campbelltown Hospital, and Dr Andrew McDonald, who now is a state member of parliament, still attends hospital one day a week. He works pro bono either at the Campbelltown Hospital for people in need or, alternatively, at Tharawal medical centre, servicing our local Aboriginal population, which is the second largest in the state. This is pro bono.
I suppose politicians cop a lot of brickbats in their time, and sometimes it is more deserved than others. But here is a man who has sought to advance the aims and interests of his area in entering state parliament, and I think he makes a very good contribution to the state parliament in doing that. But, in addition to that, one day a week he practises without charge, pro bono, for people in need. That is an outstanding contribution.
Apart from other things, Andrew is an associate professor at the University of Western Sydney, and therefore, I think, having him involved in the teaching of young people coming up in the medical profession is quite invaluable. He takes his commitment to advancing the needs of the area very seriously. Apart from being a paediatrician, he has become—and I hate to use the word ‘politician’—a parliamentarian and takes that role very seriously also. But, in addition to that, he still maintains an active medical role. It is not just a matter of keeping his hand in—that is not what he does, because he is a specialist in his own right. He goes out there with a view to working pro bono for people in need. That is the sort of person we do want to develop in a modern society, a person who actually cares. I am very proud to have Andrew as a friend, and he and his wife have made an extraordinary contribution to our society. (Time expired)
I commend the member for Werriwa for his very wide-ranging contribution on this matter. He certainly has a very deep interest in the people of Western Sydney and is a very fine advocate for their needs.
Today I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. The relationship that has been maintained between Australia and New Zealand is a very special one. The two countries have had various arrangements in place since the 1920s and this has led to a free flow of people between Australia and New Zealand—and that, of course, includes me. We share common ideals and a bond that extends from the history of the Anzac legend to our cross-Tasman rivalry in all forms of sport. It is fair to say that barely a week goes by without a major story arising about a clash between the Silver Ferns and the Diamonds or the Wallabies and the All Blacks.
Since 1973 the trans-Tasman travel arrangement that has allowed Australian and New Zealand citizens to flow freely between one another’s countries has very much assisted both our economies. The number of New Zealanders in Australia has increased, particularly in times of economic strength, and when our economic conditions lessen or slow there is a free flow back. On 30 June 2009, an estimated half a million New Zealanders were residing in Australia. Currently, New Zealand residents are allowed to stay in Australia permanently under the conditions of a special category visa. Under the current terms of the Health Insurance Act 2009, New Zealand doctors who seek to practise in Australia are lumped with the same restrictions as those that apply to other international doctors. This, of course, does not reflect the nature of the special relationship between our two countries.
The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides New Zealand citizens living in Australia with many benefits. Under the provisions of the act, New Zealand citizens maintain permanent residency rights without the requirement to obtain a permanent residency visa. On the other hand, the Health Insurance Act 2009 requires the Department of Health and Ageing to refer to and use the Migration Act 1958 as the authority in determining residency status. The Migration Act 1958 considers New Zealand citizens to be temporary residents of Australia. The effect, under the current provision, is that New Zealand citizen doctors are considered to be overseas trained doctors if they were first recognised as a medical practitioner after 1 January 1997.
The framework of section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 2009 does not currently accommodate the close nature of the relationship that Australia and New Zealand maintain. Under the current arrangements, many New Zealanders who elect to study at an Australian university are treated no differently from Australian students. Also, a New Zealand student can enrol in a medical course in Australia in much the same way as an Australian can. However, they are not considered to be an Australian permanent resident under the meaning of the act. This has the ongoing effect of bundling them under the same arrangements as doctors who have trained overseas.
Once these doctors enter the skilled workforce they are subject to the same constraints as international doctors. This means they are restricted from providing professional services which attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years from the date on which they become both a medical practitioner and an Australian permanent resident or citizen. A significant number of temporary resident doctors, including New Zealand trained doctors, work in districts of workforce shortage for two to five years before gaining permanent residency or Australian citizenship. When the 10-year moratorium is applied to their tenure, these doctors may be obliged to work in a district of workforce shortage for up to 15 years.
The experience of temporary resident doctors is not in keeping with the original intent of the act, which was for a 10-year moratorium to commence from the time the medical practitioner is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia. Whilst New Zealand and Australian citizens have benefited from changes to the Migration Act 1994, this has not been reflected in the Health Insurance Act, as it refers to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 for its definitions. Due to the nature of these requirements, from the time a student commences their primary medical degree to the time they obtain citizenship or permanent residency they are restrained by an act that should no longer be there.
Due to this situation, a number of anomalies arise. There is no point in beating about the bush when we talk about the shortage of doctors in Australia. By aligning the anomalies that currently exist between departments, this government is delivering positive reform to health services in Australia. Whilst the previous government spent 11 years savaging the health system and trying to dismantle Medicare and privatise the health system, they failed to address the reality that we need more doctors practising medicine in Australia. This reform will have the effect of encouraging health professionals from New Zealand to go through the processes and help us bring quality services to our health sector. Currently our migration laws reflect our close relationship with our neighbours across the Tasman, yet our Health Insurance Act does not reflect that close arrangement.
I would briefly like to highlight some of the things the Rudd government has been working on within my electorate of Corangamite. I want to talk in particular about our GP superclinic, which was an election commitment that I secured in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. That commitment was for a $7 million facility that we worked on with Deakin University and the local GP association. This GP superclinic will not only provide a huge amount of services to Geelong’s growth corridor of Belmont, Waurn Ponds, Highton and Grovedale; it will also play a very significant role in training Deakin University medical graduates coming out of the Waurn Ponds campus, which will of course help bolster the number of GPs in regional and rural Victoria. It will also play a significant role in bringing together many allied health professionals so that we have team based medical services being delivered, enabling our communities to access world’s best practice in the delivery of medication and medical services.
We have worked very closely in partnership with Barwon Health who have provided the land for the clinic to be built on. That highlights the strong and continuing work that we have been able to do with the state government in Victoria to ensure that our growth corridor in Geelong has adequate medical services. The first of the medical students coming out of Deakin University will be in 2011-12. I certainly look forward to having the super clinic up and running by then, enabling those medical students to be able to practise whilst they learn under the appropriate supervision of doctors.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the work of the minister. She is prepared to work very hard to reform our health care system. She is prepared to make the hard decisions, often against the interests of sectional minorities, and I commend her for the zeal that she takes to the debate in reforming the sector. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to give my wholehearted support to the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. We have been encouraging labour to flow into the Australian market at times of heightened demand, in all sectors. The longstanding skill set of visas, be they temporary or permanent residency visas, has assisted diverse industries such as construction, engineering, accounting, business and even health and nursing. This has been a long-held practice by this and previous governments. It gives our economy and our essential services the skilled labour that we desperately need. From time to time, the skilled labour needs change, but these are things that we have to look at continuously in contributing towards the targets in periods of increased demand. The last thing we want is unnecessary artificial barriers that discourage the flow of targeted labour across our borders that is required by our economy and service sectors, which from time to time will continue to supply our nation and our economy with the people it may need desperately. The medical professionals who make up our medical teams in Australia do tremendous and important work.
It has been an honour to chair the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. It has given me a great opportunity to meet many people within the medical industry with specialisations as diverse as every profession you can think of. Each profession has unique and captivating stories to tell us and lessons to teach us in their contribution to our Commonwealth. They are truly remarkable people whose work I, as chair of the committee, am usually more than happy to support and serve.
The longstanding position of pretty well everyone who looks at this is that we as a Commonwealth have neglected to provide the training opportunities that we have needed to sustain our medical workforce. In the case of nurses, for example, I believe there is plenty of training available, but there is an unacceptably high attrition rate. Far too many nurses leave the industry because of the poor conditions they are expected to endure, but with doctors the situation is somewhat different. In the past we have failed to provide sufficient numbers of prospective doctors or the training that they need to meet the expectations of our population in the public services provided, or paid for, by the Commonwealth. The retirement of individual medical doctors—in high numbers as a proportion of their workforce—foreshadows very real shortages in this area. I believe that one can conclude that the training of sufficient numbers of doctors here in Australia has been a problem and a mistake for a generation. It is the generational turnover that is causing an extremely alarming drop in the supply of medical labour.
So it is right and it is good that we look further afield for supplementary and replacement labour. There is no more obvious place to look than the country which, many years ago, could have become one of the states of our Commonwealth. There probably is not any one country that is more similar to Australia. There probably is not any one people that has more in common with us here in Australia. And there is not any set of teaching institutions that turns out doctors with levels of skill and knowledge so similar to those here in Australia. Also, there is not any foreign country to which we have made our national border so permeable and open.
The bill before us amends the strict embargo placed on doctors trained in New Zealand. Currently, there is a 10-year moratorium on such doctors performing services that attract Medicare benefits, whether they be New Zealanders or Australians who are trained across the Tasman. As it currently stands, the 10-year moratorium can extend well beyond that, depending on the residency status of the individual concerned. This was not the original intention of the moratorium.
The training that such professionals receive is very much akin to that which professionals receive here at our own institutions, both being accredited by the Australian Medical Council. Similarly, New Zealanders can and do elect to train here in Australia, at Australian institutions accredited by the Australian Medical Council. The quality of training is not an issue in each of these categories of professionals being welcomed into our workforce. Let us be clear about the professionals we are talking about here. We are talking about Australians who train in New Zealand and New Zealanders who train either in New Zealand or here in Australia. We are not talking about professionals who train in other countries who make their way to New Zealand, whence they enter Australia. We are talking exclusively about the people of these two countries, Australia and New Zealand, who undergo training within these two countries at an institution that will, as a matter of course, be accredited by the Australian Medical Board.
The original intent was for such professionals to wait 10 years from the date they obtain Australian medical registration—no more, no less. Within the moratorium, such doctors were to be able, and are able, to take up salaried medical positions for which billing against Medicare is not required, such as within a hospital. Nothing makes more sense than the objects of this bill. Nothing makes more sense as we seek to expand the pool of readily available labour that provides Medicare services. Nothing makes more sense as we seek to provide medical services to our ageing Australian population, medical services that increase the quality of life of our population. This is the ultimate objective, and this bill is a good and proper means of furthering the realisation of this objective, together with many other things that this government is doing.
We know that the government is investing $64 billion in the hospital and health system across the country over the next five years. That is a 50 per cent increase on the previous agreement by the former Liberal government. We have invested $600 million in our elective surgery program. Stage 1 committed to a target of 25,000 extra elective surgeries in 2008 but delivered in excess of a whopping 41,000 procedures. We have invested $750 million in taking pressure off the emergency departments of more than 30 hospitals around the country. We have see the government rolling out 2,000 new transition care beds for senior Australians. That is a $293.2 million program to help our mums and dads who have no reason to be in hospital—taking the bed of someone who really does need it—transition back into the community and thereby reduce the capacity pressures on our hospitals.
The government is also investing $1.1 billion in training more doctors, nurses and other health professionals, and $1.1 billion is the single biggest investment in the health workforce ever made by an Australian government. We will see 812 additional GP training places from 2011 onwards and a 35 per cent increase on the cap of 600 places imposed, since 2004, by the Liberals. This bill is a continuation of the good things this government is doing to ensure that we meet the needs of an ageing population by having the doctors and medical staff to look after the ageing population and to look after all Australians. I therefore commend this bill to the House.
I too rise in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. Whilst many in this House today may be primarily focused on or concerned with their political health, if there is one thing that is of major concern to all Australians, including those in remote and regional communities, it is their reliance on good quality, personal health care. This bill is yet another very practical, reasonable and appropriate step in the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to improving the quality of our healthcare system and to improving the provision of medical services to all Australians regardless of where they live or their current circumstances.
The bill is designed to remove a number of anomalies that currently exist in the Health Insurance Act. It focuses on amendments to address the restrictions that apply to overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students. It specifically amends the Health Insurance Act to make changes to the so-called 10-year moratorium, which prevents an overseas trained doctor from attracting Medicare benefits until that moratorium has been served. The bill recognises the need to change in order to provide more general practitioner services throughout the suburbs and in communities across the whole nation. Overseas trained doctors and former medical students who were first recognised after 1 January 1997 have generally been restricted from providing professional services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years, and this is what has become known as the 10-year moratorium. Approval of this legislation will enable New Zealand doctors who have trained either in Australia or in New Zealand to be exempt, effectively, from the moratorium. It means that New Zealand medical students, once they are registered as doctors either here or in New Zealand, will be able to attract Medicare benefits as soon as they start practising.
There are a range of reasons why this legislation is good, but I think it is important to acknowledge that the amendment reflects the very close relationship that exists between our two countries. As the previous speaker has already said, the similarities between us and our cousins or friends across the Tasman are very clear. We might fight it out on the sporting field and, at times, we may well be bitter rivals in the field of sport. We might both fiercely protect our national and cultural differences—and, of course, this is a good thing because communities are shaped by their circumstances and their unique history and there is much between New Zealand and Australia that because of historical circumstances has highlighted the differences. We might make fun of each other’s accents quite regularly and we might often jibe each other with what are well-known nicknames—and of course the word ‘Kiwis’ comes to mind.
Ultimately it is the similarities that we share, not the differences, that have made us very long-term, historical friends and good neighbours and allies. It is our commitment to our democratic institutions, our commitment to the political system that we both work under, our commitment to providing good-quality education and professional services and the goals that we both want to seek for improving the welfare of our communities that we share. It is the commitment that both countries have to providing essential services to the citizens of both our nations, particularly a good-quality healthcare system, that means we often speak and act as one. Our differences may be the subject of good humour, but they do not outweigh the common bonds that we hold. For that reason alone I support this amendment, because I believe that it is important that we acknowledge our similarities and that we work with our New Zealand neighbours to share the skills, the resources and the intellectual capacity of the citizens of both countries to provide good-quality health care.
Another important amendment also acknowledges the professional services from some overseas trained doctors who are currently providing medical services here as temporary residents by including those years of service within the calculation of the 10 years of their moratorium and therefore reducing, in effect, the amount of time that these doctors serve as medical practitioners before they attract Medicare benefits. The 10-year moratorium is currently calculated from the time an overseas doctor receives permanent residency or citizenship here in Australia, but some overseas doctors are currently working and providing very important medical services in the areas that we call ‘districts of workforce shortage’. They are providing a very important service that sometimes would not be provided if we were simply relying upon either an Australian trained doctor or an overseas trained doctor who had served their 10 years and had their moratorium lifted.
This bill enables the 10 years of moratorium to be calculated from the time of registration if overseas doctors have been working in these areas, albeit with a temporary residency visa. This is important, because it means that some very well trained, good-quality overseas doctors—particularly those filling very important vacancies in some of our more remote and regional communities—could have to wait for up to 15 years before the moratorium ends and they are able to attract Medicare benefits. This bill is a very important step in reducing that time frame and enabling these doctors to attract those benefits—which, of course, flow on directly to the cost of health care to their patients. In acknowledgement of the difficulties that often occur in very remote communities, the scale of reduction in time can be affected by the remoteness of the community that the doctor is working in. In more remote communities, it may well be that the time frame required for the moratorium to end is shortened.
Both of these amendments are very important, and not just because they provide very important health services in areas of remote Australia where vacancies may not otherwise be filled. Even an electorate like my own—the electorate of Bonner, which covers the south-eastern suburbs of Brisbane—whilst contained within a metropolitan city, has very real shortages of trained doctors working as GPs. There are shortages in suburbs right across our country, from the largest inner-city suburbs to the very remote areas of the country. What this means is that we as a community will have access to more doctors who will be able to provide that very important localised personal health care that we all depend on. In particular, those New Zealand doctors who, as I said, have trained here or in New Zealand will be able to step in and provide very important services in all of our local communities. It addresses the chronic shortage of GPs, and it should be commended.
It is very much a part of the approach to improving both preventative healthcare services and primary healthcare services in all of our communities. We hear much and we read much about the pressure on our public hospital system. We hear and read much about the crisis in the public health system. We all know that perhaps one of the most significant ways in which we can reduce pressure on our public hospital system is to reduce pressure on casualty departments, to reduce the number of people who are presenting at a public hospital either because they cannot afford to go to a local GP or because they simply cannot find a local GP who is open. We all know that illnesses, particularly in children, do not confine themselves to nine to five business hours. My own experience is that, invariably, they will happen at any time of the day other than during business hours. It is then that you are desperately looking for a doctor to assist you. Putting more doctors into our communities to provide primary health care will definitely contribute to easing the pressure on the casualty departments of our public health system, which in turn will take pressure off elective waiting lists. There is a range of ways in which putting more doctors in the field will assist across the whole spectrum of public and private healthcare services.
It is also important to acknowledge that this bill works very much in partnership with the significant number of dollars which the Commonwealth government are currently putting into improving our healthcare system, including the $1.6 billion that is the COAG partnership working towards providing better health services. More importantly, there are significant dollars working in partnership with our state governments. We are ending the blame game. We are stopping the rivalry and we are stopping the buck passing; we are actually putting money towards a partnership which, if we work together, will give us greater value for our health dollars than if we were simply rivalling with each other or blaming each other. The $1.6 billion will go towards the training of 13,800 medical students, 38,500 nursing students and 18,000 allied health students. On top of that there are another $28 million to help train 18,000 nurse supervisors, 5,000 allied health and VET supervisors and 7,000 medical supervisors. This year’s budget also delivers more than $200 million to help tackle the shortage of doctors and health workers in rural and remote Australia.
As I said in the beginning, while we are dealing with very important matters of national interest here today, particularly in the Senate—and we hope that the health of our planet will prevail as a result of their debates—it is also important that we do not take our eyes off the ball in relation to the other very important responsibilities which we as a government and as a parliament have towards the Australian community. Indeed, there can be no greater importance than supporting our healthcare system and protecting the personal health and welfare of all our citizens, regardless of where they live and regardless of their economic circumstances. The only way we can do that is to look at ways and means to get better quality health care with more health professionals, particularly more doctors, out in our suburbs and in our local communities, those who can work with individual patients to prevent many of the preventable diseases which currently cause people to rely much more than should be the case upon our public hospital system. This is about a healthier society and a healthier community. I commend the bill to the House.
Since coming to office in November 2007, the Rudd government has paid close attention to reform of the health system and that close attention has taken the form of innovations in relation to primary health care and preventative health care, and a great deal of consultation and listening to the community. Since the release of the national health report by the Minister for Health and Ageing in the middle of the year, we have seen the Prime Minister at very many hospitals throughout the country, sometimes in the company of the health minister and sometimes with other ministers. It is an indication that the Rudd government, from the Prime Minister down, is listening hard to what Australians have to say about the need for reform of the health system.
The emphasis that has been placed on preventative health care and primary health care is very important. Certainly what I hear constantly from people in my electorate is the need to attend to and to make sure that the system works in favour of the interaction that most people have with the health system, which of course is not in large hospitals or in relation to very acute conditions but rather in day-to-day medical care and, in particular, the care that is provided to the community by general practitioners. Certainly I have heard in the course of a men’s health forum that I conducted earlier this year at the Central Bayside Community Health Services centre in my electorate, which was attended by the health minister, about the importance of ensuring that the primary healthcare system is delivering services in the way that it should. And at a women’s health forum that I conducted in my electorate later in the year we very much got the same message—that is, it is important that the primary healthcare system deliver services.
The particular legislation that is before the House, which is the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 has, as its focus, changes to the way in which New Zealand doctors are able to work in Australia. It proceeds by treating New Zealand doctors—and it is entirely appropriate that this occur—differently to the way in which the system treats doctors who have obtained their qualifications in places other than New Zealand or Australia. It is perhaps not well understood by the wider community, but it is a fact and has been for many years, that the Australian Medical Council, which is the body that accredits training institutions and, in particular, accredits undergraduate training for doctors, administers a system that looks, together, at Australian medical schools and New Zealand medical schools. Although it is called the Australian Medical Council, it is one which delivers accreditation to New Zealand undergraduate medical training in exactly the same way as it delivers accreditation to Australian undergraduate medical training. It has produced the outcome over many years that New Zealand undergraduate medical training is undertaken to exactly the same high standard as is reached in undergraduate medical training at Australian institutions.
It has also been the case for many years not only that New Zealand citizens and New Zealand permanent residents undertake their undergraduate medical training at Australian medical schools but that numbers of Australian students—that is, Australia’s citizens or Australian permanent residents—go to New Zealand to undertake their medical training. It is quite appropriate that there be an adjustment to the system which recognises that closeness of association between Australia and New Zealand and recognises the high standard that is achieved in New Zealand undergraduate medical training.
Since 1997 the Health Insurance Act has adopted a mechanism which creates a 10-year moratorium for overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students. The 10-year moratorium is a bar on those medical practitioners providing professional medical services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years. That is why it is called the 10-year moratorium. It is used as a tool of workforce management. It is possible for an overseas trained doctor or a former overseas medical student to be granted an exemption from that 10-year moratorium, and a primary consideration—and the legislation sets this up—in granting an exemption from section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act is that an applicant is working in an officially designated district of workforce shortage.
What that produces is that section 19AB, which sets up this 10-year moratorium, is able to be used as a key mechanism in directing doctors to areas of our country which are experiencing a shortage of doctors. Generally speaking, those communities tend to be rural and remote. It has produced the result over time that a very significant proportion of doctors in rural and remote areas are overseas trained doctors. I think it is probably obvious to all that, were it not for the adoption of this mechanism sometime back, there would be very many areas of our country, particularly rural and remote areas, where there would be no doctors at all. It is the case that there are very many communities in Australia that are reliant on overseas trained doctors.
As the Minister for Health and Ageing commented in her second reading speech, Australia is certainly not alone in facing that phenomenon. Other OECD countries, notably Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States, have experienced a very significant increase in the number of foreign trained doctors working in their countries. Recognising, however, the closeness of training and the high standards that are reached in undergraduate medical training in New Zealand as well as in Australia, this legislation seeks to remove the restrictions which are imposed by effectively a combination of the Australian Citizenship Act and the Migration Act on New Zealand citizens who have trained and obtained their medical qualifications either in New Zealand or in Australia.
The way in which the provisions currently interact is that the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides New Zealand citizens living in Australia with many benefits and citizenship rights. One of those provisions accords to New Zealand citizens permanent residency rights without the requirement of obtaining a permanent residency visa. A number of other speakers in this debate have commented on the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are living in our country and making a tremendous contribution to Australia. They are very often very well educated and very enterprising people and fit very closely in the Australian community, not just for the reason that English is their native language but for many reasons of cultural similarity. I have noted that many of the other speakers in this debate have commented on the closeness of association in relation to various sporting events. Indeed, we have shared competitions with New Zealand in a range of sports.
While that is the situation created by the Australian Citizenship Act, the Migration Act, by various provisions in the Health Insurance Act which interact with it, is the authority for determining residency status. Under the Migration Act, New Zealand citizens who are living in Australia, even though they are able to come to Australia without obtaining a permanent residency visa, are considered for the purposes of the Migration Act to be temporary residents of Australia. The consequence of the interaction of these provisions is that New Zealand citizens who are doctors are considered for the purposes of the current regulatory regime to be overseas trained doctors if they were first recognised as medical practitioners after 1 January 1997.
As I indicated earlier, it is the case that many New Zealanders elect to receive their undergraduate medical training at Australian universities and some Australian citizens or permanent residents elect to receive their training at New Zealand universities. It is wholly appropriate that the health insurance regime recognises the high standards of undergraduate medical training that are provided in both Australia and New Zealand and recognises that, where we have someone who happens to be a New Zealand citizen but who has received undergraduate medical training that is for all intents and purposes identical to that of an Australian citizen, and sometimes there will be Australian citizens obviously educated at exactly the same medical school at exactly the same time, it is appropriate that there be a recognition of the standard of undergraduate medical training that New Zealand citizens or New Zealand permanent residents wishing to work in Australia have and to treat them differently to medical practitioners who have obtained their undergraduate medical training and their medical qualification in a place other than New Zealand or Australia.
The technical result of the amendments that are contained in this bill will be that New Zealand residents or citizens who have obtained their primary medical degree from an Australian or New Zealand medical school who would under the current provision of section 19AB have been subject to the 10-year moratorium will no longer be subject to that moratorium. Any person who has already commenced working in Australia and being subject to the moratorium will also no longer be subject to that moratorium. Equally and obviously, in relation to a New Zealand citizen with training from an Australian or New Zealand university who has obtained a section 19AB(3) exemption, for a person in that category the exemption will cease to have effect.
It is to be noted that the Department of Health and Ageing is very well aware that there will be some New Zealand citizens and some New Zealand residents who have come to Australia wishing to work as medical practitioners whose undergraduate medical training was not at an Australian or New Zealand medical school. The legislation draws that distinction and it will be the case that any New Zealand citizen or New Zealand permanent resident whose undergraduate medical training was not from a New Zealand or Australian university will continue to be subject to the regime that presently applies to them.
Although the moratorium provision and the exemption which goes with it are directed at ensuring that the workforce shortages that are experienced in rural and remote parts of Australia are able to be managed, it is also the case, and I hear it constantly in my electorate, that there are in fact shortages of doctors in the outer suburbs of our large capital cities. My electorate takes in a range of middle and outer suburbs, including in particular growth areas like Carrum Downs, Keysborough, Springvale and Dandenong South, which are in part established but also are experiencing great expansions in new housing. It is also the case that suburbs like that which are at a distance of 20 to 40 kilometres from the centre of Melbourne—and there is a similar phenomenon in Sydney and Brisbane—are finding that the traditional model of provision of general practitioner services, which was a solo practitioner operating a family practice in possibly a fairly residential setting in the suburbs, is disappearing. Practices that have been conducted for decades are not able to be sold, not able to be transferred to a younger practitioner because younger doctors, it seems, wish to work more in group settings. What is being found is that the spread of provision of general practitioner services is in decline. Certainly that is something that is constantly mentioned to me by the GP networks in my electorate—that is, the Dandenong-Casey GP network and the Bayside GP network.
The Dandenong-Casey network covers the eastern part of my electorate, across into Casey and into the federal electorate of Holt. The Bayside GP network covers, as the name suggests, the suburbs along Port Phillip Bay. The phenomenon of shutting down solo general practices is one that has now been going on for several years and is continuing. I contacted the hardworking CEOs of those two GP networks: Kath Ferry, who is the CEO of the Bayside GP network; and Anne Peek, who is the CEO of the Dandenong-Casey GP network. I meet with them as often as I am able. They are able to keep me informed about issues of concern in the health system. They had some very favourable observations to make about this amending legislation, both of them saying, in effect, that it was desirable for the simple and obvious reason that it will make it easier for New Zealand doctors to come and work in Australia. It is likely that that will benefit electorates like mine and communities such as those I represent because it is likely to increase the availability of doctors and will deal with workforce shortages that are occurring in the middle and outer suburbs of our cities, even though those areas are not designated areas of workforce shortage. Kath Ferry, the CEO of the Bayside GP network, said, ‘The measures are desirable to make it easier for New Zealand doctors to work in Australia and will help to address workforce issues in areas like ours which are other than officially designated districts with workforce shortages.’
Anne Peek, whom I mentioned earlier, the CEO of the Dandenong-Casey GP network, said, ‘Not only are New Zealand doctors excellent but the proposed measure in this legislation will help our area enormously in addressing the supply of doctors.’ It is to be sincerely hoped that her expectation of the worth of this legislation is in fact realised.
The legislation has some other, minor changes in it, but the major measure that is contained in it is of course the appropriate recognition of the different status of New Zealand doctors who have received their training in Australian or New Zealand medical institutions. The second change is to amend the classification, which is presently used in the legislation, that places restrictions on a category of individuals known as—and this is the defined term—‘former overseas medical students’. That is to be amended to ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. It is an appropriate amendment to make because the term ‘former overseas medical student’ has been commonly misunderstood and has resulted in significant confusion among doctors. The term is very much intended to refer to foreign persons who graduate from an Australian medical school, and renaming the term as ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’ aims to remove this confusion.
The third matter that is dealt with by this legislation is the removal of the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have both permanent residency and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium period to commence. (Time expired)
I too rise to support the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. As we have just heard from my colleague, the member for Isaacs, this bill contains some straightforward and very common-sense changes to the Health Insurance Act 1973. Specifically, these amendments will streamline the operation of sections 19AB and 19AC of the act and in so doing will remove some anomalies and confusing terms that have created particular problems for doctors from New Zealand who are practising in Australia.
Those of us in parts of Australia characterised as districts of workforce shortage—or where we think we should be recognised as a district of workforce shortage—are familiar with section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act. I am sure that you, Deputy Speaker Saffin, have been in that situation yourself, coming from a regional part of Australia. Under normal circumstances overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students are subject to a moratorium of 10 years in terms of their access to a Medicare provider number. Those doctors cannot provide medical services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years from the date on which the person is both a medical practitioner and an Australian permanent resident or citizen.
That is where section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act comes in. That is the section that provides for an exemption to the restriction on overseas trained doctors providing services that attract Medicare benefits. Many of us have made representations on behalf of doctors or medical practices wishing to employ overseas trained doctors, and that always involves trying to make the case for an exemption under section 19AB on the basis that the practice is indeed serving a district of workforce shortage. These restrictions on the access of overseas trained doctors to Medicare provider numbers were introduced as a way of giving the government a direct means to encourage doctors to work in rural and remote areas. The 10-year moratorium, by restricting an overseas doctor’s right to practise, in one sense also creates an incentive for those doctors to provide services in rural and remote communities that would otherwise struggle to attract doctors. If you go bush you can avoid the moratorium and start providing Medicare rebateable services immediately.
Up until now New Zealand citizens and permanent resident doctors have also been caught up in these restrictions, with the 10-year moratorium being imposed on them. This is clearly not logical when New Zealand medical courses are accredited by the Australian Medical Council in exactly the same way that Australian courses are accredited. This bill, therefore, amends the Health Insurance Act to remove the anomaly relating to New Zealand doctors. People who are permanent residents or citizens of New Zealand and who obtained their primary medical education at an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school will be removed from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’. This makes sense and will not change the strict standards that will apply to those New Zealand doctors practising in Australia. Because of the requirement that they must be a graduate of an Australian Medical Council accredited medical course, their qualifications, even when received from a New Zealand university, will be the equivalent of an Australian graduate.
The second amendment in this bill relates to the use of the term ‘former overseas medical student’ in the Health Insurance Act. Currently section 19AB of the act imposes the Medicare restrictions on those ‘former overseas medical students’, meaning someone who attended an Australian medical school for their primary medical degree but who was not an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time they were enrolled. This has proved to be misunderstood and has caused confusion among the medical profession. Instead, the term to be used in the act will now be ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. This better reflects the situation of doctors whose nationality is foreign but whose education is Australian. The use of terms has been tidied up but the effect of the section in the original act is the same—the moratorium will apply to foreign graduates of accredited medical schools because of the requirement for the 10 years to run from the time you are both a permanent resident or citizen and a medical practitioner.
The third amendment in this bill will be welcomed by those doctors who are currently subject to the moratorium, because for some of those doctors the starting point of the 10-year period has been delayed by ignoring any period the doctor might have been working in the country as a temporary resident. The amendment removes the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have both permanent residency and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium period to commence. This overlooks the reality that most overseas trained doctors enter Australia as temporary skilled migrants, usually for a four-year stay. Many then apply during those four years to become permanent residents.
As is currently drafted, the Health Insurance Act provides for the 10-year moratorium period to start from the time a person is both a permanent resident and a medical practitioner. Under the current arrangements, those doctors who move from temporary residency to permanent residency, and who have been working in a district of workforce shortage in order to obtain the exemption under section 19AB effectively have the 10-year moratorium extended by a matter of some years. This bill will mean that the 10-year moratorium period starts from the time the medical practitioner is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia and will cease after 10 years, provided that the practitioner has gained permanent residency or citizenship during that period. This is much more in line with the original intent of the moratorium and is fairer to overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates.
Finally, the bill contains an amendment that will place a time limit on appeals against a decision made pursuant to section 19AB. Those practitioners or medical practices that wish to appeal against a decision by the minister to refuse an exemption sought under 19AB will now have to appeal within 90 days of that decision. This is a commonsense amendment to ensure that there have not been substantial changes in circumstances between the time of the original determination and the subsequent reconsideration by the minister.
The debate on this bill gives us the chance as well to talk about medical workforce issues more generally, and I am sure that most people in the debate have taken that opportunity. It particularly allows me to recognise the role of overseas trained doctors and other health professionals in keeping services going in many parts of my electorate. We should acknowledge their contribution while at the same time recognise that we need to address the underlying factors that have caused us to rely so heavily on the skills of overseas trained health professionals. For the time I have been in parliament, there have been significant problems with workforce shortages across the health system. Whether it is nurses, doctors, specialists or those working in aged care, a lot of the issues we have faced in Central Queensland have come back to the difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. As a fairly new government, we are still dealing with the legacy of the previous government’s failure to properly plan for our health workforce needs. That was exemplified by one of the Howard government’s earliest decisions to cut the number of GP training places. In contrast, I am pleased to say that one of the first things this government did was to increase the number of GP training places. Those places will jump from 600 in 2004 to more than 800 in 2011. That represents something like a 35 per cent increase in GP training places.
We know that for most people it is the wait to see a GP, or being told that GPs in their town are not taking new places, that is the clearest sign that our workforce is not keeping up with demand and also that our health workforce is not effectively distributed—and that hits us hardest in rural and regional Australia. That is why the federal government has moved to prioritise rural health and rural health workforce needs. The 2009-10 federal budget included a significant measure, the Rural Health Workforce Strategy, which encompasses a number of initiatives that aim to better target workforce incentives to communities in greatest need. One of the components of that package is the introduction of the Australian Standard Geographic Classification Remoteness Area system as a measure of eligibility for a number of workforce programs. This new system will replace the previous Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas system. One of the things that the Australian Standard Geographic Classification Remoteness Area system looks at is how to scale or allocate incentives when it comes to trying to attract and retain health professionals in rural and regional areas. It means that the use of this new classification system will result in an estimated 2,400 doctors in rural communities across Australia being able to access incentives for the first time. Almost 500 communities around Australia will become eligible for rural incentive payments.
I am pleased to say that Rockhampton, which is the major town in my electorate, is one of those communities eligible for rural incentive payments under this new classification system. I would hope to see those incentive payments being taken up by health professionals, and a subsequent increase in the number of health professionals choosing to set up practice and join practices in Rockhampton.
The other thing that the government is doing is continuing the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program that was available under the previous government, and I am happy to see that it has been continued by this Labor government. There was recently an announcement, which was very welcome in my electorate, of about $43,000 being paid to the Central Queensland Physio Group to provide additional services in the community of Yeppoon. Yeppoon is a beautiful seaside town, about 30 kilometres east of Rockhampton. It is a very fast-growing community and one of those places where demand for medical services and allied health services is very quickly outstripping supply. It used to be the case, when I first started in this House, that it was quite acceptable and the people in Yeppoon thought it was reasonable to travel into Rockhampton for services. But Yeppoon has really come of age. It is one of the fastest growing places in Queensland and it is really not the case any more that people in Yeppoon should have to travel outside of their community to access basic health and allied health services.
Central Queensland Physio Group have recognised this and have set up practice in Yeppoon, but this additional money will allow them to expand the services they can provide out of their new building. It will mean they can have room for more physiotherapists than they originally anticipated and will also be able to provide equipment and room for services like podiatry. That is going to be great for those people living on the Capricorn Coast. It is a recognition that the Capricorn Coast, and Yeppoon in particular, is really coming of age and that these basic health services should be provided right there in that community and not require people to travel into Rockhampton, which has traditionally been the major centre for these kinds of medical services.
I want to congratulate the principals of CQ Physio Group, Jim Griggs and Ben McGuire. They provide a terrific service to Central Queensland, not just Rockhampton but also the Capricorn Coast, and also out to the mining towns. They really play a strong role in training up-and-coming physios and training physio students and those who are just starting out in the profession. They also play a very active role in the community, encouraging people to stay fit and active and to take responsibility for their own health. Congratulations to Ben and Jim and to the team at CQ Physio Group. It was a great pleasure to be able to tell them a few weeks ago that they were successful in their bid for funding under the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program.
The support for health services in Central Queensland from this government goes well beyond $43,000 for the CQ Physio Group. Earlier this year it was announced in the budget that the Rockhampton Base Hospital would be the recipient of $76 million for a major upgrade of facilities there. That is on top of the $75 million that the state government has already contributed towards the upgrade of the hospital. We are seeing some really exciting things happening at the base hospital, which will create the facilities and capacity to boost the services available. I think there have been cranes and work crews up at the Rockhampton Base Hospital for as long as anyone in Rockhampton can remember, but it is all going towards building us a health service that will see us well into the new century by recognising the growth and development that is going on in Central Queensland and by making sure that those essential services keep up with the demands of a growing population that is being attracted by the booming economy.
While that building program is still going on, one thing that is already up and running as part of those new facilities is the long awaited, full-time MRI machine in Rockhampton. This is something that goes back quite a few years. I think I was lobbying and campaigning for this in the lead-up to the 2004 election. It was still an issue in the 2007 election and I secured a commitment from Nicola Roxon, who is now the Minister for Health and Ageing, that the Rockhampton Base Hospital would be given an MRI licence. The state government has purchased the MRI machine and is providing for its operation, but the federal government, through granting that licence, is effectively picking up the tab for the services provided by that MRI machine. Up until now, we have had a part-time machine in Rockhampton. We had a situation where the MRI machine was operated by a private company. It was located in a very large truck and was driven up and down the coast between Rockhampton, Gladstone and Bundaberg. But it has been recognised for some time that a hospital the size of the Rockhampton Base Hospital that provides the level of services it does needs a permanent MRI machine. That was something that I campaigned very hard on in the lead-up to the 2007 election because I saw it as a facility that was really essential in providing world-class health care in my electorate.
The next thing to work on is the Rockhampton Base Hospital’s bid to be considered as one of the regional cancer centres. The health minister announced that applications for the regional cancer centres program opened up a couple of weeks ago and I think, with the development that is already happening at the Rockhampton Base Hospital, there would be great scope to really increase the bang for the buck if it were successful in a bid to be a region cancer centre. The building that is going on right now is creating additional capacity at the hospital and it would dovetail very nicely if we were to secure additional funding for a regional cancer centre and fully integrate that into the development that is already going on. I am right behind that application by Queensland Health and I hope the case can be successfully made to secure funding to again increase the level of service available in Rockhampton.
If we ever get out of this place, I am looking forward to having a consultation with representatives from the health sector on Wednesday and looking at the recommendations from the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. Hopefully I can get out of here on Wednesday but, until then, I stand here and commend the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 to the House.
I thank the member for Capricornia, and I am sure we all share her sentiments about getting out of this place at some stage.
I take this opportunity to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. As others have already said, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to, firstly, remove restrictions which apply to New Zealand permanent resident and citizen medical practitioners who have obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand and, secondly, remove the specification in the act that the period of 10 years during which overseas trained doctors are restricted from accessing Medicare benefits must commence from the time doctors become permanent Australians, even if they become medical practitioners prior to gaining that residency status. The bill also introduces a time period in which medical practitioners can appeal against the refusal to grant a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose conditions in connection with an exemption which has been granted.
In essence, this bill not only removes unnecessary barriers to New Zealand medical practitioners but also eliminates the discrimination that currently applies between New Zealand medical practitioners and other New Zealand professionals who work in Australia. For years this country has had a special immigration arrangement with New Zealand whereby New Zealanders and Australians can travel and work much more freely between the two countries than can people of other nationalities. But, because of the specific requirements relating to doctors working in this country, that same freedom relating to New Zealanders does not apply to medical practitioners. This bill seeks to remove that aspect of the medical requirements to ensure that New Zealanders, regardless of whether they are medical practitioners or related professionals, have the same ability to work freely in this country as their other professional counterparts.
The government is also responding to the health needs of the nation and the inadequate level of services available in many parts of the country. These services have deteriorated over the last decade because of the neglect and buck-passing by the previous Howard government, which cut a billion dollars from the states under the last health agreement. Specifically, in relation to this bill, the Howard government failed to invest in sufficient university medical training places. Not surprisingly, we are now faced with a shortage of medical practitioners around the country and particularly in regional and remote communities. It was not just in the number of medical practitioners that fell. Using the latest international comparisons, in 2006-07 Australia spent 8.7 per cent of its gross domestic product on health. That was less than the OECD median expenditure of nine per cent of GDP and considerably less than the weighted average of 11.2 per cent of GDP across the 29 OECD countries that we were compared with. It might only be a couple of per cent but as we all know a couple of per cent in terms of real budgets equates to billions of dollars.
The Rudd government takes seriously its health obligations and the commitments it has made to the Australian people. Since coming to office, the Rudd government has invested $64 billion in the nation’s hospital and health system over the next five years. That is a 50 per cent increase on the previous agreement between the former government and the states. The Rudd government has invested $600 million in the elective surgery program and $750 million in taking pressure off more than 30 hospital emergency departments. The Rudd government is also now undertaking historic investment in nation-building health infrastructure by investing $3.2 billion in 36 major projects across our hospital and medical research initiatives, including $1.2 billion in world-class cancer centres.
The Rudd government has also committed $275 million for some 36 GP super clinics across the country, and $500 million has been approved for sub-acute care to help older people leave hospital and free up hospital beds. The Rudd government will also invest $1.1 billion in training more doctors, nurses and other health professionals. This is the single biggest investment in the health workforce ever made by an Australian government. The commitment will see an additional 812 ongoing GP training places from 2011 onwards, which represents a 35 per cent increase on the cap of 600 places imposed since 2004 by the previous coalition government.
One area of particular concern to the people I represent in Makin, and I expect of concern to people across Australia, is dental health care. I understand some 650,000 Australians are currently on public dental waiting lists. The Rudd government when it came to office committed a total of $650 million for two dental programs. One is the teen dental program, which provides a $150 annual payment to eligible families. It commenced last year and, to the end of December, 258,203 teenagers had received a dental check-up under the program, with 7,598 dentists providing services. Regrettably and unfortunately, due to the Liberals standing in our way in the Senate, the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which would provide up to a million consultations, has not been able to commence.
The Rudd government also commissioned and is now considering the recommendations of the comprehensive report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, led by Dr Christine Bennett. That report is the product of 16 months of consultations, research and deliberations by the commission. It provided the government with 123 recommendations, which the government, through its consultations across the country right now, is in the process of considering. I want to quote from page 3 of the executive summary of that report, because it effectively summarises the state of our health system in Australia. It says:
The case for health reform is compelling.
The health of our people is critical to our national economy, our national security and, arguably, our national identity. Our own health and the health of our families are key determinants of our wellbeing. Health is one of the most important issues for the Australian people, and it is an issue upon which they rightly expect strong leadership from governments.
While the Australian health system has many strengths, it is a system under growing pressure, particularly as the health needs of our population change. We face significant challenges, including large increases in demand for and expenditure on health care, unacceptable inequities in health outcomes and access to services, growing concerns about safety and quality, workforce shortages, and inefficiency.
Further, we have a fragmented health system with a complex division of funding responsibilities and performance accountabilities between different levels of government. It is ill-equipped to respond to these challenges.
That is part of the executive summary of the Bennett inquiry. I suspect that very few of us in this place would disagree with those comments.
I mentioned earlier that, amongst the Rudd government’s commitments, $275 million had been allocated towards the provision of GP superclinics across the country. I particularly note and welcome that one of those GP superclinics will be established in the Makin electorate, which I represent. This particular clinic has a special status in that it will be established in partnership with the Rann state Labor government, which has also committed a matching amount of $12.5 million towards the clinic, so that it will be a $25 million GP superclinic. That collaboration has enabled us not only to carefully plan for and identify the location of the GP superclinic but, more importantly, to very carefully and methodically work through the range of services that will be made available from the clinic.
I understand that work on all of that is progressing and that the first services are expected to be provided from the clinic in the second part of 2010. The concept being supported is one whereby there will be a new facility established on Smart Road in Modbury, close to the Modbury hospital, and a range of medical and allied services will be provided from that facility. I also understand that a support facility is intended to be established on North East Road at Hillcrest, a few kilometres away, that will be linked to the Modbury GP superclinic and will form, in essence, an outreach centre of that superclinic.
I know from my discussions with people, including many of the medical people, out in the community that there are shortages and we could do much better in the delivery of health services to the people in Makin. I also know that there has been an incredible amount of pressure on the Modbury hospital outpatients department over recent years as a result of insufficient medical services being available. I look forward to the establishment of the GP superclinic in Modbury because I know that it will not only deliver much-needed services to the people I represent but also take pressure off the Modbury hospital and allow it to get on with providing the hospital services that it was established to provide.
I am grateful to Minister Nicola Roxon and to the South Australian state government Minister for Health, John Hill, for the cooperation and support I have seen from them in working through this complex problem. The funds have been committed. We want to see those funds being used in the most cost-effective way. And that is exactly what has been happening. To those who might say that it has taken us two years to deliver on this election commitment, I say: it is a process that we committed to, but we also committed to the necessary consultation that has taken place over recent months and the necessary planning to ensure that we deliver the best possible service when the doors to the new superclinic open.
I mentioned earlier the concern about the lack of funding for sufficient training places for medical practitioners in our universities over recent years and how that has resulted in a shortage of medical practitioners right across the country. I note that regional and remote parts of Australia in particular have been hit by those shortages because, not surprisingly, any medical graduate or medical professional who comes into this country would much prefer, in most cases, to work in one of the urban or city areas. It is not surprising that they do not particularly want to go out and work in remote and regional areas of Australia, and the government recognises that and has tried to provide additional incentives for them to do so.
But the shortages do not only apply in regional and remote areas; they also occur in metropolitan areas of our major capital cities. Certainly I am aware that we have had and still have shortages in parts of the Adelaide metropolitan area. I do not recall the exact figures but I do recall very clearly that the ratio of doctors to the community out in the northern suburbs of Adelaide was much lower than in other parts of Adelaide. Not surprisingly, when I was elected to this place I was made aware of the difficulty that people were having in securing appointments with their local GPs within a reasonable time. I can well recall one person ringing me up, quite frustrated and concerned that she was unable to get her daughter in to see her local GP for some three weeks; her daughter needed medical attention much earlier than that for an urgent issue. Having rung a number of GP service providers in the area, she had been unable to secure an appointment. That is the sort of thing that we need to overcome. It should not occur in Australia. Yet it did occur, because we were not training enough doctors in this country.
It would take some years for us to correct that shortage if we were to rely simply on medical students graduating from our universities. Clearly, therefore, the answer lies in attracting medical professionals to this country from overseas. That is what has been happening in recent years and it will continue to happen until we do have more medical graduates coming out of our own universities. In the interim, we need to change the regulations relating to those medical graduates who come from overseas—whether from New Zealand or any other country—to make it much easier for them to get on with providing the medical services that they are quite properly qualified and trained to do, because the sooner we can do that the sooner the Australian community will be the beneficiaries of the services they are calling out for.
I believe this bill is a critical step towards doing that. Yes, it addresses very specifically the case of medical practitioners who come from New Zealand, but it also deals with other matters that relate to some of the barriers in place against overseas-trained medical professionals. The sooner we can break down those barriers the better off the Australian community will be. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.
It is good to see so many members on the government side of the House taking the opportunity to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009, which recognises two areas that are very important to us all. The first is, of course, ensuring that we have a medical workforce that is able to meet the needs of all our communities. The second is acknowledging the very strong and extraordinary relationship that exists between Australia and New Zealand. We do bag the Kiwis at just about every opportunity, and I am desperately trying not to do so in this speech, so if it slips in, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you can call me to order.
Our two countries are well and truly tied together by our proximity, our way of life, our business relationships and our family ties. In fact, as I stand on my feet now, my older sister, who has been living in New Zealand with her family for 30 years, is flying to Brisbane to get together for Christmas. I do hope we get out of here in time for me to see her. I think we might; I hope we do.
We do have a special status between our peoples and between our businesses, and we also have a special status that is recognised in law. Under the 1973 trans-Tasman travel arrangements, citizens of Australia and New Zealand can move freely between the two countries. We can live, visit and work in each other’s country without the need for a specific authority. But, under the changes to the Migration Act in September 1994, Australia required all noncitizens lawfully in Australia to hold a visa. This led to the introduction of a special visa to accommodate that Australia-New Zealand relationship. A new visa called an Australian special category visa was created. This means that, when a New Zealand citizen presents their passport to immigration at the airport, they are considered to have applied for a visa and, subject to health or character considerations, automatically receives that special category visa, which is then recorded.
While in Australia, New Zealand citizens can live here and work here as if they are permanent residents or citizens, even though they are not. People from both countries travel to the other country to study. As long as a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who is staying in Australia is studying accountancy or engineering, that is fine. But, when they choose to study medicine, the Migration Act bumps up against the Health Insurance Act 1973 and creates consequences for graduates of New Zealand citizenship which are at odds with the special relationship between our two countries. New Zealand medical students studying in Australia have, in effect, permanent resident status without the need to attain permanent residency, but under the Health Insurance Act they are treated very much as if they are temporary residents because they are captured under the definition of ‘former overseas medical students’ in section 19AB of the act. That definition includes a person whose primary medical qualification was attained from a medical school located in Australia but who was not a permanent resident or an Australian citizen when he or she first enrolled at a medical school in Australia.
This amendment proposes to remove New Zealand citizens and permanent residents from the category of former overseas medical students, and there is a very good reason to do that—it is more than just a technical matter. Currently, former overseas medical students are subject to what is known as the 10-year moratorium. Doctors who are former overseas students who were trained in Australia are ineligible to claim Medicare benefits for 10 years unless they meet some specific criteria, usually involving practising in rural areas where there are shortages of health specialists.
It was known by the mid-nineties that Australia was not producing sufficient medical practitioners to meet the health needs of its population. In 1997 the 10-year moratorium was introduced. Overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students can be granted an exemption from that restriction under section 19AB if they work in a district of workforce shortage. Section 19AB is one of the key mechanisms which the government uses to influence where doctors work and ensure that we have an appropriate workforce in rural and remote areas of Australia. The 10-year moratorium has proved to be a particularly effective mechanism. It is well known that some 41 per cent of doctors in those shortage areas have trained overseas.
We continue to be largely reliant upon overseas doctors in rural and remote areas, and in that respect we are not that much different from many other OECD countries: Canada, the UK and the United States, all of which have relatively large percentages of foreign trained doctors working in areas of shortages. These changes, of course, will exempt New Zealand doctors who trained in Australia or in accredited universities in New Zealand from that moratorium. It will allow them to work freely in Australia on the same basis as Australian doctors, in keeping with the special relationship we have between the peoples of our two countries.
I am particularly proud of the medical training that takes place in my electorate of Parramatta. The University of Western Sydney is the key trainer of nurses in the state of New South Wales. It has an exceptionally good-quality nursing training facility at both the undergraduate and the postgraduate level. We also have a recently opened medical school in Western Sydney which fulfils an extremely important role in training people for our region and beyond. It is good to know that some two-thirds of the people studying in that facility come from the local area of Western Sydney, because unless we have those training facilities in our own region it is very difficult to attract the number of medical practitioners that we need.
We are also making some changes to the 10-year moratorium process. In this year’s budget there was some $134 million for a rural package to encourage more doctors into rural areas. We have also adjusted the 10-year moratorium so that it is scaled so that the more remote you are the shorter the moratorium. From 1 July next year, some 3,600 overseas trained doctors who have restrictions on where they can practise will be able to discharge their obligations sooner, depending on where they choose to work—again, an important adjustment that ensures we have appropriate medical services in all of our communities.
We have also introduced an extensive workforce reform program that will deliver the biggest ever investment in workforce through a COAG partnership that delivers training for the huge increase in Australian trained graduates, which will increase from 12,700 positions this year to some 14,700 in 2013. That is being delivered through a $1.6 billion COAG partnership. As part of that, there will be support for undergraduate clinical training for 13,800 medical students, many of whom will be in the region of Western Sydney, and some 38,500 nursing students and allied health students in 2010. We are also providing a significant boost to help train some 18,000 nurse supervisors through a $28 million allocation of funds and an additional 7,000 medical supervisors. These are important additions to the support for medical services training, and I was very proud to see them put forward in this year’s budget.
This is an important bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you can see by the number of people who have spoken on it, particularly on this side of the House. It will deliver some significant benefits to the relatively small number of New Zealanders who study in Australia or choose to practise in Australia having studied in Australia. It is a relatively small number but they are an incredibly important group for this country, given our special relationship. I commend the bill to House.
I too rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. Like many people in the House, I have been waiting all year to speak on this piece of legislation. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove the restrictions which apply to New Zealand permanent resident and citizen medical practitioners who obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand and the specification in the act that the period of 10 years during which overseas trained doctors are restricted from accessing Medicare benefits must commence from the time the doctors become permanent resident Australians, even if they became medical practitioners prior to gaining that residency status. The bill also introduces a time period in which medical practitioners can appeal against a refusal to grant a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose conditions in connection with an exemption which has been granted.
For New Zealand overseas trained doctors, this will be a welcome administrative clean-up, but, taken in the context of the Rudd government’s commitment to making changes in health generally, this will lay down one more plank in a nice solid platform for the Australian public. There are some scary facts out there, such as the reality that the very first baby boomers will be retiring next year—or will be eligible for the pension next year; I guess some will have retired beforehand. The people from the late World War II and post World War II baby boom in Australia—and around the world, but I am talking about Australians in particular—will be confronting our health system in great waves starting from next year. So it is important that we get our health system prepared and ready for the realities of an ageing Australia and, unfortunately, a slightly unhealthier Australia.
The member for Griffith, the now Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made a commitment in the lead-up to election night in 2007 to end the blame game when it came to health, to end the playing of politics in health and to instead deliver something which is in the nation’s interests and which saves and changes lives. We are not the sort of government to make political decisions like the decision to take control of one single hospital down in a marginal seat in Tasmania. We are not a government that believe in that sort of thing. We believe in preparing the nation for some challenges that are ahead.
To that end, we have had 80-odd health forums around Australia conducted by the Prime Minister; the Minister for Health and Ageing; the Minister for Ageing, Justine Elliot; and many other ministers. Below that, we have had another 80- or 90-odd other health forums conducted by backbenchers. I was fortunate enough to be with Minister Justine Elliott at the PA Hospital on the south side of Brisbane at one of these health forums, and the mood that was in the air and the way people responded to this government that goes out and talks to the professionals, the people at the coalface, about what their concerns are—their challenges, what they are doing well, what the opportunities are and what the threats are—were incredible. That was a great forum with Minister Justine Elliot. I had another at the Mater Hospital, also on the south side of Brisbane, with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—it is his local hospital, but it services all of Queensland and particularly the south side of Brisbane—and Health Minister Nicola Roxon. I did my own health summit as well in my electorate office. I would particularly like to acknowledge the great work done by the Southside Division of General Practice, who provided me with great insights into some of the challenges on the south side but also some of the things that we are doing well and should continue to do and maybe pour some more money into.
It is one thing to talk to the people; it is another thing to actually do some real good. Obviously, money talks, and that is why the Rudd government poured money right from the word go into addressing some of the waiting lists that have grown over the last few years as the Howard government ripped over $1 billion—it is quite criminal really—out of the hospital system. They were happy to play politics with health, to say that it was a state issue and it was all the states’ fault. But, at the same time as they were pointing at the states with one finger, they were then reaching around and taking money out of their back pocket with the other hand. That is what they were doing, playing politics with the health system, and, unfortunately, that means playing politics with people’s lives. It does not take long to wander around a hospital to find people whose lives were changed significantly by the fact that their health system had been underfunded certainly in this century, in this decade, under the Howard government.
If we kept increasing the money going into health at the current rates, we would end up with a health budget and no other budget—no defence, no education, no support, no arts, no culture; it would all be health—so we obviously cannot continue to do that. As I said, we have got an ageing population and people are having fewer children. Disturbingly, people are also becoming quite unhealthy. I saw some data the other day saying that prepubescent girls are actually some of the fattest people in the world. Australia has got a gold medal in something like that, a gold medal that we should be ashamed of. It is scary to think that in 2009 we are creating a generation that will have a shorter life expectancy than ours. It is not something that we as a nation can be proud of. It makes us unworthy of the title of a civilisation if we are not able to produce a healthier lifestyle and children with a brighter future. We are getting something horribly wrong. Throw into that something like the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which is hovering around over in the red chamber, and we can see that we really need to get things right for the next couple of generations.
So what do you do? In terms of remedying that dreadful health diagnosis, you train more doctors and dentists. Both of those courses have been underfunded. But obviously that takes time. I would like to commend one of the universities in my electorate, the Griffith University, for what they have done in taking on medicine. But it takes time to turn a student into a doctor, a GP out there and able to save lives and change lives. It takes many, many years of study and then many years of training on the job.
So what else can you do? You can do something about prevention. A dollar spent on prevention is not the same as ‘a stitch in time saves nine’, but a dollar in time can save five or six dollars; that’s for sure. So we need to put more money into prevention. At the moment, if we look at our health budget, only about two per cent actually goes into prevention. When you look at the increase in chronic diseases, things like heart disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—that is basically to do with the lungs and is connected to smoking or some workplace exposure or maybe even pollution—they are all on the rise. But, thankfully, we are able to combat those increases by a little bit of education and a bit of targeted activity.
I think we are guilty of having some poor workplace practices in this building. Perhaps we do not make the option of exercise something to be embraced by parliamentarians, as it should be. It is good to see that there are people who do set the right example. The reality is that we need to change our community’s approach to these chronic diseases. Too many people are dying too young because of preventable diseases.
I turn to the legislation before the chamber. We are particularly focusing on New Zealand overseas trained doctors. However, I would like to digress and mention the fact that overseas trained doctors from places other than New Zealand have made a significant change to Australian culture. Why? For a start, most of them are in rural and remote areas. If you look at the recent survey, you will see that 3,028 overseas trained doctors are working in general practice—1,068 of them being in capital cities and 1,437 in rural and remote areas due to district workforce shortages. That is a nice little figure that presents itself from the legislation. I know, coming from a country town myself, that doctors are seen as very significant people in communities. They are some of the better paid people, especially in rural communities, and what they say has sway on how the community treats people. It has been quite a cultural shift for the bush to have these 1,437 overseas trained doctors working in rural communities. It has meant a great stirring of Australian culture because so many of our bush traditions and rural traditions have now been melded and stirred and mixed in with these other traditions from all over the world.
A Zimbabwean doctor of Pakistani descent, say, can be working in rural Queensland and suddenly they have to find a mosque or some sort of way to pray and mix in with the local community. It has been a great insight into how open Australians are to change. Most Australians—97 per cent—come from overseas. So to have these rural communities suddenly having these influences from all around the world inside their community with these significant people—and they are doctors; as I said, they are very important people—augers well for the definition of what Australia is. Whatever that definition is, it is a much more lively and entertaining definition now because of the influence of these overseas trained doctors.
Obviously the legislation before us is about remedying a wrong and making sure that New Zealand overseas trained doctors are looked after as well as possible so that they can continue to do the great work in their communities. About three per cent of my electorate comprise people of New Zealand birth, which is about the norm for most electorates—except perhaps in Bondi or some places such as that where it might be higher. We have such a close connection with New Zealand. I am sure one day they will forgive us for the underarm bowling incident.
Never!
They certainly will not forget, but one day they might forgive. We have such a close friendship with them and we compete with them in so many sports. They play such an important part in our community. But the legislation before the House is about remedying the wrong that occurred there so that they can continue to do great work. I commend the legislation to the chamber.
I rise today to support the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 and support the member for Moreton and others on this side who have made a contribution to this debate. The Rudd government are committed to improving the health system in this country. We have shown that through our ongoing investments in GP superclinics, in cutting elective surgery waiting lists and in improving cancer services. This bill is another measure and another step along the road to improving the healthcare system in this country.
The member for Moreton and others have touched on the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report, which is an important part of an overall look at the healthcare system. It was great to have the Prime Minister in my electorate in the middle of this year to undertake a commissioned consultation at the Cairns Base Hospital following the recommendations coming down. I know local GPs, hospital staff, nurses and allied health professionals enjoyed the opportunity to make direct contributions to that report. The report is important in terms of looking at the overall health system. We need to make sure that, going forward, we address issues such as the ageing population as well as the real challenges we face with preventable disease—such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity, or other diseases that we can prevent—becoming a real burden on society to a point where they gobble up the entire federal and state budgets.
We need to ensure that we put in place a sustainable healthcare system. That is why the Rudd government has put a focus on health; it is a priority. This bill is just one of the things that we are doing along the way to create a fairer and better system not only for New Zealand trained doctors but also for overseas trained doctors. It is part of our overall commitment to address and improve the health system in this country. This bill goes to the shortage of doctors in Australia and the need to ensure that overseas trained doctors, as I have said, are treated fairly and appropriately if we are to continue to attract them to Australia. It allows Australia to recognise the close relationship between New Zealand and Australia and the valuable contribution that New Zealand doctors make to Australia.
The purpose of the bill is to streamline the operation of section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act and remove a number of anomalies. Section 19AB of the act provides that overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students are not able to provide professional services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years—the 10-year moratorium. The bill amends the class of persons subject to the restrictions in section 19AB of the act and amends the moratorium period. The bill removes current restrictions applicable to doctors who are New Zealand permanent residents and citizens and who obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. The change effectively removes these doctors from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’ and ‘former overseas medical student’ in section 19AB of the act, which is fantastic for New Zealand trained doctors.
Another important provision goes to the issue of overseas trained doctors generally. It removes the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have both Australian permanent residency or citizenship and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium to commence. What we are basically talking about here is that, under the current system, you need to be registered and an Australian citizen or a permanent resident before the 10-year moratorium commences. We want to change that so that registration in Australia becomes the starting point. Many overseas trained doctors have been forced to work well in excess of 10 years before their services have become eligible for Medicare benefits. If you take five years to get permanent residency or Australian citizenship, it is only fair that, after a 10-year contribution to the community as a citizen or a permanent resident, this be recognised.
It is fair and I think it is going to help Australia attract good quality overseas trained doctors because they are going to get recognised within what is a 10-year period. They will not have to wait until they get their residency or their citizenship before they start the 10-year moratorium period. When the legislation was introduced it was about ensuring that, when you became registered in Australia, you had practised for 10 years as an overseas trained doctor and you needed to become a permanent resident or an Australian citizen. After 10 years the intent was that your services would be eligible for benefits under the Medicare schedule. Under the current laws that is not possible.
It is a good day for the number of overseas trained doctors who would have been here for longer than 10 years and are now residents or citizens and will now be able to access Medicare benefits. I think that is good, particularly for many doctors in rural and regional Australia.
I represent the great electorate of Leichhardt, the region including Cairns, the Cape York Peninsula, the Torres Strait and, who can forget, in the wonderful former Douglas shire, Port Douglas and Palm Cove. They are wonderful tourist icons, there is an international airport and it is a great place to live. We do love good-quality people coming to live in the far north—in Cairns, Cape York and the Torres Strait—and we do need more doctors up there. Cairns has been an area of district workforce shortage in the past and it is an area that we are looking to attract doctors to, which means ensuring that they will be treated fairly.
Under this legislation, doctors from New Zealand will be able to get registered and recognised appropriately here, and overseas trained doctors from other parts of the world will, after the moratorium period, be recognised appropriately within that 10-year period. As I said in the beginning, this is part of one of our overall steps to improve the healthcare system. It is maybe only a little step in terms of the bigger picture but it is a very important step for those overseas trained doctors and for New Zealand doctors who may be living here now or thinking about coming here to work in places like Cairns or in other parts of the country. So it is part of our overall plan to improve the health system—unlike the former government, which ripped a billion dollars out of the public hospital system and had no workforce strategy to ensure that we did not get to the situation we have in many communities across the country, where there is a crisis in the availability of doctors and nurses.
Through the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and our workforce planning we have started the work of developing up health strategies and workforce planning strategies for this nation. This year we are spending more than $700 million, which we will invest in better targeted workforce initiatives in rural communities. That is a 45 per cent funding increase for rural programs compared to the $483 million provided by the previous government in its last full year, 2006-07.
The government is making the necessary reforms to rural health policy in order to ensure that incentives respond to current population trends and provide the most support to communities in greatest need, because we not only need good quality overseas trained doctors; we need to make sure that we have incentives in place so that doctors want to work in rural, remote and regional areas like the ones I represent—Cairns, Cape York and the Torres Strait. I know that my electorate is benefiting from these reforms.
There was a $134.4 million package in this year’s budget to respond directly to medical workforce shortages in rural and remote communities. Part of this package is the introduction of Australian standard geographic classification remoteness areas as a measure of eligibility for a number of workplace programs. It will replace the outdated rural, remote and metropolitan areas classification, the old RRMA system. The new package will encompass a number of initiatives that aim to better target workforce incentives to communities in the greatest need. These reforms are based on scaling or gearing of incentives in return of service obligations to provide greatest benefit to the most remote communities, where there is the greatest need, and transition of program eligibility in a new geographic remoteness classification system. It is estimated that the transition to the new system will see 2,400 doctors in rural communities being able to access incentives for the first time. Almost 500 communities around Australia will become eligible for rural incentive payments.
The rural incentive package announced by the Rudd government in the 2009 budget, as I said, will directly benefit my electorate of Leichhardt. A doctor relocating to Cairns and surrounding suburbs from a capital city will be eligible for a $30,000 relocation incentive for the first time, and around $18,000 per year after working in Cairns for five years. If doctors move from Brisbane or another capital city to Cooktown, north of Cairns, for example, they will be eligible for a $60,000 relocation payment and will be paid $13,500 after their first year working in Cooktown. This yearly retention rate grows to $27,000 every year after they have been in Cooktown for five years. These are great initiatives to attract doctors to regional centres and to rural and remote areas. But this legislation is not just about making it fairer for overseas trained doctors, New Zealand trained doctors; it is also about ensuring that we have in place a system that encourages Australian doctors to work in rural and regional areas, because many overseas trained doctors effectively end up working in rural and remote areas.
This is part of an overall package to improve the health system in this country. As I said, there are plenty of things happening in my electorate. We had 10 or 12 years of not a lot happening but we have seen quite a bit happen since the Rudd government was elected, across the spectrum of health. I want to touch on a few of those initiatives and those commitments that we have achieved in my electorate of Leichhardt. We know that dental care is a particularly important challenge that we face. We are talking today about the availability of overseas trained doctors, including New Zealand trained doctors. I have already spoken about some of the strategies we have put in place to attract doctors to rural and regional areas. We have also got a shortage of dentists in this country—another area where we need to do more in terms of the workforce shortages. I am very pleased that the Rudd government has committed almost $50 million to support James Cook University in developing a dental school. I see the member for Herbert here; they have got a great medical school in Townsville, and they are building a dental school in Cairns, the other hub of James Cook University. I know that the member for Herbert will welcome the ongoing growth of the university that we have in the north and the far north. It is certainly a wonderful university. I was out there earlier in the year and had an opportunity to meet with a number of students and to open some of the training facilities. I congratulate Professor Ian Wronski and his team for the work they are doing in bringing the dental school on.
We have also committed $8 million to the Cairns Base Hospital, and the state government has provided $450 million for the redevelopment of the hospital, which is a fantastic commitment from them. We are working in partnership with them to improve health services in the far north. The $8 million we have committed to the Cairns Base Hospital is for a new MRI machine and a Medicare licence to provide recurrent funding for the operation of the machine. In 2004 I ran for office and unfortunately was not elected, but I made a commitment that we would get an MRI machine at Cairns Base Hospital. Unfortunately, the Howard government was returned in 2004 and there was no MRI machine for the Cairns Base Hospital, but I ran again in 2007 and got elected, and it is wonderful news that we have continued that commitment to see an MRI machine in the Cairns Base Hospital. The Rudd government has delivered on it already.
It shows the difference between this side of the chamber and the other side. We can talk about providing more doctors in a city like Cairns and we can talk about providing better facilities. An MRI is a classic example. Many times people came to the Cairns Base Hospital for an MRI, but there was no access to an MRI machine so they were airlifted to Townsville. Now we have an MRI machine at Cairns Base Hospital, people will get the assessment, the treatment and the care they need at Cairns and they do not have to go on to Townsville for that. That is good news, and that is the sort of improvement in health care that we have managed to achieve under the Rudd government.
We also made an $8.3 million commitment towards a radiation oncology facility in Cairns Base Hospital. This is being built in partnership with the state government and is well progressed. It is going to be known as the Liz Plummer Memorial Centre. Liz was a great campaigner for oncology services in Cairns, and tragically we lost Liz this year. I know Max and her family would still be hurting, as the community is hurting, over the loss of Liz. She was a great Australian and a great member of the Cairns community.
I can confirm that.
The member for Longman, who obviously knew her, can confirm that as well. She will be sadly missed. But her efforts will be remembered through the better oncology and cancer services in Cairns. COUCH are doing a wonderful job, and it is great to be able to work in partnership with the Queensland government to deliver the Liz Plummer Memorial Centre, which will be a great addition and improvement to Cairns cancer treatment facilities.
I am also looking forward to working with the hospital foundation under the leadership of Ken Chapman, and also Bob McGill and the COUCH team, on the work that they are doing with the Queensland government, putting in a submission to the new federal government cancer centres funding that was announced in the budget earlier this year. I have spoken with the minister, Nicola Roxon, about that and I look forward to continuing to work with the local community, the private sector and the base hospital to see what we can do to continue to improve cancer services in Cairns, building on the work that COUCH has done and the work that people like Liz Plummer have done and the contribution they have made to the community of Cairns. Improved services in Cairns benefit Cape York, the tablelands and the Torres Strait. They benefit a lot of people in rural and regional Queensland. I am looking forward to continuing to work with those groups and the Queensland government to develop better services and a submission for a cancer centre for Cairns as part of the package that was announced by the health minister following the budget.
So, as I said, we have made considerable contributions to cancer services through the MRI and radiation oncology commitment. We had $500,000 for expanded chemotherapy services at Cairns Base Hospital that were opened this year. We have also put additional funding into Indigenous health. There was $307,000 this year for the Apunipima Cape York Health Council to employ an additional community GP who will provide primary health care services in Mapoon and Napranum communities on a shared basis. We have also delivered $291,000 a year to assist the council to implement a family centre primary health care model in Mossman Gorge with the Queensland government in order to establish a similar model to the one operating in Mapoon. These are examples of what we are doing in Indigenous healthcare support.
Earlier this year we announced $5 million for Mookai Rosie to build a new 24-bed facility. That is about closing the gap and improving the quality of facilities available to Indigenous mothers from the Cape, the Torres Strait and the Gulf who have to come to Cairns to have their babies. Mookai Rosie does a wonderful job. It is a wonderful Indigenous organisation that was set up by Aunty Rose many years ago to provide support for mums who came down to the Cairns Base Hospital and did not have anywhere to stay. Rose took them home, and subsequently a group worked together to establish Mookai Rosie. I am very pleased and proud that the Rudd government is investing $5 million to build a new facility for this organisation, because they have done a wonderful job. This will effectively expand their facility from, I think, 12 beds to a facility that will have 24 beds.
We have a new breast cancer nurse for Cairns as part of the McGrath Foundation. It was great to be with Glenn and the health minister when we announced that. They are doing a good job. That is another example of the work that we are doing on improving cancer services and support in Cairns.
We are spending $10 million as part of our Economic Security Strategy to improve and redevelop the health precinct at the Tropical North Queensland Institute of TAFE. We have $12.8 million in the budget this year to improve health care in the Torres Strait, including $9.2 million over four years for the expansion of the Saibai Island clinic and the provision of staff housing to facilitate delivery of an HIV-AIDS and STI support and education program, plus $2.9 million over four years to continue support for a joint Australian government and Queensland government mosquito control program. There are significant health risks and issues across the border between the Torres Strait and Papua New Guinea.
These are just some of the health initiatives that we are implementing and working on as the Rudd government. The government take health care very seriously. We are very serious about making a difference to working Australians and the types of services that they receive. We came to power ripping up Work Choices, improving education through the education revolution and making very strong commitments around improving health services. Today’s bill is a technical bill that goes to the issues around overseas trained doctors and New Zealand trained doctors, but it is part of an overall commitment that we have to improve health services in this country. I am very proud to be part of a government that makes commitments and delivers on them. It is a government that is making a difference not only in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne but also in places like Cairns, Cape York and the Torres Strait. It is a good government, it is a strong government and I look forward to being part of it in the future.
I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. Let me say at the outset that, whilst it is not my intention to revisit all of the issues that have been raised in terms of what we on this side of the parliament see as very definite shortcomings in the Health portfolio under the former Howard government, I concur with my colleagues who raised those in detail earlier. The main provision of this bill relates to the current restrictions applicable to doctors who are New Zealand permanent residents and citizens—I will come back to that in a moment—who have obtained primary medical accreditation at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand.
The health professions in Australia and New Zealand are fairly heavily intertwined. All but one of the colleges of surgeons—I think there are 11 or so—are termed ‘Australasian’ or ‘Australia and New Zealand’. Joint Australia-New Zealand organisations provide the same training for higher roles in the medical professions. It makes sense that training for general practitioners should be provided in the same way, but the College of General Practitioners is the one college that is not a joint Australia-New Zealand college—there are separate colleges in Australia and New Zealand.
We have heard a lot about section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act and the 10-year moratorium that restricts foreign trained overseas doctors from providing medical services that attract a Medicare rebate—for example, pathology tests—or referring patients to a specialist. We have heard quite a deal about how doctors in that category are able to go and work in an area of workforce shortage in order to overcome the moratorium and get a Medicare number for rebatable services. Provided that they stay there for 10 years, when they emerge from the bush after their 10-year hiatus—if they ever do emerge; the bush lifestyle really grows on the people who go out there and I imagine medical professionals would get used to living in some of those small towns—they will have full capacity to charge for Medicare rebatable services.
But what we have not heard spoken about much today is the fact that there is a shorter course that can be taken, particularly for harder to fill positions. This bill provides for a gradual diminishing of the 10-year provision for those who remain on it—not the New Zealanders, of course—depending on the remoteness of the area or the difficulty in filling the position that they take up. But already in place is a five-year moratorium—or what I like to think of as a short course—for particularly hard to fill positions, where overseas trained doctors in certain categories are able to get full Medicare accreditation in a shorter time. This process is handled by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners rather than by the Australian Medical Council.
It is very interesting to look at who is able to access this five-year provision. This scheme has four real requirements. The first requirement is that doctors complete five years in a practice in an agreed rural location—and that can even be reduced to three years if they go to a significantly remote area. The second requirement is that they obtain fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The third requirement is that they obtain permanent residency in Australia. The fourth requirement is that they meet all the requirements of the state or territory administering the scheme.
Which doctors can access this scheme? Interestingly enough, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners divides doctors into a number of categories. In category 1, there are GPs who hold a fellowship with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, along with certain doctors from Canada and the United Kingdom. This group of doctors is immediately eligible for admission into the fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Doctors in the next group, category 2, are able to get onto this short course, if you like, provided that, within two years, they successfully complete the exam to become fellows of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. This group includes certain doctors from the UK, Ireland, South Africa, the USA and Singapore.
The health architecture in this country is, I must say, particularly convoluted. On the one hand, we are creating a group of doctors who are from certain areas and who have a special relationship with us and, on the other hand, we are, through this legislation, bypassing some of those relationships and giving doctors from New Zealand an extra special relationship with Australia. As has been said a number of times, Australians and New Zealanders have an interesting relationship. The suggestion has been made on a number of occasions, but particularly back in the 1890s, that New Zealand should form part of the federation or Commonwealth that has become Australia. That was not to happen. And I suspect that it will not happen until enough New Zealanders have taken out Australian citizenship so that we can regularly beat the All Blacks at rugby!
It is a friendly rivalry that we have between our countries. Nowhere else would you think of getting away with wearing a T-shirt that said ‘I barrack for two teams—New Zealand and anybody who is playing Australia’. But here we are today proposing to make not just New Zealand doctors but doctors who are resident in New Zealand a little more equal than Australian resident doctors. For example, the removal of the 19AB requirements applies to New Zealand trained doctors, whether they are trained at one of the two AMC accredited universities in New Zealand or whether they are trained in Australia, and also to New Zealand resident doctors. Hence, a doctor who is a resident in New Zealand but is a citizen of a third country can come to Australia and not have to work through the 19AB or 10-year moratorium restriction, whereas a doctor who is a resident of Australia but a citizen of another country other than New Zealand and who is working in Australia does not have that restriction lifted from them, despite the fact that they have done their medical training in an Australian university. I think it is an anomaly, and I suspect it is an anomaly that we are going to want to correct in the future.
The bill makes a couple of other minor changes. It puts in place some time limits on applications or appeals against a rejection of the 19AB exemption and puts forward sensible measures in relation to when the clock stops clicking for those people who are subject to the 10-year moratorium.
Having made those few comments, I want to talk about some of the issues that I am discovering in my seat of Longman—and I will be brief. Members who followed the 2007 election campaign and people who live in my area will know that, during that campaign, I gave a very strong indication that, while hospitals were and for the moment will remain the province of the state governments, I believe that in our area of South-East Queensland, which is fast becoming the northern outskirts of Brisbane, we need to make provision for another hospital. There is a lot of talk about expanding the Caboolture Hospital. The nearest estimate of what that would cost is $600 million. It may be much more economical to look for another site than to put a fourth hospital in that part of Brisbane.
I have heard plenty of talk today about doctor shortages. Doctor shortages happen everywhere. They are a consequence of decisions that were made in this country earlier on, in the last 10 years or so—but not just in this country; I have spent a fair bit of time in New Zealand, a fair bit of time in England and a little bit of time in America and let me tell you that the headlines in each of those countries relating to health issues are just the same as the headlines that run in the papers here in Australia. Doctor shortages is a worldwide phenomenon and it is something that is going to be very difficult to overcome even in the longer term, I suggest, as the population rapidly ages and as medical technology enables people to live longer—and I think we all want to do that. I think all of us look at the health profession as what keeps us alive and keeps us from finding out what there is after death.
So those shortages are going to occur, but what I am also noticing is not a rush but a move from small practices to major medical centres in towns, and I have noticed that is part of what is happening in my electorate. In one case doctors from one practice were offered a sign-on fee to close that practice and move to another practice some 18 or 20 kilometres away, which caused great distress for the patients. Those doctors, as I understand it, were given a financial enticement to do so and left. The other clinic closure that happened in my area was a consequence of the global financial crisis where the practice, as I understand it, had overextended itself through borrowings from the American market and was not able to keep running.
Doctor shortages and hospital overcrowding, particularly in emergency centres, are pretty much features of every community. I am not aware of anybody who thinks that they have enough medical services in their electorate. I would like to suggest one thing that might help overcrowding at hospital emergency centres. It is a change to the Medicare act to allow the state governments, who are running hospitals, to employ general practitioners to meet patients at public clinics at a hospital and bulk-bill Medicare for it, because these are indeed the patients who are clogging up the emergency centres and who are making complaints about state hospitals on the basis that they are often waiting enormous lengths of time while people with serious injuries are prioritised above them as they come in.
In talking in favour of this bill, I do want to point out that there is an unintended anomaly that we are going to have to look at in the future. I think that we can extend the scope of overseas doctors to whom this kind of treatment can be given, particularly the Canadian and UK doctors who join with the New Zealand doctors in the short course as to the five-year moratorium for hard to fill positions that I mentioned. I think this bill will go a long way to assisting people in the remote locations, in the bush, to acquire doctors. I know that the Rural Doctors Association has said that the system has not been particularly successful. However, the fact that somewhere in the area of 40 to 45 per cent of doctors practising in rural Australia are overseas trained doctors shows that it has been of some help. Obviously, the rural medical schools, such as the one at James Cook University, will help people who have a fondness for their community and want to help their community and who will train through these schools and will do well.
I want to finish by saying that I did not know until I heard the previous speaker say it that the oncology unit at the Cairns Base Hospital is going to be named for Liz Plummer. Liz and Max were friends of mine in excess of 25 years ago. I remember both Liz and Max as wonderful people and I was very saddened to hear that Liz had passed away. I send to Max and family my and Carryn’s best wishes and look forward to catching up with him sometime later on when I get to Cairns again. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. This bill will make four amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973. Before I go to the detail of the amendments, I wish to comment on the context in which this bill arises. Many speakers, if not every speaker, during the debate on this bill have spoken about the shortage of general practitioners in their local communities. The electorate of Petrie is no different in that respect. I have been given anecdotal evidence over the past two years by local doctors about our ageing GPs and the concerns about the future of medical services in the local area. In an area with a significantly large elderly population, it is of great concern that people throughout my community will continue to experience difficulties in getting access to timely medical assistance. Of course, we know the risk if people are unable to visit their local GP: these people end up in our emergency wards.
The Rudd government has recognised that shortage of doctors in Australia is one of the more significant problems in our health system along with the shortage of other health and allied health professionals. On 22 September 2008, the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, announced that the federal government would boost training for junior doctors in general practice. This commitment is taken in an effort to increase the number of GPs across Australia. Throughout 2009 $20 million was announced to fund approximately 80 additional places in a program which enables junior doctors to undertake short-term supervised training placements in general practices, bringing the total to 360. This program increases training capacity in the early years of a doctor’s postgraduate training by providing opportunities for junior doctors to gain clinical training experience in primary care. Of course, the range of initiatives announced by the Rudd government and the minister for health to lift the number of trained doctors in Australia will not result in additional doctors in our communities and in our hospitals overnight. Training as a doctor in Australia takes many years and Australia is proud of its training to produce high-quality doctors that will service our communities well into the future.
It is fair to say that Australia still needs to rely on a number of doctors from overseas. I understand that overseas trained doctors have caused concern in recent years. People want to make sure that our system of registration of doctors from overseas is vigorous and robust to ensure that foreign doctors are, at the least, equally qualified to those who train within Australia. This is extremely important. I support the need for a thorough process to ensure that the proper checks on qualifications are made and the history of the doctor is considered by the relevant medical authorities in Australia prior to registration being granted.
That brings me to the proposed amendments in the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. This bill provides more access to certain trained doctors to provide professional services that attract Medicare benefits. It does not make it easier for foreign doctors to practise in Australia. It is important that those doctors who are given registration to practise in Australia are given fair access to Medicare benefits for the professional services that they provide, where they meet the relevant requirements.
The Health Insurance Act 1973 does not, it can be argued, provide fair access for doctors who have in fact been providing a professional service in Australia for some time or for persons who are not Australian residents but have attended a medical school in Australia. Equally unfair exclusion applies to Australian citizens who have attained their medical qualifications in New Zealand. The proposed amendments in the bill before the House address this inequity. Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 provides that overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students are not able to provide professional services that attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years, known as the 10-year moratorium. This bill amends the class of person subject to the restrictions in section 19AB and amends the start date of the moratorium period.
The first amendment removes from the classification of overseas trained doctor persons who are permanent residents or citizens of New Zealand and who obtain their primary medical education at an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school. As New Zealand citizens are categorised under the Migration Act 1958 as temporary residents of Australia, they currently fall outside the definition of overseas trained doctor. Despite this status under the Migration Act, New Zealand citizens, as we know, have been afforded many rights in Australia, including being afforded permanent residency rights under the Australian Citizenship Act.
In addition to the general status of New Zealand citizens who choose to reside in Australia, New Zealand doctors who have trained in New Zealand are in fact undertaking studies that are accredited by the Australian Medical Council. These students are accredited to the same standards as students of Australian medical schools. The proposed amendment will provide some equity in the way New Zealand trained doctors are able to provide professional services within Australia. Of course, it is only reasonable to then apply the same equity to New Zealand citizens who have studied at an Australian medical school and who seek to practise here. This amendment provides equity with Australian doctors by ensuring that New Zealand doctors are not defined as overseas trained doctors and as such are not required to comply with the 10-year moratorium. This amendment will also rectify another anomaly wherein an Australian citizen could elect to study at a New Zealand medical school. As these Australians did not gain their primary medical degree in Australia, they are also subject to section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act.
The second amendment changes the category ‘former overseas medical student’ to ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. This amendment seeks to remove the confusion that caused among some doctors by the term former overseas medical student. This category, which attracts restrictions under section 19AB, is meant to refer to foreign persons who graduate from an Australian medical school. Altering the name of the category is aimed at removing this confusion.
The third amendment removes the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have both permanent residency and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium period to commence. Currently, doctors who are trained overseas or who are non-citizens of Australia who completed their medical studies in Australia can find themselves being excluded from providing professional services that attract Medicare benefits for a period much longer than the 10-year moratorium. The reason this can occur is that the current framing of the Health Insurance Act requires that the 10-year moratorium does not commence until the person becomes both an Australian permanent resident or citizen and a medical practitioner.
Australia has a migration policy that requires individuals who seek to obtain permanent residency to go through an application process. This process has a number of steps and can take some time. In the meantime, if granted by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship a person is able to reside in Australia on a visa while their application is being considered. This individual may actually be a doctor who has received registration and is providing services within Australia. If, for any reason, the immigration process takes, for example, five years then it is only at the point of the application for permanent residency being granted that the 10-year moratorium period commences.
In setting time frames, it is not the intention of the legislators to establish a process that enables the time frame to be much greater than that prescribed. That is, however, what the current act does. The amendment in this bill will ensure that the act will better reflect what the intent of the section is. The bill will break the mandatory nexus between registration and residency or citizenship so that the 10 years can commence immediately upon registration. The bill, however, continues to ensure that the doctor’s professional services do not attract medical benefits unless the person is an Australian resident or Australian citizen by ensuring that the moratorium will cease after 10 years if the medical practitioner has gained residency or citizenship during that 10-year period. This requirement is much more reflective of the realities of gaining such migration status while ensuring that these benefits are only extended to doctors who have become Australian residents or citizens.
The last amendment is to introduce a maximum period of 90 days in which medical practitioners can appeal against a decision to refuse to grant an exemption or a decision to impose conditions on an exemption pursuant to sections 19AB(3) and 19AB(4) of the act. It is important that those doctors who are refused an exemption, or where a decision to impose conditions on an exemption has been made, have the right of appeal and that right of appeal is considered within a timely manner. It is also important that certainty exist to ensure that appeal processes do not continue indefinitely.
To ensure that proper consideration is given to decisions under appeal, it is important that the review of such decisions occur within a time frame that ensures that the materials are relevant and current at the time of such consideration. Under the Health Insurance Act 2009, there is no time limit for seeking a review under section 19AC. It is a common aspect of legal systems, tribunals and other bodies of review throughout Australia to set time limitations on the filing of claims. This right of appeal or review under section 19AC of the Health Insurance Act 2009 should not be exempt in this regard. The 90-day time limit proposed in this bill before the House is reasonable, considering the circumstances and the nature of the appeal or review sought. This will ensure that any decision to overturn the original decision can be made in a timely manner on the basis of current information.
Overall the amendments put forward in this bill address a number of anomalies that exist in the current act and will provide reasonable access to New Zealand doctors and Australian doctors trained in New Zealand to provide professional services that attract Medicare benefits. This bill will also ensure that overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school are not required to wait beyond the 10-year moratorium, where residency or citizenship is obtained. Lastly, this bill provides an improved process for the effective management of appeals and reviews.
This bill is a positive piece of legislation for Australia’s health system. It will not result in an influx of overseas trained doctors, but it will provide more fairness in the system and may encourage overseas trained doctors or foreign persons trained within Australia to remain in Australia long-term and assist in addressing the shortage of doctors throughout Australia.
It is pleasing to hear those on the opposition side supporting this bill. It is certainly a bill worthy of support. However, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to highlight some of the less than beneficial actions by those on the other side of this chamber in relation to addressing the genuine health issues in this country. While the Rudd government has been undertaking the most significant review of the health and hospital system in Australia, the opposition has been belligerent in its conduct. The Rudd government is tackling national issues such as: the lack of health expenditure on preventative health; one-third of Australians presenting to public hospital emergency departments are not being seen within a clinically recommended time; one out of every six Australians on a waiting list for elective surgery are not being seen within the clinically recommended time; it is estimated that there are some 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists, with an average wait of two years for essential dental treatment; and about two-thirds of people who need mental health care go untreated. In addition, health costs are rising rapidly: from $84 billion in 2003 to $246 billion in 2033, or about nine per cent of GDP now to 12.4 per cent of GDP in 2033. These are the challenges identified in the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report released on 27 July 2009.
The opposition has been blocking important legislation which aims to assist in the reform of health and hospitals in Australia. An example is the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008, which sought to provide authority for the cost recovery of services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the exercise of powers for listing medicines, vaccines and other products or services on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and designation of vaccines for the National Immunisation Program. The Liberal Party delayed this bill for 12 months, costing the government at least $9.4 million expected in 2008-09. That is revenue that could have been redirected to support improvements in the health sector.
We all know of the delays and confusion from the opposition on the excise and customs bills, better known as the alcopops bills. Then there was the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-Off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. The Liberal backbenchers supported these bills in their submissions to this chamber. However, the shadow health minister could not bring himself to say anything positive about the new initiatives. More recently we have had the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009, which is now sitting in limbo in the Senate. The Rudd government is not standing still on our health reforms, with the health minister reintroducing the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 after the Liberal Party in the Senate rejected this bill earlier this year.
Whether it is child health, hospitals, aged care, Indigenous health, rural and remote health, mental health or dental health this government is committed to tackling the needs of Australians now and into the future. The Rudd government has already committed to investing $64 billion in the hospital and health system across the country over the next five years—a 50 per cent increase on the previous agreement by the Liberals. We have invested $600 million in our elective surgery program. Stage 1 committed to a target of 25,000 extra elective surgeries in 2008 but delivered more than 41,000 procedures. In stage 2 more than 150 hospitals will receive funding across Australia and we have invested $750 million in taking pressure off emergency departments.
The Rudd government has also invested in new health infrastructure, in investing in our health workforce and in preventive health measures. The government has committed to a total of $650 million for two dental programs and will invest $1.6 billion to improve Indigenous health. Additional funding has also gone into aged cared. For the future, the government has embarked upon a path to build the health and hospital system that Australia needs for the 21st century. The government has committed to an overhaul of the health system to ensure that it can cope with future challenges, including an ageing population and rising healthcare costs.
The government has already undertaken many more measures to deal with the critical issue of health services. In an electorate such as Petrie, we do not take the health system for granted. We know more needs to be done; we know that the federal government through the national health and hospitals reform process is serious about finding solutions for the future—solutions that plan for the long term. Already my area has seen the commitment of the federal government in announcing a GP super clinic. This clinic will be known as the Moreton Bay Integrated Care Centre and will have a strong focus on preventive health. These centres around the country will complement any future initiatives that the government implements to improve the health services for our communities. I support this bill before the House today and look forward to supporting many more health reform initiatives by the Rudd government.
Can I at the outset commend the member for Petrie for her fine contribution in respect of this legislation and on health generally—
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting
and perhaps commiserate with the member for Cowper as the only member of the opposition who seems to have been able to find his way into the chamber at this point in time in the debate. I say to members of the public gallery that the activities in the corridors, I suspect, rather than in the chamber, are taking precedence.
I, like many others, rather than debating the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009, would prefer to be debating bills regarding the health of our environment and giving effect to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and genuinely taking action on climate change. Nevertheless, the matter before the House is the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill.
As we have heard from many previous speakers, this bill seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973. That act currently provides that Medicare benefits are not payable in respect of professional services provided by an overseas trained doctor or a former overseas medical student except in certain circumstances. This bill seeks to streamline the operations of the act and this provision, consistent with government policy and complementing workforce reforms the government has implemented, especially in relation to the rural medical workforce. In particular, this bill amends the class of persons subject to the restrictions in section 19AB of the act and amends the start date for the 10-year moratorium period. The bill proposes to remove New Zealand permanent residents and citizens who have obtained their medical qualifications from an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’. Consequently, such doctors will no longer be restricted by the 10-year moratorium imposed by the act. They will still be subject to the requirement that they have obtained appropriate recognition of their medical qualifications in order to access the Medicare Benefits Scheme.
The bill also redefines the classification of ‘former overseas medical student’ to ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’. This is a better reflection of the actual definition of this class of person, meaning ‘students of Australian medical schools who were not an Australian citizen or permanent resident when they enrolled in their primary medical degree at an Australian medical school’. Another important provision is the removal of the requirement for overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to have both Australian permanent residency or citizenship and medical registration in order for the 10-year moratorium to commence. The 10-year moratorium has been an effective mechanism in ensuring that overseas trained doctors provide services to those communities with the greatest need for medical practitioners. These communities are most often in rural and remote areas. As the Minister for Health and Ageing identified in her second reading speech, some 41 per cent of all doctors in Australia in rural and remote areas have trained overseas. However, in my own outer metropolitan electorate of Hasluck we have areas of significant unmet need. We are fortunate to have two very effective Divisions of General Practice in the Canning and Swan regions, and I am especially appreciative of the work of the Perth Primary Care Network. The division promotes a primary healthcare model that encourages partnered and collaborative approaches to health care. This has been the basis of the current after hours GP clinic at the Swan Health Campus that fills a vital need in our local community—the Swan and Midland regions, in particular—having been identified as an area that has a shortage of general practitioners. I am very fortunate to enjoy a good working relationship with the Perth Primary Care Network and I am very aware of the good work they do in providing quality and affordable health care to the Hasluck community.
The final reform that I want to address in the bill is the amendment to rectify the situation where the 10-year moratorium starts when the overseas trained doctor achieves permanent residency or citizenship in Australia. Many overseas trained doctors have entered Australia through temporary skilled visa categories or the business long stay visa class for initial periods of up to four years. The way the 10-year moratorium currently works excludes this service, as the doctors are temporary residents. This is not fair and this anomaly is corrected by the bill. The moratorium will also be scaled to give greater weight to periods of service in more remote communities so, to quote the minister, the more remote you go the shorter the moratorium. As I said at the outset, these amendments complement the medical workforce reforms being driven by the minister. I congratulate her on her work and for the changes she is bringing to the Australian healthcare system. Indeed, we had a very good exposition of those from the member for Petrie.
There are a range of Australian government initiatives aimed at recruiting and retaining GPs in rural and remote Australia. The Rudd government is investing more than $700 million to better target workforce incentives in rural communities. The government is making the necessary reforms to rural health policy in order to ensure that incentives respond to current population trends and provide the most support to the communities in the greatest need. The 2009-10 federal budget measure known as the rural health workforce strategy encompasses a number of initiatives that aim to better target workforce incentives to the communities in greatest need. This is a significant package of $134.4 million to respond to medical workforce shortages in rural and remote communities.
I cannot speak on a government health bill without referring to this year’s budget boost in my own electorate for the proposed Midland Health Campus. I welcome the Rudd government’s funding commitment of $180.1 million for the construction of the Midland Health Campus, an important hospital that services not only the outer metropolitan region of Perth but also the nearby rural and wheat belt towns and regions of Western Australia. This funding ensures that there is no need to delay the construction of the new hospital. I had been very concerned at recent media comments from the state government minister implying that the project would be put on the backburner and preference given to hospitals in the inner city and the western suburbs.
The redevelopment of the Midland Health Campus is vital to the people in the Swan region and surrounding country areas. Swan Districts Hospital Campus is no longer able to effectively meet the needs of the communities it serves and requires a replacement facility to be built in Midland. State health minister Kim Hames has said that the hospital would be delayed due to a lack of funding—a shortfall of $100 million. The substantial funding injection from the Rudd government ensures there is no reason why the hospital cannot be completed by 2013, as was first envisaged. Indeed, this funding should enable the state government to also overcome the rail and traffic issues surrounding Lloyd Street rail crossing that are concerning many local residents.
The Reid report, which is a very detailed study of our health and hospital needs in Western Australia, emphasised the importance of building hospitals and health infrastructure within the communities they serve. This new 300-bed hospital will offer state-of-the-art health care and services to the people of the east metropolitan corridor. This project is supported under the Rudd government’s nation building Health and Hospitals Fund, which is building health infrastructure for the 21st century while also creating and supporting employment opportunities in our local community.
However, moving back to the original piece of legislation before the House, this bill is a small but important part of the overall health reform agenda of the Rudd government. It makes some sensible and practical amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 which should ensure a smoother and more beneficial operation, especially for overseas trained doctors. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. The purpose of the bill is to streamline the operation of a section of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and remove a number of anomalies. Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act restricts overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students from providing professional services which attract Medicare benefits for a period of 10 years from the date on which the person is both a medical practitioner and an Australian permanent resident or citizen. This is commonly referred to as the 10-year moratorium. Overseas trained doctors and former overseas medical students may be granted an exemption from these restrictions if they work in a district of workforce shortage located in a rural, remote or outer metropolitan area.
This bill will amend sections 19AB and 19AC of the act. There are five amendments proposed in this bill. The first amendment will remove persons who are permanent residents or citizens of New Zealand and who obtained their primary medical education at an accredited Australian or New Zealand medical school from the classification of ‘overseas trained doctor’. Previously, a person was considered to be an overseas trained doctor if they obtained their primary medical degree from a medical school outside Australia.
The second amendment will rename the term ‘former overseas medical students’ to ‘foreign graduate of an accredited medical school’ to more accurately reflect the meaning of the term. This will address issues arising from New Zealand citizens who are able to stay permanently in Australia on a special category visa but who are not considered to be Australian permanent residents being restricted by the 10-year moratorium after they obtain their medical qualifications from an Australian medical school.
The third amendment will rectify an anomaly in section 19AB of the act which currently operates, in relation to a person who becomes a medical practitioner prior to becoming an Australian permanent resident or citizen, to count the 10-year moratorium from when the person achieves Australian permanent residency or citizenship. The amendment proposes that the 10-year restriction will commence from the time the medical practitioner is first registered as a medical practitioner in Australia and will cease after 10 years, provided the medical practitioner has gained permanent residency during that period.
Finally, section 19AC of the act will be amended to insert a time limit of 90 days during which an applicant can seek a review of a decision to refuse an application for a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose one or more conditions on a section 19AB exemption. These provisions will take effect from 1 April 2010 or when the legislation has received royal assent, whichever is the later date.
The Rudd government are strengthening our health system after years of neglect and buck-passing by the former Howard government. Let us have a look at some of the programs that the government have put in place in terms of hospitals. The government, through the COAG program, will invest $64 billion in hospitals and the health system across the country over the next five years. That is a 50 per cent increase on the previous agreement of the former government. We have invested $600 million in our elective surgery program. Stage 1 committed to a target of 25,000 extra elective surgeries in 2008 and delivered more than 41,000 procedures. Under stage 2, more than 150 hospitals will receive funding right across Australia. We have invested $750 million in taking pressure off emergency departments. More than 30 hospitals will benefit from this particular program.
Labor are now undertaking historic investment in nation-building health infrastructure. We are investing $3.2 million in 36 major projects across our hospital and medical research institutes, including $1.2 billion in world-class cancer centres, and we are providing $275 million to construct 34 GP superclinics across the country. One of those, at Warnervale, is a temporary one. A couple of months ago I had the pleasure of opening the temporary facility. Warnervale is in a fast-growing area of the Central Coast. Many of the other speakers on this bill have identified doctor shortages as being an issue. The areas of Warnervale and Hamlyn Terrace are new suburbs with new people moving in, but we do not have the doctors. By the end of 2010 this temporary GP superclinic will be permanent and will go a long way to assisting the doctor shortage in that area. This has happened with the absolute cooperation of the Central Coast Division of General Practice, which is a very enlightened division of general practice. It has worked with the government on almost all of the initiatives that the government have put forward on improving health.
I would like to commend Dr Phil Godden, who is the Chairperson of the Central Coast Division of General Practice, and Mr Bill Parker, the CEO, for the very cooperative and constructive approach that they have taken to both this GP superclinic and primary healthcare issues right across the Central Coast. In fact, they started from a position of having some scepticism about a GP superclinic and have moved to a position of absolute support. They are proposing to me ways in which the type of model that is set up for the GP superclinic can be expanded to many more GP practices on the Central Coast. This is a terrific initiative—$275 million has been provided to construct these GP superclinics across the country. As I said, we in Dobell are lucky enough to have one that not only provides those services but is inspiring other GP clinics in the area to look at adopting a similar model of delivery of service, and that is a terrific thing.
The Rudd government has also made available $500 million for subacute care to help older people leave hospital earlier and free up beds. As we know, one of the real problems with our hospital system is what is called bed blockage, whereby we do not have the type of transitional care that is required to get people out of public hospitals—they do not want to be stuck there, but they are not well enough to go home. This $500 million for subacute care provides the sort of assistance that gives people some dignity, gets them out of the hospitals and frees up those beds so that the hospitals can deal with the acute care issues that they are designed to deal with.
In terms of workforce, the Rudd government will invest $1.1 billion in training more doctors, nurses and other health professionals. This is the single biggest investment in the health workforce ever made by the Australian government. It will see 812 additional ongoing GP places from 2011 onwards—a 35 per cent increase on the cap of 600 places imposed in 2004 by the former Liberal government. Little wonder that our health system is experiencing these workforce shortages, given the previous government’s chronic lack of investment in training for doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in general right across the board. It is because the former government did not put the money into making sure that the health workforce was being properly trained that we are seeing these shortages right across our health system today. This government is determined to make sure we train enough doctors, enough nurses and enough allied health professionals so that when people need health care they can get the sort of health care they deserve and people will be available to provide that care.
This government will also deliver $134.4 million to better target existing incentives and provide additional non-financial support to rural doctors. The reform introduces incentives based on the principle that the more remote you go the greater the reward. Under this initiative, 2,400 more doctors in 500 communities around Australia will become newly eligible for rural incentive payments. We will deliver $122.7 million in a package of measures to improve choice and access to maternity services for pregnant women and new mothers by providing MBS and PBS benefits for services provided by midwives. This is a very important initiative and one that I know many people on this side of the House have spoken about before, but it is particularly important to the people of the Central Coast. Because of a lack of obstetricians, it was proposed that Wyong Hospital’s maternity ward would have to close. With initiatives like this the maternity ward has changed to being midwifery led. There are midwives there who are delivering two or three babies a day in this area because of the freedom that has been provided to them under this sort of package, which enables midwives to step in and provide that sort of service.
This government is providing access to the MBS and the PBS for nurse practitioners at a cost of $59.7 million. The government will also provide 20 nurse practitioner scholarships, 1,134 new annual Commonwealth-supported higher education places in national priority areas of nursing and a new incentive of $6,000 for eligible nurses who return to a hospital or aged care setting. These are practical steps for addressing the workforce shortages that this government inherited after the inaction of the previous government. They are very important measures to make sure that people are able to receive the sorts of health care that they should be able to get access to in a country like Australia.
Prevention is better than cure. This government is also recognising that fact and has invested a record $872 million—the largest, single investment ever in preventative health—to keep people fit, healthy and out of hospitals. We are providing child health checks for four-year-olds to promote early detection of chronic disease risk factors and funding of $12.8 million to 190 schools around the country to construct either a kitchen or a garden under the Stephanie Alexander kitchen garden program. In dental care, we have committed a total of $650 million to two new dental programs. The Teen Dental Plan commenced last year and provided a $150 million annual payment to eligible families. To the end of December, 258,203 teenagers will have received a dental check-up under this program with 7,598 dentists providing these services.
Unfortunately, due to the position that the opposition have taken in the Senate—not just on this issue but on many issues affecting families—the Commonwealth Dental Health Program that will provide up to one million consultations has been unable to commence. I take this opportunity to urge those opposite to get on with it, to make sure that those who have the greatest difficulty in paying for their dental care are able to access the Commonwealth dental health scheme which we have proposed. This scheme should not be held up in the other place. This is a measure for people who have chronic dental problems and it is being blocked by those opposite for the sake of some ideological position. This should be passed to ensure that there is better dental health care for older Australians and for those who cannot afford dental health care.
The government, along with the states and territories, will invest $1.6 billion through a number of partnerships to target chronic disease among Indigenous Australians. Chronic disease is the single largest contributor to the life expectancy gap. This government is determined to have a better approach to reducing the gap in life expectancy of Indigenous Australians. The enormous gap is shameful for all of us. This government is out there ensuring that we make those types of investments which go some way to reducing the life expectancy gap.
We have committed funding of over $44 billion over the next four years on age and community care. No government in the history of the Commonwealth has committed more. This is a record amount of money being spent on age and community care with more allocation of community places, as well as residential places. We are rolling out an additional 2,000 transitional care beds at a cost of $293.20 million. As I said earlier, this will help reduce pressure on hospitals.
Construction work is already underway on the government’s commitment of $300 million zero real interest loans to create more than 1,300 new beds in aged care. This year will provide $192 million for the National Respite for Carers Program, which funds a national network of more than 600 community based respite care services. Since being elected, we have improved and strengthened quality measures by increasing announced and unannounced visits to homes by 3,000 a year and by investing more than $127 million in the aged-care workforce.
For the future, the government has embarked on a path to build the health and hospital system that Australia needs for the 21st century. Last week the Minister for Health and Ageing hosted a consultation here at Parliament House with private health insurers and private hospitals to discuss the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission’s final report. It was the 76th consultation around the country to road-test the commission’s proposed reforms. Promoting personal wellness and combating chronic disease are priorities for the Rudd government.
The social and economic burden of chronic disease is unacceptably high. The government encourages private health insurance providers to continue to extend their products by including positive preventative health treatments such as those to quit smoking, to lose weight or to manage stress. Figures released just two weeks ago show that private health insurance membership continues to rise as Australians increasingly seek to improve their health, to stay well and to adopt preventive measures in their lifestyle.
At the most recent consultation the minister outlined the commission’s recommendations and discussed with the private health sector their priorities to improve the nation’s health system, including proposed modifications to Medicare that the commission called Denticare and Medicare Select. Denticare proposes that all Australians have universal access to preventative and restorative dental care and dentures, regardless of their ability to pay. People would have their choice of either a public or private insurer and in both cases Denticare would meet the costs incurred. Dental services are a large and growing part of private health insurance. This is an issue that is very close to my heart, and I spent many years in my former job campaigning to try to get governments to properly address dental care. We have had Medicare now for well over 26 years but, for some bizarre reason, when it comes to discussing dental care the mouth seems not to be part of the rest of the body. The proposal for Denticare firmly puts this issue right at the front and centre of some of the reforms that this government will look at and consider for the future of Australians’ health. It is one that I would urge us to look at very carefully and closely because of the health and lifestyle issues that people suffer from when they cannot afford to go to the dentist and illness occurs because their teeth are in such a chronic state. This is a very good recommendation that we should spend a considerable amount of time looking at with a view to adopting.
Consultations have been held in my electorate of Dobell, where the Minister for Health and Ageing visited Wyong Hospital. We consulted with front-line health professionals there about the ways in which the Rudd government can address the challenges in the health system. Wyong Hospital has benefited from the recent injection of $792,000 to improve elective surgery performance. The funding is part of stage 2 of the Australian government’s elective surgery waiting list reduction program. It has allowed the hospital to purchase additional surgical equipment to reduce the waiting times for elective surgery. Under stage 2 of the elective surgery plan the Rudd government provides funds to support the construction of new operating theatres, to upgrade existing elective surgery facilities and to purchase new surgical equipment to reduce waiting lists.
The visit was also part of the government’s national consultation program following the release of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report that I have been talking about. This is part of the Rudd government’s conversation with the nation to road-test the commission’s proposed reforms. It involves hearing first-hand what doctors, nurses and other health professionals think of the recommendations that will help shape the future of health and aged care in this country. We have already taken concrete steps to improve Australia’s health and hospital system, after 12 years of neglect by the previous government, under the first stage of the plan, which provided $150 million to Australian hospitals to increase the number of elective surgeries being carried out, and the other programs I have gone through in my contribution in this debate. This legislation in relation to New Zealand doctors is a small part of that, but an important part of the narrative of improving our health system, something that this government is very committed to. I commend the bill to the House.
The Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009 has been developed to find a solution to a problem that has been caused through certain health legislation and to accommodate our New Zealand friends’ rights to immigration. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove restrictions which apply to New Zealand permanent residents and citizens who are medical practitioners who obtained their primary medical education at an accredited medical school in Australia or New Zealand. The act specifies that the period of 10 years during which overseas trained doctors are restricted from accessing Medicare benefits must commence from the time the doctor becomes a permanent Australian resident, even if they became medical practitioners prior to gaining that residency status. The bill also introduces a time period in which medical examiners can appeal against the refusal to grant a section 19AB exemption or a decision to impose conditions in connection with an exemption which has been granted.
In the mid-1990s the view that Australia produced sufficient medical practitioners to meet the health needs of the population, which had dominated policy thinking for some years, began to be questioned as doctor shortages became increasingly obvious in rural and remote areas. Initially, because general practitioners and specialists were concentrated in major urban areas, it was considered that, rather than there being actual shortages in the medical workforce, there was a maldistribution between the bush and metropolitan areas. This thinking prompted the then government, following its election in 1996, to introduce legislation and initiatives intended to address medical workforce maldistribution.
As there is a constitutional restraint on governments which prevents them from introducing legislation to conscript the services of Australian medical practitioners to work in certain areas, doctors who obtained their primary medical qualifications overseas became the focus of government strategy. Amendments to the act were introduced which obliged those doctors to agree to practise in rural and remote areas where medical workforce shortages had been identified if they wished to access Medicare benefits for the services they provided. In addition to the restrictions on overseas trained doctors, the government of the day limited the granting of new Medicare provider numbers to people who had achieved minimum proficiency qualifications—that is, specialist medical qualifications including general practitioner qualifications.
The minimum proficiency requirements for new medical practitioners are imposed under section 19AA of the act. Under this section, medical doctors who were first recognised as medical practitioners on or after 1 November 1996 are unable to claim Medicare benefits unless they satisfy certain conditions. These are that they are recognised general practitioners, specialist or consultant physicians, or they are undertaking approved authorised placements.
Section 19AB of the act imposes restrictions on medical practitioners who did not obtain their primary medical qualifications in Australia. These medical practitioners are known as overseas trained doctors or international medical graduates. Under the 1996 legislation, permanent-resident overseas-trained doctors were not subject to restrictions if, before 1 January 1997, they were registered with an Australian medical board or eligible to have their qualifications assessed by a board. However, those who did not meet this requirement were not eligible to claim Medicare for a certain period. Those restrictions were commonly referred to as the 10-year moratorium. Temporary-resident overseas-trained doctors are subject to restrictions under section 19AB of the act for an indefinite period.
Exemptions to the requirements under section 19AB can be granted to overseas trained doctors if they agree to work in areas where medical workforce shortages have been identified. These areas are known as districts of workforce shortage—DWS. These are areas in which the community is considered to have less access to medical services than experienced by the population in general. This can be because of the remote nature of certain communities or because of the lack of services available to those communities, or a combination of the two factors.
Added to these details is the unique situation that New Zealand citizens have found themselves in as far as accessing Australian work and benefits is concerned. New Zealanders were allocated a special visa to accommodate the Australia-New Zealand relationship which was developed in 1973. That entitled the citizens the right to visit, live and work in each other’s countries. So when New Zealanders present their passports at immigration they are considered to have applied for a visa and, subject to health and character considerations, they automatically receive an Australian special category visa.
New Zealanders do not need to be granted permanent residency in Australia. They are allowed to remain and work in Australia lawfully as long as they remain New Zealand citizens. However, New Zealand citizens who arrived in Australia on or after 27 February 2001 must apply for and be granted Australian permanent residency if they wish to access certain social security payments, obtain Australian citizenship or sponsor their family members for permanent residency.
New Zealand medical students do not enjoy the status generally afforded to their fellow citizens. In fact, that applies to all New Zealand students, as I have found a number of New Zealanders living in Tasmania who have been trying to study there and have been asked to pay full fees as they are not Australian citizens. They are treated as temporary residents.
This bill is to try and rectify this. It proposes to remove New Zealand citizens and permanent residents from the category of ‘former overseas medical students’ and allow those who are here to train or retrain into this profession. However, it should be noted that the proposed changes to the legislation will not exempt New Zealanders from the requirements that apply to Australians, in that graduates of Australian medical schools will be required to gain postgraduate specialist medical qualifications or be in approved placements before they are able to access Medicare.
Hopefully this legislation will allow a few more locally trained but New Zealand born doctors to be available to practise in Australia. However, I do not believe that this alone can assist with the serious shortage of doctors and specialists in this country. I am aware that our waiting lists are not growing any shorter. In Tasmania we are faced with ongoing shortages wherever we look. Some of our few specialists have lately retired, been killed in accidents or, in a couple of cases, murdered—not for the work they did but maybe because of some of the pressures they come under.
We have to make the system work better. It is not right for people in their 70s to wait 18 months to four years to have elective surgery because insufficient operations can be carried out under Medicare because there are not the doctors or theatres to perform them. The state hospital systems are not coping with the demand. Surely it should be only a few months after diagnosis of the need for it that an operation takes place. Those in their late 60s or 70s do not have that sort of time left and cannot live a fulfilled life if they are in constant pain and anxiety from having to wait for an operation.
The Lyons electorate is a very country electorate that covers a wide-ranging area of Tasmania, and the problems seem even more obvious there. Many people who are on waiting lists even have to move away from their friends and relatives to get services to help them while they are waiting. When you have led a very active life, it is quite soul destroying to suddenly have your independence taken away from you. Private health insurance is not the answer, because, even if some of the older people can afford it, there are still huge gap fees which throw many of them back onto the public waiting lists because they simply cannot afford the ancillary costs.
Doctors are still leaving the state in droves or retiring because of the lack of attraction of being in the country areas. Tasmania as a whole is seen as regional and is not attractive to young doctors, who do not want to be bothered with the paperwork of a small practice and would prefer to work as a specialist from a set of professional rooms set up to look after the needs and the administration of a busy city practice that would allow reasonable hours of work and extremely good pay. Some young doctors spend some time in Tasmania as locums, around the coast, which I suppose is a good thing to do if you can get into it.
I think the profession needs to take some responsibility for the present model, which is now failing. Asking young doctors to work in broken-down cottages in country towns, without proper disability access, is unreasonable. A better concept would be to have all the health professionals working out of a regional centre accessible to all patients and where the practice can reach the high standards required by government without putting too much of a financial burden on one doctor. This would allow us to look at regional health and see which areas are falling behind and which have good health standards so that governments can put extra resources into regions that are showing poor health outcomes.
There is an article in the Launceston Examiner today which describes GPs wanting subsidised rent and cars if they are to practise in Launceston. Local government is not in the business of providing properties at reduced rental, even if they had any that were suitable, which they do not. In an attempt to attract more doctors some councils in my electorate have bought houses and cars for corporate medical companies that recruit doctors. The state government is reported to have been offering ‘European cars, overseas travel, mobile phones and entertainment credit cards as incentives’ to keep doctors and specialists in Tasmania. On top of that, they get their private patient fees. I am not sure where this will all lead. Simply, if we cannot afford doctors, other medical providers such as nurse practitioners and alternative medicine practitioners will be called upon to fill some of the gaps starting to emerge. Maybe we should look at the preventative healthcare angle more seriously and stop the need for a lot of people to take up elective procedures by keeping them healthier for longer. Of course that will not stop the accidents or the chronic ailments, but if we are able to live a more healthy lifestyle certainly it would help stop the desperate need for doctors being required to prop us all up as much as they do at present.
I am moving away from the bill a little, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must put in a plug for the those who know and understand the principles behind ‘be well’—a means of dealing with a recently diagnosed ailment, people to whom you can turn so that you can turn your life around and just ‘be well’. At the moment, you come out of a doctor’s appointment with a handful of pills but no instructions or understanding of what your body is doing and why you need all the things you have been prescribed nor any real direction on how you can improve your health, other than some vague suggestions about losing weight, giving up smoking or drinking or exercising more. Then you go to the supermarket and look at food labels which bear no relationship to what the doctor has told you. There is a need for major reform in labelling laws in Australia.
We need proper, long-term health assessments for individuals, which might be available under benefits. We do not even have medical check-ups for our electorate staff these days as we used to. This means that, if someone has a chronic condition, they cannot be assisted in the workplace, which often means time off without any means of helping that person to become healthier. Governments and large corporations, and even small ones, can do more here for their employees and save themselves money. This idea needs more research and for some models to be developed. We are also helping our New Zealand friends become a further part of our system in that, under this bill, they can train here now under Australian guidelines and receive payment. I believe that we have to have a complete look at health as it is delivered in Australia today and I believe that our minister, Minister Roxon, who is in the chamber, has started that process. But we have to deal with the relationship between doctors and governments, because I do not believe that is working very well.
In conclusion, restrictions on provider numbers for overseas trained medical practitioners were introduced in 1996 in an attempt to address doctor shortages, which at first it was thought were confined to rural and remote areas. The restrictions were criticised for a number of reasons, and there continues to be some argument that they have not achieved their objectives. However, given the significant number of overseas trained medical practitioners currently working in rural and remote areas, the claim that the restrictions have had no discernible impact on the medical workforce in the bush is less than convincing.
There are strategies in place to improve the number of Australian trained doctors, which it is hoped will further improve the rural medical workforce. These are long-term solutions to medical workforce shortages. However, there can be no guarantee that Australian trained doctors will opt to practise in areas of workforce shortages. It is likely, therefore, that provider number restrictions on overseas trained doctors will remain in place for some time. Given that this is the case, the decision to reconsider aspects of the restrictions that have been described as particularly onerous and incongruous appears to be a justifiable one. Indeed, it appears particularly unfair that some practitioners have been subject to restrictions for a period of more than 10 years, when it was not the intention of the original legislation for this to occur. Similarly, it appears contradictory to the special relationship afforded New Zealanders in Australia that those who choose to study medicine in Australian medical schools should be disadvantaged upon graduation. The legislation intends to remedy these anomalies.
The other proposed changes in this bill will set a time limit on the period in which medical practitioners can seek review of exemption decisions under section 19AB. Setting such a limit also appears sensible and is more likely to ensure that the circumstances under which a review process is conducted reflect the circumstances which prompted the original decision.
In effect, changes to the act for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents will not have a major negative impact on the number of doctors who are required to complete a 10-year period of service in rural and remote areas and areas of workforce shortage. There may be more impact on doctors’ numbers from the second change proposed in this bill, although it is not clear how many practitioners have been subject to an extended moratorium. However, in keeping with the original intent of the provider number legislation and from the perspective of fairness to doctors who have already made a notable contribution to health in rural and remote areas, it appears justifiable that any effects of the proposed changes should be absorbed. Finally, the third change in the legislation is likely to have a positive effect for administrative review processes that may be as beneficial to those seeking a review of decisions as to those undertaking those reviews. I certainly commend this bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
On indulgence: I would like to indicate to the House, as I undertook earlier in the day to do, that the House will be suspended at 6 pm tonight. The House will resume its continuation of sitting tomorrow morning on the ringing of the bells, anticipated to be at 11 o’clock. I have discussed this matter with the Manager of Opposition Business, who is unable to be in the chamber, but he is in agreement with those arrangements as outlined. Members will be advised as quickly as possible either tonight or tomorrow morning of the precise time of the ringing of the bells. As I say, suspension will be at 6 pm tonight, and the House is to come back tomorrow on the ringing of the bells, anticipated to be at 11 am, to enable those opposite to attend to party matters and, no doubt, to enable a number of senior figures to deal with media arrangements before the House resumes.
Debate resumed.
in reply—I have a few brief comments to make in summing up on the presentations from a large number of members of this House speaking on the Health Insurance Amendment (New Zealand Overseas Trained Doctors) Bill 2009. I would particularly like to take the opportunity to thank the more than 20 members of the government who have spoken on this bill in some detail. It has provided an opportunity for a fairly wide-ranging discussion about the difficulty in getting access to GPs, particularly in rural and regional Australia but also in outer metropolitan areas of the country, with the significant shortage of GPs, and about the very heavy reliance in rural and remote Australia on overseas trained doctors and the appreciation that many members feel for the services that are provided by those doctors. There is also a desire to be able to get the balance right of the number of graduates that we can train ourselves and the incentives that we can provide to ensure that there is a better distribution of doctors across the country than we have had previously, which are very significant legacies left to us by the previous government. As I have said, these contributions are making a clear statement about the importance of an overseas trained medical workforce in communities around the country and highlight the critical lack of planning for the health workforce needs of Australia and the decisions on planning that were not undertaken in the previous decade.
I indicated this in my second reading speech, as did many of those who spoke on the details of the bill, but I just want to reiterate that this bill removes the 10-year moratorium restriction for New Zealand citizens and permanent resident doctors who obtained their primary medical degree from an Australian or New Zealand medical school. It is important to note that New Zealand resident and citizen doctors will still be subject to the requirement that they have appropriate recognition of their qualifications in order to access the Medicare benefits system. As the member for Lyons mentioned in his speech, the bill also does a number of other things in rectifying anomalies and making sure that there are time limits for reviewing an exemption decision.
The 10-year moratorium will continue, along with the reforms to be implemented under the rural health workforce strategy, as part of the government’s commitment to recruit and retain GPs in rural and remote Australia. However, these measures make sure that the system is a fairer system that recognises the service to districts of workforce shortage and makes sure that doctors with New Zealand and Australian training are able to be treated appropriately. I think this is a positive change. I am very aware, as the Minister for Health and Ageing, that there are many other issues confronting our local communities to ensure that we do have health services that can be appropriately provided to those communities and I obviously intend to remain committed to pursuing those issues as well, and I thank the many members for taking the opportunity to raise the issues that are of concern to them.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating the Member for Denison to be a member of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Kerr be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, and the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Question agreed to.
The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip for the discharge and appointment of members to certain committees.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Morrison and Mrs Mirabella be discharged from the Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth and that, in their place, Mr Secker and Mr Simpkins be appointed as members of the committee; and Mr Simpkins be discharged from the Standing Committee on Petitions and that, in his place, Mr Somlyay be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on theBankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The coalition supports the passage of this bill. The main purpose of the amendments to be made by this bill is to modernise the national personal insolvency scheme and to make it more efficient. These are tough economic times which have an impact on many Australians. The 2008-09 financial year produced the highest ever level of personal insolvency—a total of 36,479 administrations. In the last year there was an 11 per cent increase in bankruptcies and the vast majority of these are non-business bankruptcies principally involving consumer debts. As mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, the bill includes amendments which recognise that the majority of bankruptcies relate to consumer debts and involve bankrupts with relatively few assets and little income. Given the circumstances surrounding most bankruptcies, the system could do more to encourage informed decision making and access to alternative solutions. The reality is that many debtors who are overwhelmed by debts find it difficult to deal with all their creditors and may not always have the time, the wherewithal or, to put it this way, the emotional engagement to do this at what is a very stressful time of life.
There are also opportunities to ensure that debtors receive information and advice from a wide range of sources which will assist in rational decision making. These issues are addressed by the amendments to extend to 28 days the period of effect of a declaration of intent to file a debtor’s petition and increasing the availability of debt agreements. The bill is intended to streamline and update the regime to reflect the change in the value of money since the last significant revisions in 1996. The most important of these are to increase the minimum amount for which a creditor may petition from $2,000 to $10,000. In addition, the threshold amount for debt agreements has been increased by 20 per cent.
The bill aims to bring about changes to fixing and reviewing trustee remuneration, strengthen penalties for bankruptcy offences, remove the concept of bankruptcy districts in personal insolvency administration, increase the minimum debt for a creditor’s petition to reflect changes in the economic environment, increase the stay period following the declaration of intent to file a debtor’s petition, and increase the debt income and assets tests thresholds for debt agreements to ensure the thresholds keep pace with increasing wages and the increasing availability of credit.
Concerns have been raised by industry stakeholders that the raising of the creditor’s petition threshold will excise a substantial portion of consumer debt from the bankruptcy regime and may compound cash flow problems for small businesses. Some insolvency practitioners, particularly those with a significant practice in arranging debt agreements, have complained that the lifting of the bankruptcy threshold will reduce the utility of the debt agreement limit.
Though the coalition supports the bill, we foreshadow amendments that may be made in the Senate following the committee’s report. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is due to report on 2 February 2010. The coalition is committed to ensuring our bankruptcy laws are able to deal with personal insolvency issues quickly and efficiently so that those affected can get back on their feet and get on with their lives as soon as possible. We do recognise that there must also be protection for creditors to ensure that bankruptcy laws are not misused. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to indicate my support for theBankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is part of the government’s wider macroeconomic reform agenda which continues to improve the effectiveness of Australia’s credit market. The amendments in this bill are designed to modernise Australia’s personal insolvency system. They will also give people in financial distress a more realistic opportunity to consider their options and where possible avoid bankruptcy.
The objectives of the bill specifically are to provide a more streamlined process for fixing trustee remuneration and a more transparent process for reviewing that remuneration; to strengthen the penalties for some offences and ensure that these are in line with the penalties for other similar offences; to remove the outdated concept of bankruptcy districts in order to provide more flexibility in personal insolvency administration; and to ensure that those who find themselves in financial difficulties have access to proper information and advice about all options when it comes to insolvency.
The amendments, I believe, strike a real balance between the rights of debtors and creditors when they access the insolvency system. The bill protects the debtor when it comes to additional fees often charged through the insolvency and bankruptcy process. There will be an increased flexibility for debtors to pay their debt and for creditors who are recovering debts. Financial distress, as we all know, is not a pleasant situation to be in whether you are a small business operator or an individual. These amendments are important additions to strengthening Australia’s personal insolvency system as they will combine protectionist measures alongside the financial options to assist people to still pay their debt while avoiding bankruptcy, or having bankruptcy as the last resort.
In addition to these changes we are also seeking an increase in the minimum debt threshold. Currently, people can claim bankruptcy or be forced into bankruptcy for what I believe are small debt amounts. Where the debtor owes at least $2,000 creditors can petition for bankruptcy. This amount has not been updated since 1996. We seek to increase the minimum debt for a creditor’s petition to $10,000. A change to the minimum debt level is an important part of this reform package. It will assist to end a creditor’s inappropriate means of enforcing payment of very small debts where cases such as these often result in trustee’s fees which are many times the amount of the original debt.
Along with an increase in the minimum debt, the amendments also include an increase in the stay period for declarations from seven to 28 days for automatic defaults. A longer stay period will increase the likelihood of the debtor obtaining proper information and advice about their financial options to make an informed decision. This will allow the debtor to take charge when it comes to negotiating alternative arrangements and to try to avoid bankruptcy. The debtor will be required to file a simple statement of affairs with the declaration. This will mitigate the risk of the debtor dissipating assets during the period and provide an opportunity to explain to the debtor the seriousness of the action that is being taken. If confronted by short time frames and financial problems, it is not always easy to consider all of the options and get appropriate advice quickly. So these extra days will be an appropriate and relevant change within this legislation.
As I said earlier, these amendments offer a balanced approach to debtors paying monies owed and creditors recovering the debts. What these amendments will offer creditors are also options when seeking to recover debts. Their first option will not be to force bankruptcy on an individual—debt agreements will also be more readily available as a tool for debt collection. For some Australians in financial difficulty, bankruptcy is the only option to solve their financial woes. For some, it seems an easy choice at the time for someone who owes money to creditors. Some believe simply claiming bankruptcy will make their problems go away. Admittedly bankruptcy, whether it is forced or voluntary, is a control mechanism to assist people to confront their financial situation. However, claiming bankruptcy is a last resort and is not as simple as just signing your name away on a piece of paper—nor should it be.
Claiming bankruptcy brings with it many disadvantages. There is a distinct lack of control when a person becomes bankrupt. There are restrictions on the bankrupt’s life in the future. There is a permanent record of the bankruptcy kept on the National Personal Insolvency Index. Assets will be sold, investigations of their financial affairs will occur and there can be mandated contributions from their income once they earn over a certain amount.
What this bill does is give people in financial distress more options before they head down this path of bankruptcy. One of the options made available to debtors through these amendments is having access to a debt agreement rather than a bankruptcy claim. Debt agreements will give debtors more choice while at the same time giving creditors a better return on the money that is owed to them. This bill is much more than just debt agreements that will be made available. Negotiated payment arrangements and civil debt recovery will also be available for debtors, giving them choice to consider a personal insolvency scheme that suits their individual circumstance. It will also benefit the creditors who will no longer need to force bankruptcy on debtors as a collection tool for monies owed. More importantly, people will not be forced into bankruptcy over small debts.
I think it is fair to say that sometimes people make financial decisions without appropriate or proper advice. From time to time financing business ideas or personal purchases seems a good idea at the time but it is not until a person’s finances go pear-shaped that we see them head toward a claim of bankruptcy rather than have a number of options to choose from and, where possible, avoid the bankruptcy altogether. This makes good sense. These impending changes around giving what would be good for the debtor are also good for the creditor.
In October this year, the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia released its latest data on personal insolvency across the nation for the September 2009 quarter. In relation to bankruptcies, there were 7,329 new claims in the September quarter. This is an increase of 9.62 per cent against the September quarter in the previous year. There was also an increase in total personal insolvency activity of 7.91 per cent against the same period in 2008-09.
To give a more accurate picture, it is worth looking at some annual figures. Figures released by the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia reveal that in the 2008-09 financial year there were 3,822 business related bankruptcies across Australia and 23,681 non-business bankruptcies. In Tasmania, there were 204 new non-business related bankruptcies in the recent September quarter. ABS statistics show that most of the bankruptcies, particularly in Tasmania, are due to excessive credit card use and/or loss of employment. We all know that, during this global financial crisis, loss of employment is a big issue as more and more people find themselves in that difficult situation. There is an increase in insolvency activity across most states and territories. When you compare the last two financial years, there is an overall increase in total insolvency activity of 11 per cent; bankruptcies in isolation are up around six per cent.
In supporting this bill, I would like to ensure that individuals who experience financial hardship in the future have at least some access to choice, other options, before heading down the insolvency path of bankruptcy. I think that, with figures like these before us, we really do need to do something. To expect that debtors and creditors would be happy with the status quo is simply folly. I think both debtors and creditors would like to see some changes made to the current situation.
As I said, these amendments are an important part of improving the effectiveness of Australia’s credit markets. These changes will modernise Australia’s personal insolvency system, bringing it into the 21st century. The options for debtors will increase along with added protection to ensure they pay only their original debt, without any further penalties or imposts. The amendments will balance the options for debtors as well as those for creditors, who will be provided with a much better return on the debt owed to them. Debtors will no longer be bankrupted by small debts, and creditors will have other options available to them without resorting to bankruptcy as a collection tool. With its combination of protection, increased options and flexibility, I commend this bill to the House.
I also rise to support the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The amendments before the House today are intended to modernise Australia’s personal solvency system. They will make the system more responsive to the needs of people experiencing financial distress and will improve the efficiency of the scheme. These amendments are the result of consultation with stakeholders who administer the bankruptcy system, those who advise people in financial trouble and those who need to use the laws, either as creditors or as debtors. Submissions on the legislation were received from across the board and talked about the changes to people’s circumstances, to the nature and scale of consumer credit and to the way that bankruptcy laws and other mechanisms like debt agreements are being used. These amendments largely reflect those changes.
It makes sense for us to make these changes to the bankruptcy laws at this time. The last financial year, 2008-09, saw the largest ever number of personal insolvency cases, including an 11 per cent jump in bankruptcies. Over 36,000 insolvency cases were administered, and the vast majority of these were consumer debts rather than business bankruptcies. The government was very conscious from the start of the global financial crisis and the subsequent global recession of the impact the downturn would have on individuals and households carrying debt at a time of increasing unemployment. As well as introducing substantial stimulus measures into the economy to boost economic activity and protect jobs in communities right around Australia, the government has increased funding for programs to assist those who find themselves in financial difficulty.
Last year we doubled funding for the Commonwealth Financial Counselling program and in April this year the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs announced a further $1.75 million to rapidly train 50 new financial counsellors. This is in addition to doubling the money in the emergency relief program. Emergency relief funding is given to local organisations to allocate to people who need support to address their immediate needs in times of crisis. Assistance includes food and clothing, transport vouchers, and help with accommodation.
The scale and speed of the downturn that hit our economy over the last year revealed how financially stretched many Australians have become, and this is demonstrated in those record insolvency figures of June 2009. As many people learned during the past year, financial failures are not often seen coming and when they hit there can often be a snowball effect which quickly overwhelms people. We have seen huge growth in the availability of consumer credit, and often people’s financial literacy and capacity to pay has not kept pace with the amount of debt they have assumed. Credit that starts out as the answer to a financial problem can very quickly become the problem itself. Personal debt can consume an enormous amount of money and can create a huge amount of stress for an individual and their family, often leading to the failure of relationships.
Bankruptcy is a very genuine option when debt rises above the capacity to pay it off and people find that they can barely keep up with payments, bills, expenses and the money needed for day-to-day living. When financial commitments are putting individuals further and further into debt, bankruptcy may seem the only outcome, but it is important that people know exactly what it is they are getting into before they go down the road of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy allows legal protection from creditors during the time frame between a financial problem and having an organised answer to obligations. Lenders, banks and financial institutions who have extended money or credit should be repaid. When this is impossible, however, bankruptcy does allow people to pay those creditors back to the best of their ability. The bankruptcy laws set out to achieve a balance between allowing debtors to make fair and reasonable efforts to repay their debts and then make a clean start and providing a means by which creditors can enforce the obligations owed to them.
There are a number of amendments and changes in this legislation. This bill caught my eye when it came through the caucus room a few weeks ago because of the experience of a constituent who came to see me last year. He had gone into bankruptcy but had a stock of assets that he could use to extinguish the debts. He was shocked, however, when he found out how much extra on top of the original debt would be taken out of the returns from those assets once the trustee’s fees were taken into account. So I was pleased to see that, among other things, this bill will provide for a more accessible and streamlined process for debtors who wish to challenge a trustee’s remuneration claim. This is important for debtors, particularly to avoid the type of situation my constituent faced where the fees appeared to be out of proportion to the size of the debt and ended up having quite punitive consequences.
There are changes too that will result in a more streamlined and transparent process for setting and reviewing trustee remuneration. The amendments reinforce the principal that creditors have oversight of a trustee’s administration of a bankrupt estate and should be required to approve claims for remuneration. This ensures creditors who are the beneficiaries can be satisfied that the remuneration is reasonable and reflects the value added to the estate by the trustee’s work. Notwithstanding that, however, it is important for the system to be efficient. These amendments therefore include a streamlined process to allow trustees to claim a basic amount of remuneration, up to $5,000, which reasonably reflects the essential tasks that every trustee must undertake. A trustee will not need creditor approval for claims up to that amount. Whether it is initiated by the creditor or the debtor, the review process to assess a disputed claim for trustees’ fees, overseen by the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, will be free to the applicant.
Another important amendment contained in this bill is the increase in the minimum debt that must be owed before a creditor’s petition to commence bankruptcy proceedings can be filed. Currently a creditor can petition for bankruptcy in circumstances where they are owed $2,000. The amendments before the House will increase that amount to $10,000. The government has not made this change lightly as we recognise the needs of small businesses in particular to have the means to recover money owing to them. Nonetheless, we believe that this part of the legislation, which has not been changed since 1996, needs to better reflect the current environment. For one thing, levels of personal debt are much higher than they were in 1996 and in recent years the number of bankruptcy cases involving debts for less than $10,000 has been small.
This change reinforces the government’s view that bankruptcy proceedings should be used as a last resort. Bankruptcy should not become a regular means of debt collection for relatively small debts. It is an expensive process and there are more cost-effective options that creditors can use before resorting to bankruptcy with its costs and far-reaching consequences for the debtor. Going down the bankruptcy path to recover a debt of less than $10,000 risks the situation where the trustee’s fees are as high as the amount of the debt.
A number of submissions on the exposure draft of the bill referred to creditors using bankruptcy inappropriately to enforce small debts. The Financial and Consumer Rights Council gave the example of a client who owed a relatively small amount for an internet bill. A creditor’s petition was filed against her and the bankruptcy proceedings added $20,000 in trustee’s fees to the debt owed. The submissions also pointed out the other options available to creditors, usually at a much lower cost than bankruptcy proceedings. Options such as civil debt recovery, negotiated payment arrangements and garnishing income and assets are available to creditors at a lower cost than bankruptcy proceedings.
Just as the government wants to encourage creditors to think through their options and the best course of action for them in enforcing their debt, so too do we want people in financial distress to think carefully about their options when it comes to dealing with their debts. That is why this bill proposes to increase the stay period that follows a declaration of intent to file a debtor’s petition, to allow debtors to better assess their options. Currently, a debtor can give the official receiver a declaration of intent to file a debtor’s petition and, once received, creditors cannot take any action to recover debts for a stay period of seven days. This bill increases the stay period for declarations of intent to file, from seven to 28 days. A seven-day stay does not give a debtor enough time to assess their options. A longer stay period increases the likelihood of the debtor obtaining proper advice and information about all of the options and, if possible, avoiding bankruptcy by using a debt agreement or other arrangement.
The amendment will also require the official receiver to notify creditors of the filing of the declaration. This gives creditors the opportunity to be proactive in coming forward with other options for the debtor to avoid bankruptcy. To help in this process, the debtor will now be required to lodge, with their declaration of intent to file, a statement of affairs. The requirement for the debtor to lodge a statement of affairs at that time will protect creditors by ensuring that the debtor does not dissipate assets during the stay period.
I note that in some of the submissions provided during the consultation on this bill concerns were raised about this point. Those who advise debtors were concerned that the requirement to lodge a statement of affairs might undermine the purpose of the extended stay period. Instead of encouraging the debtor to calmly and carefully think through all of the options, they would be frightened off when faced with the onerous exercise of completing the statement of affairs needed in order to give effect to the stay period. However, this is answered in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, which states that the statement of affairs required to accompany a declaration of intent to file a debtor’s petition will be simpler than that required for bankruptcy.
These changes are designed to help creditors use the bankruptcy system to more effectively and efficiently recover their debts and to help people manage the situations they find themselves in when things go wrong so they can pay their debts as best they can whilst seeing some way to get back on their feet. The CQ Financial Counselling Service, based in Rockhampton, is at the frontline of helping people in financial distress, and it does a great job. The counsellors at the service have been assisting people in the Central Queensland region since 1991. The CQ Financial Counselling Service is funded under the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs through the Commonwealth Financial Counselling Program, and I am pleased to say that the service benefited from the increased funding in last year’s budget. That was just in time to meet the increased demand brought on by the economic downturn.
The Commonwealth Financial Counselling Program, which funds the CQ Financial Counselling Service, is particularly focused on low-income groups. It funds incorporated non-profit community based organisations to provide free financial counselling services to people who are experiencing financial difficulties due to circumstances such as unemployment, sickness, credit overcommitment and family breakdown. It is great to have the CQ Financial Counselling Service operating in my electorate as a place where constituents can go to get the advice that they need in these very difficult times.
CQ Financial Counselling Service assists people who are experiencing personal financial difficulties for many reasons. A counsellor there gave me a rundown on the main reasons why people come to see them. For example, if someone has a loan, mortgage or credit card and is having difficulty maintaining repayments, CQ Financial Counselling Service can assist in negotiating with creditors to reach an acceptable agreement. Where a person feels overwhelmed by a personal financial problem and would like help to communicate effectively with the government or non-government organisations, CQ Financial Counselling Service can advocate on their behalf. If someone cannot pay an outstanding bill, CQ Financial Counselling Service can help them with their options and explain what they can do. Where a person has received a letter of demand, a summons, a warrant of execution or a judgment summons and is not sure what to do next, the counsellors can explain the debt recovery process and assist them to take the appropriate course of action. If someone is having difficulty in making ends meet, the counsellors can assist them to develop a budgeting plan to suit their circumstances and help them gain financial management skills that will enable them to take control of their lives. The service can also give information on bankruptcy and assist people to explore alternatives.
During the first quarter of this financial year, from July to September 2009, the service has assisted 220 clients. There has been an increase in the number of people requiring financial counselling since July 2009. Of that 220, 74 sought information about personal solvency. Even though the service is funded to cover the Fitzroy statistical region, which is big enough in itself, they in fact extend far beyond this area and have been fielding calls from Capella, Barcaldine, Longreach, Mount Isa, Tambo, Alpha and even Perth. There is a wide cross-section of people seeking assistance, and in recent times there has been a noticeable increase in the number of clients in the high-income brackets, mainly from the mining sector. Also, there has been an increase in the number of people with proprietary limited companies who have given personal guarantees, as well as an increase in the number of sole traders who are having to petition for bankruptcy.
People take up the option of bankruptcy for many reasons, but the major one listed by CQ Financial Counselling Service is relief from the constant contact with debt collectors. Financial counsellors have experienced difficulty in dealing with debt collectors, they tell me, as they invariably take a hard-line attitude and refuse to negotiate affordable repayment plans. The counsellors at CQ Financial Counselling Service do a terrific job. I really do not know what we would do without them in Central Queensland. They have been operating since 1991 and they really are the place to go when people find themselves in difficulty. I hope this legislation gives the service more to work with to assist their clients. The amendments we are debating today have been well thought through. They respond to the changes in the financial environment over the last few years. A lot of consultation has gone into these amendments, and I think they make sensible and balanced changes to our bankruptcy legislation.
I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. As noted by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, the purpose of the bill is to modernise the National Personal Insolvency Scheme to make it more effective. In modernising our laws in this area, the Attorney-General also made mention of the need to strike the right balance between the interests of businesses in recovering their debt and the interests of individuals who are prevented from contributing to our economy by the penalties and stigma associated with the bankruptcy process. The Australian economy, the Attorney-General says, needs to have strong but fair bankruptcy laws—and I agree with him.
As we engage in the process of modernising Australia’s bankruptcy laws and making it responsive to our times, it is worth bearing in mind the larger historical picture. Bankruptcy laws in this country have come a long way since their origins in 12th and 13th century England, where it became commonplace for debtors to find themselves in prison for failure to pay their debts. Over the past 700 years, important advancements have been made. These changes have produced better outcomes for debtors who have been offered alternatives to imprisonment and, likewise, advancements have provided alternatives to bankruptcy to be given to creditors who then have a greater chance of recovery of the money owed to them. At the heart of these reforms has been an understanding that a robust economy needs strong but fair bankruptcy laws. Last year there was a record 36,475 administrations for personal insolvency in Australia. This was an increase of 11 per cent from the year before and reflects how these tough economic times are hurting Australian families.
I would like to discuss a few of the significant changes introduced by this bill which will seek to make our bankruptcy laws strong, fair and responsive to the present economic times. Firstly, the bill raises the minimum debt for creditors’ petition for bankruptcy from $2,000 to $10,000. The figure of $2,000 was set in 1996, as previous speakers have mentioned. Considering the cost and complexities of the bankruptcy process, this increase is long overdue. The increase is also designed to stop creditors using bankruptcy proceedings as a means of enforcing very small debts. Such debts can be more effectively dealt with through other avenues, including negotiated payment arrangements, civil debt recovery, garnishing income and seizing assets.
Last year 20 per cent of bankruptcies in Australia related to debts between $2,000 and $10,000. Too often bankruptcy for very small debts hurt individuals and families struggling under financial pressure when another option could well be available. I have met a number of these people in my local electorate who have found themselves in a difficult situation. They have perhaps at times been ill-advised about taking out a loan or signing up to some payment option and find themselves in real trouble. There are a number of alternatives that they often say they would be willing to enter into but have not been given that as an option. There are alternative options and in most cases these are more appropriate for debtors, more appropriate for creditors and more appropriate for communities. Bankruptcy really should only be a last resort for the recovery of debts.
Secondly, these amendments increase the stay period for a declaration of intent to file for bankruptcy from seven days to 28 days. This increase in the period in which creditors are barred from taking action to recover debts will allow debtors some extra breathing space for assessing their options. Hopefully this extended four-week period will offer a more realistic chance for debtors to seek advice from a financial counsellor or a lawyer or to negotiate the debt with creditors. Recently, I held a debt forum which was open to people across my electorate of Kingston to get advice from experts in the area, such as financial counsellors, Centrelink staff or lawyers. We had a panel of people to advise people. One of the issues that came through at that forum was that people really did not know what they could do. They felt very pressured into making a decision very quickly. Increasing this time will allow people to have a little bit of breathing space, and that will be welcomed by many of the people I met at the debt forum in the electorate of Kingston. That is a very important amendment that I can see having on-the-ground practical use.
Thirdly, the amendments open up the option to more individuals of entering into debt agreements. This will be achieved by increasing the income threshold for such agreements by 20 per cent. A debt agreement is a popular alternative to bankruptcy and offers better returns to creditors. These changes will allow many individuals and their families to avoid the stigma and cost involved in bankruptcy and also allow small businesses to increase their returns from debts that they are owed. Fourthly, the bill provides for a minimum entitlement of remuneration to trustees for their administration of bankruptcy estates. This will offer certainty for trustees and also ensure that an estate is not unnecessarily diminished by non-streamlined administration fees.
Importantly, these and other amendments in the bill have been developed through a process of extensive consultation with industry and stakeholders on both sides of the creditor-debtor relationship. A wide variety of input has been made through submissions to the exposure draft of the bill that was released in August this year. It is very important to acknowledge that there has been discussion across a wide range of stakeholders and other interested parties to get this information.
I would like to say—and I have spoken about this in this House before—that prevention is better than cure. The people who attended the debt forum I held in Noarlunga gave a real sense that they wanted to know more, that they felt they were not in control of their finances and that they did not really know what options were available to them. The previous speaker talked about the importance of financial counselling services, and I know that there are some very, very good counselling services in my electorate, and one in particular is UnitingCare Wesley. They do an enormous job in helping people understand what is going on, counselling them and helping them work out their finances so that they do not get to a point where they have to file for bankruptcy.
I believe that we need to improve financial literacy in this country. Many people speak to me about signing contracts that contain a huge amount of fine print. While it is all well and good for companies to say that the fine print was there, if you have ever tried to read it you would understand that it can be very, very small. There is also a lot of pressure on people to sign contracts. In fact, I have had people from certain companies door-knock me and ask me then and there to sign contracts that would last 12 months or even 24 months. It is very important for people to be educated about financial matters so that they have a better understanding of them. This will improve their financial literacy so that they understand what some of these things mean. Hopefully, this will go a long way to preventing people from even getting to the point where they need to choose whether or not to file for bankruptcy. Rather, they will work out other ways so that they do not have this problem.
We live in a society which increasingly relies on the seamless creation and payment of debts, from our credit cards, to our phone bills, to accessing loans as part of our personal and business lives. The economic necessity of the credit system has been well known for many hundreds of years; however, there will be circumstances in which individuals struggle to repay their debts. In dealing with these cases, it is important that our laws strike the right balance between the interests of debt recovery and the interests of individuals who are penalised by the bankruptcy process. The amendments introduced by this bill offer a timely realignment of these interests in light of the present economic situation. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I encourage anyone who may be listening to this debate to go online to the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia site and look at the statistics. They show an increase in the number of administrations, the number of debt agreements and the number of bankruptcies. It is quite clear that the Australian public has suffered during the global financial crisis. It is quite clear that individuals and individual households across the whole of Australia have suffered. Certainly the people in my electorate have suffered.
A number of financial counsellors in my electorate—and I pay tribute to so many of them, including the lawyers and accountants who act on the front line when it comes to personal insolvency and advice on financial matters—will tell you, as they have told me, that people are under stress and often feel that they are under duress when it comes to the question of their financial positions. They are finding it tough to pay for food and clothing, to meet their children’s social and recreational needs, to ensure that their children are adequately educated and not just that there is enough food on the table but that they have proper, decent and adequate accommodation.
That is the stark reality when it comes to people who are facing financial insolvency. In my many years practising as a lawyer I had many people come and see me about the fact that they were in trouble, whether it was trouble with a business arrangement or whether they were subject to financial stress as a result of a marriage breakdown or whether they had sustained an injury in a motor vehicle accident. They told me they were under stress and they could not take it any longer. I advised them of the implications of those types of matters from a legal point of view but advised them to seek counsel from an accountant or a financial counsellor on the best way to arrange their financial affairs. It is not just the stigma; it is forever feeling a failure. It is the fact that they feel they cannot achieve what they wanted to in life. It affects their esteem, their reputation and their confidence. It also affects their families and their children. Bankruptcy is the human face of tragedy. It is the feeling of failure, the feeling of letting yourself down and letting your family down. That is the human consequence of financial trouble and travails.
We are dealing with complicated law. The Bankruptcy Act reminds me of the Income Tax Assessment Act in its complexity: things like voidable preferences, relation back periods, debtors’ petitions, creditors’ petitions and acts of bankruptcy—complicated legal terms which have implications for people’s very existence. If you are in business and you have taken a punt and set up a newsagency or a fish and chip shop, or you have a good idea and you want to go into small business, you are to be commended, but there is a real risk you could be in financial trouble in the future. Sadly, even though we have four million people employed in small business, working as entrepreneurs or as employees in small businesses, many of the 1.9 million small business operators in this country fail, often in the first year. Approximately one-third of people fail in business. Anyone who takes on a small business is to be commended, but it is a risk not just to yourself but to your personal assets and to your family’s future.
This legislation is about improving the Bankruptcy Act and our bankruptcy system. There must be a balance between helping people who need assistance in this very difficult time and helping businesses that, when faced with the circumstance of a debtor having failed to pay their debt, have legal options. There are many legal options, and this bill includes other options such as garnishing wages or pursuing civil litigation rather than going the route of bankruptcy. Sadly, sometimes issuing a creditors’ petition of bankruptcy after issuing a bankruptcy notice is the only way forward for a company or a business to get back the money which is owed in the circumstances. There are changes in the law as a result of this legislation, and I am happy to go through those.
Issuing a bankruptcy notice is a serious thing. Certainly when I was in practice I took it seriously when someone asked me to issue a bankruptcy notice. For there to be a bankruptcy, there must be an act of bankruptcy, and a failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice is considered an act of bankruptcy. The creditor can then make an application for a creditor’s petition and the bankruptcy notice must be based on the final judgment or order of at least $2,000 which is less than six years old. We are changing the law here to up that to $10,000 in the circumstances, and I think that is sensible and appropriate. The facts that have been given to me by the Attorney-General’s Department show that we are talking about fewer than 400 sequestration orders for less than $10,000 in the year 2008-09. So we are talking not about thousands and thousands of applications for bankruptcy orders but about hundreds. We need a balance to be struck. The provision set back in 1996 was $2,000. It has not been updated since that time, but we all know that inflation has operated since that time upon the value of the dollar. A person’s wages and the value of money back in those days was different from that which it is today, so updating to $10,000 is reasonable in the circumstances. I note that a number of the stakeholders have made comment about that.
There is support in general terms from the Law Council of Australia for this legislation. Subject to a couple of qualifications, the Law Council of Australia does endorse the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act contained in this bill. The Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia said that it was appropriate to do so, making the comment that the reform of the trustee remuneration procedures are long overdue and are welcomed by the committee. The Law Council of Australia has advocated the offence changes in this legislation for a long time and commends the government for them. The offence changes are ‘long overdue for review and revision of the penalties attached’, as the Law Council of Australia indicates in its letter of 30 September 2009. The 28-day moratorium prior to an act of bankruptcy is also supported by the Law Council of Australia, but it does not support an increase from $2,000 to $10,000. I am a bit mystified about why the Law Council of Australia failed to support that. I thought that particular provision and amendment was fair in the circumstances. The Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia also supports many of the changes in this legislation to make sure there is a more streamlined procedure for fixing trustee remuneration and a more transparent process, as the Attorney-General made reference to.
I am comforted by the fact that so many of the stakeholders are in support of what we are doing. Extension of the seven-day moratorium under section 54A to 28 days was commented upon by the IPA, because the law should provide opportunities for debtors to fully consider the options available to them before they proceed to bankruptcy. As I said before, going into bankruptcy is a dreadful decision. It is something that everyone should consider carefully before having the stigma of your name being placed on the National Personal Insolvency Index. It is there for all to see. It is a public record. It contains creditors’ petitions, debtors’ agreements, personal insolvency agreements and bankruptcy notices. Your name, date of birth, previous names and aliases, the types of proceedings and the names and business addresses of the trustee and administrator are all there for the public to see. It is a terrible thing for the public to see those records, which have been kept in that database since the late 1920s. We should do all we can to ensure that people do not go down that road. Extending the period from seven to 28 days in the moratorium provides a time for mature reflection in all the circumstances. I think the increase in the $2,000 to $10,000 as the minimum amount for a creditor’s petition is a sensible reform, as I have said.
There are other changes in this legislation which will have an impact by improving the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of recovery, reducing the stigma of bankruptcy and striking that balance. The exposure draft was available for many people to respond to, and they did. I mentioned a couple of organisations which responded. I think the extension of the stay period so the person can consult financial counsellors is a good thing. The extension of time to negotiate with creditors is also a worthy thing. A debt agreement is far preferable to a creditor’s petition, or indeed even a debtor’s petition, being issued. A debt agreement gives a person the option to manage their debt. Arrangements can be undertaken through, for instance, a weekly or monthly method whereby payment can be effected and it does have the impact of stopping the person going bankrupt. They are not bankrupt—they do not have the stigma, the opprobrium, the ignominy and the shame of bankruptcy. They are released from unsecured debtors when they complete their obligations. It means that creditors cannot take action against them or their property. In the circumstances, negotiating with creditors is a better thing.
The sad thing about a debt agreement, which I think we should look at in the future, is that when someone enters into a debt agreement they do commit an act of bankruptcy. That means that if, for example, the proposal is not accepted by creditors a creditor can make application to the court to make the person bankrupt. So it is a pretty dangerous path to go down. It is not mentioned in this legislation, but it is an area of law reform we could look at in the future because I think there may be some benefit to us changing the law in that regard. It certainly would strike the balance more in favour of a debtor than a creditor and I think it is worthy of consideration.
Debt agreements are binding agreements between a debtor and a creditor or creditors and can agree on a sum of money. In my experience, it does result in a better outcome for creditors and in a reduction in the fees that could be expected to be charged by a trustee. Trustees are entitled to their fair pay for the work they undertake, but, like liquidators when it comes to companies, trustees in bankruptcies seem to get their pound of flesh, in my experience and observation. They make sure that they get paid first, of course, and creditors have to take that into consideration and account when they pursue bankruptcy.
It is important that we benefit small business in the reforms we undertake. Tony Axford and many of the people working in the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre in my electorate help small business to avoid going into bankruptcy through mentoring, monitoring, advice on loan applications and credit and advice generally on how to set up a business, what the GST is, what a profit and loss statement is and what it means to have a balance sheet—all this kind of advice is very important for small business. I commend the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre in my electorate because they go around not just to Ipswich but to surrounding rural areas to give small business and householders this type of advice, to avoid and prevent, if at all possible, bankruptcies increasing in the Ipswich and West Moreton area. I thank Tony for his work and commend him on the fact that he and his centre have been nominated for an award. I hope they do well and they continue to prosper. I commend the Rudd government and the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, the member for Rankin, for the election commitment of $300,000 across four years for that centre. It has made a big difference locally to business in my community and it is a good way to minimise the impact of the global financial crisis and the number of bankruptcies and debt agreements which are undertaken in my local area and my constituency of Blair in South-East Queensland.
In conclusion, we are modernising the insolvency system. We are hoping that fewer and fewer Australians will have to acquaint themselves with complicated legal terms like ‘relation back’, ‘voidable preferences’, ‘debtors petitions’, ‘bankruptcy notices’ and terms of that nature. I hope that they are not in the lexicon of the Australian public in the suburbs and the rural communities in my electorate. I hope that more and more people can avoid going into bankruptcy and that if they are faced with these challenges they will look to advice from lawyers, accountants, financial counsellors and great organisations like Lifeline in Ipswich, who have been tremendous in the way they have helped.
But I also want to finish up by commending one particular organisation in my electorate which has gone a long way in assisting people who are faced with the kinds of challenges we are dealing with, the human face of this sort of legislation, this amendment bill—and that is Harvest Rain. The Rivers of Life church and Pastor Fred Muys have done a tremendous job delivering hundreds of food parcels to struggling families in the Ipswich area. They have helped many people who have been suffering from personal insolvency, many people who have suffered the tragedy of loss of job, loss of accommodation and not being able to feed their families. That is the coalface of these challenges, and I want to thank very much the government for the legislation here, which will improve the lot of the people in my community and the people in the rural areas outside of Ipswich as well. I commend the legislation to the House.
I rise to support the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is part of the government’s wider microeconomic reform agenda, which continues to improve the effectiveness of Australia’s credit markets. The amendments are intended to modernise Australia’s personal insolvency system. The amendments will give people in financial distress a more realistic opportunity to consider their options and, where possible, avoid bankruptcy. The reforms will encourage more debtors to get advice and information about all of their options before choosing bankruptcy. In particular, the reform aims to encourage people experiencing financial trouble to consider debt arrangements rather than bankruptcy. These arrangements provide a much better return to creditors and are far less of a stigma for those people who in the past have been forced to go into bankruptcy. The increase in the threshold for creditor petitions will also ensure that people are not bankrupted over a small debt. Creditors have other options to recover debts without resorting to bankruptcy as a collection tool. These options include negotiated payment arrangements, civil debt recovery and garnisheeing income and assets.
Before I take a more detailed look at these amendments, I would like to talk about the scale of bankruptcy in Australia. In New South Wales over the year July 2008 to June 2009 there were 10,499 bankruptcies. I am referring to personal administrations. This represents an increase over the previous year of 5.7 per cent. The total number of bankruptcies in the whole of Australia in 2008-09 was 27,503, up from 25,970 in the previous 12 months, or an increase of around 5.9 per cent. These figures are naturally of concern, but what is perhaps a little more troubling is the increase in bankruptcies, again in personal administrations, in more recent months. The total bankruptcies in Australia for the June to September quarter this year were 7,329, as opposed to 6,886 for the same quarter the previous year. This is an increase of 9.62 per cent. Business bankruptcies, according to various studies done in recent years, are caused by a number of issues, including economic conditions, excessive drawings, excessive interest, lack of capital, seasonal conditions and gambling or speculation. Those same studies show non-business bankruptcies are caused by unemployment, excessive use of credit, domestic discord, ill-health, adverse litigation and, again, gambling or speculation. So this puts the subject of this bill into some perspective.
Now let us look at the bill in a bit more detail. The proposed amendments provide a clearer regime for setting and reviewing remuneration for trustees. In particular, they provide a more accessible and streamlined process for challenging a trustee’s remuneration claim. They ensure creditors can be satisfied that the remuneration is reasonable and reflects the value added to the estate by the trustee’s work. The changes to offences under the proposed amendment will introduce an infringement notice regime as an alternative to prosecutions for offences of strict liability; ensure that penalties for some offences, particularly those involving fraud, reflect the seriousness of the conduct and are consistent with penalties for similar offences in other Commonwealth, state and territory legislation; provide stronger powers to obtain a statement of affairs from a bankrupt who fails to file this as required; and provide stronger powers for the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy to investigate possible offences under the act.
The bill will also result in the abolition of bankruptcy districts. This will allow the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia to administer the personal insolvency system in a more efficient way. The bill proposes an increase in the minimum debt for a creditor’s petition to $10,000. Currently a creditor can petition for bankruptcy where the debtor owes at least $2,000. This amount has not been updated since 1996. There is also evidence that some creditors use bankruptcy inappropriately as a means of enforcing payment of very small debts. These cases often result in trustees’ fees which are many times the amount of the original debt.
Another amendment will increase the stay period for declarations of intent to file from seven to 28 days. A longer stay period will increase the likelihood of the debtor obtaining proper information and advice about all options. The official receiver will notify creditors of the declaration, which will allow them to be proactive in contacting the debtor to negotiate alternative arrangements. The debtor will be required to file a simple statement of affairs with the declaration. This will mitigate the risk of debtors dissipating assets during the period and provide an opportunity to explain to the debtor the seriousness of the action being taken. The bill will also increase the debt, income and assets thresholds for debt agreements by 20 per cent. These were last amended in 2002 to encourage more people to consider a debtor agreement as a viable alternative to bankruptcy. The proposed increase will make these agreements available to more consumer debtors.
It has been asked what impact these changes will have on small business. Again, let us put this issue into perspective. In 2008 and 2009 there were only 391 sequestration orders for an amount less then $10,000. Given that there are approximately 1.93 million small businesses in Australia, it is likely that only a very small proportion of small businesses would file a creditor’s petition in any given year for an amount less than $10,000. Small businesses will also benefit from other reforms. Increasing the availability of debt arrangements will increase returns to creditors in many cases and the 28-day moratorium on payments will enable more creditors to negotiate with debtors to achieve payment.
Earlier I touched on the fact that the bill is part of the government’s wider microeconomic reform agenda, which continues to improve the effectiveness of Australia’s credit markets. Of course, we have also embarked on a major reform of Australia’s credit regulation regime to bring it into the 21st century, and we determined that at the heart of this plan would be a new approach for Australia built on responsible lending and consumer protection. Just over two weeks ago the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 was passed in both houses. The government is implementing a credit reform package that delivers on its commitment to nationalise and modernise Australian consumer credit laws. The package will, for the first time in this country, provide for one single standard and nationally consistent regime for consumer credit regulation. There are substantial benefits to be realised from this credit reform package and its implementation is long overdue. It is a key COAG reform and represents the first stage of a plan to transfer the consumer credit regulation to the Commonwealth.
The reform package includes several key components. The credit bills will establish for the first time a comprehensive national licensing regime for people engaging in credit activities—that is, lenders and providers of consumer credit broking services must obtain an Australian credit licence. Licensing will, over time, encourage the improvement of standards in the industry and thereby improve consumer confidence and market integrity. In particular, fringe or predatory players will be excluded. In other areas, such as the broker space, this will improve the credibility of the profession. In order to become licensed, the person will need to demonstrate to ASIC that they are a fit and proper person—for example, a person cannot be licensed where they are banned by a state regulator or are subject to a state control order used against organised criminal gangs—and can comply with the standards expected of a licensee: for example, conducting business efficiently, honestly and fairly or properly training and supervising their agents. ASIC will publish guidelines for the industry on how to demonstrate that they meet the requirements for being licensed to make this as straightforward as possible. This guidance will include parts particularly directed at small businesses to give them simple, practical assistance on how to become licensed.
The key change in the market for consumer credit in Australia arising from the credit bill will be the requirement for credit not to be given to consumers irresponsibly. The enhanced level of consumer protection requires all lenders to lend responsibly and all brokers to suggest loans responsibly by ensuring that a credit product is not unsuitable for the customer after assessment that it meets their needs and they have the capacity to repay the financial obligations.
In addition to these key fundamental obligations, the consumer will be provided with specific protections that will assist with the problems associated with financial distress and refinancing. These specific measures include, for example, a presumption that the primary home should not have to be sold to afford any refinancing arrangements. And, in the event that a consumer in hardship is unable to be placed into an alternative contract, credit assistants will now be obliged to inform consumers of their ability to seek respite from their credit provider.
To ease the transition burden for industry and facilitate the implementation of the national credit regime in a sensible and practical fashion, the government has, firstly, simplified the way in which the proposed responsible-lending arrangements will apply and, secondly, delayed the commencement of responsible-lending obligations for credit licensing to 1 January 2011. This will give industry more time to put in place the necessary infrastructure changes needed to support responsible lending. Thirdly, and importantly, the government is giving ASIC more flexibility to exempt or modify the licensing and registration requirements in the law. ASIC will play a key role during the transition period to provide assistance to industry. The government is confident that, by industry and ASIC working closely together in this process, we will effectively facilitate a seamless and successful transfer to the new credit regime.
The state based Uniform Consumer Credit Code, which has been in force since 1996, has been largely replicated, with minimal changes in the credit bill. However, several enhancements have also been made. A key enhancement is the extension of the coverage of the code to credit for residential investment properties. This will extend existing protections under the code to this type of credit, including precontractual disclosure requirements, a right to seek a variation to payments on the grounds of hardship, and remedies against the lender where they have engaged in unjust conduct. The monetary threshold under which consumers have the right to seek a hardship variation or stay of enforcement has been increased to $500,000. Under the state code, the threshold has fluctuated monthly according to the average cost of homes in Sydney and has varied between $295,790 and $368,390 since 2004.
Other key adjustments have been made to address specific abuses and avoidance techniques, such as prohibiting the taking of mortgages over essential household goods and the use of fee-splitting structures between related parties to avoid the code, as under the state code only fees charged by lenders are relevant in assessing whether there is a charge for credit attracting the application of the code; and amending the effect of business purpose declarations. Under the state code, if a borrower signed a declaration that the credit was for a business purpose, the result was to exclude the code, leading to abuses of the declaration by predatory lenders. This has been changed so that in general terms a lender will only be able to rely on such declarations where they have made reasonable inquiries as to the purpose of the credit.
Considerable and realistic protections for consumers have also been included in the new credit regime. For example, there will be heavy penalties for licensees who place consumers in unsuitable loans. ASIC will have enhanced powers to deal with licensees who act contrary to their obligations, and it can issue infringement notices to act quickly to penalise certain breaches of the law. All licensees will be required to be members of the external dispute resolution scheme. Consumers with disputes with their lenders or service providers will be able to complain to these schemes. They are an effective alternative to court, as they are free and operate without the formality of costs of court action.
Concerns about the loss of access to state tribunals in the states of Victoria and Queensland to hear credit disputes have been specifically addressed by putting in place the new dispute resolution framework. For example, the Federal Magistrates Court and state and territory magistrate and local courts will be able to hear consumer credit claims using an opt-in streamlined small-claims procedure for compensation claims up to $40,000 and to obtain orders under the code. This mechanism replicates some of the advantages of the state tribunal systems by having a presumption against consumers needing legal representation and allowing the court to operate without formalities. This will minimise the time and costs to consumers of having a court resolve their disputes.
Those are the features of the national consumer credit protection legislation. To sum up: a nationally consistent consumer-credit framework marks a generational change that will significantly improve the effectiveness of protection for consumers and address the gaps that continue to exist in the state regulatory system. A single standard regulation will reduce the cost of doing business across the eight different jurisdictions. In the longer term, it would also allow the consolidation of requirements within the broader financial services sector and reduce compliance costs for those businesses that provide both credit and other financial product services.
Some of the other vital microeconomic reforms which the Rudd government is undertaking include strengthening the international legal cooperation arrangements; promoting better dispute-resolution processes, including arbitration at the national and international levels; personal property securities reforms; and uniform regulation of the legal profession across Australia. These reforms will reduce costs for business and support business confidence and will be vital to growing our economy in the future.
The reforms in the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 will go towards improving the effectiveness of Australian credit markets and for this reason I commend the bill to the House.
The Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 contains a set of timely and practical reforms. I want to concentrate in particular on the provisions which will increase the minimum debt for a creditor’s petition to $10,000. Before doing so, though, it is worth making some general comments about the nature of the bankruptcy system.
Since the reforms that are contained in this bill were announced, there has been some criticism, particularly from some credit collecting agencies and small business organisations, and the tone of some of that criticism really suggests that, for some people, the bankruptcy system is seen as intending to inflict some punishment on those who have had difficulty paying their debts. The bankruptcy system is not intended to be a system of punishment. It has no punitive element—even though, for people who have the misfortune to find themselves at the wrong end of bankruptcy proceedings, it very often will feel like a punishment, because the consequence of being in bankruptcy is, of course, a very direct and serious interruption to any citizen’s financial affairs. It is not intended to be a punishment. It is intended to provide an orderly way in which society can regulate the payment and collection of debts, and an orderly way in which people can overcome a financial disaster occurring in their lives and, as it were, live to fight another day.
The particular criticism that has been directed at the increase in the minimum debt that is regarded as necessary for a creditor’s petition, from the present $2,000 to $10,000, is that, it is suggested by some of the small business organisations, $10,000 is too high an amount. But I think it needs to be put in the context of the commentary that has been made by a number of other interested groups in this, and that context would include that the Westpac Bank and the Australian Bankers Association accept very directly that there is a need to alter this threshold amount, which has not been raised since 1996, when it was raised from $1,500 to $2,000. They accept that some higher threshold is needed—indeed, I would digress to say that the Australian Financial Review editorial writer on 30 October noted:
Many would agree that a higher threshold is overdue …
What the Westpac Bank and the Australian Bankers Association called for was an increase to $5,000. I would suggest that the increase to $10,000 is a wholly appropriate amount, and we are able to judge that by looking at the whole of the bankruptcy system in Australia. It is a system that keeps—as one might imagine, for a system dealing with the collection of debts and the reordering of the financial affairs of Australian citizens who fall into difficulty—statistics. And the statistics for 2008-09 tell us that there were only 391 sequestration orders made by the court system for an amount of less than $10,000. That is a very, very small proportion of the total number of sequestration orders.
When one considers that there are 1.93 million small businesses in Australia, one can readily see that only a very small proportion of small businesses are likely to file a creditor’s petition in any given year for an amount of less than $10,000—and that is really the proper context in which to look at this increase from $2,000 to $10,000. This will ensure that the heavy instrument of the bankruptcy system is not used to collect small debts; rather, the bankruptcy system will be confined to those appropriately serious cases where there is a need to bring to bear the machinery for creditors to collect the bankrupt’s estate and for a trustee—it is often a very expensive trustee, and that is another matter that is dealt with in this legislation—to come in and sort through what proportion of the bankrupt’s estate is able to be shared among creditors and the way in which that sharing is to occur.
There are many other means of debt collection that stop short of bankruptcy. In fact, I am not sure that bankruptcy was ever intended to be a primary tool of debt collection. It is appropriate that all other measures that are available to collect debts—which includes garnishee orders by a court or simple proceedings leading to a judgment in court or other means—should be employed before the last resort of a petition in bankruptcy is taken up.
As I said at the outset of this speech, the reason that this is timely is that we are presently enduring the effects of the global financial crisis—although Australia is faring better, as we have often heard, than every other developed country. This has already led to many Australians falling into financial difficulty. Regrettably, it is likely to lead to many more Australians falling into financial difficulty in the next year or so. This has been reflected in the actual increase in bankruptcies over the last year. There has been an 11 per cent increase in bankruptcies in 2008-09, which was noted by the Attorney-General in his speech. This year we have seen the highest ever level of personal insolvency, with a total of 36,479 administrations. The vast majority of these, regrettably, are non-business bankruptcies principally involving consumer debts where consumers have got themselves into difficulty. Generally speaking it is not appropriate for the costly and complex proceedings in bankruptcy to be used as a tool to recover a debt of only $2,000, though at present the law would permit this. It is wholly appropriate that there be this increase to $10,000. I would suggest that the criticisms that have been expressed about this are misplaced in the sense that they are focusing on the use and inappropriate use of bankruptcy proceedings as a debt collection tool. Bankruptcy, I repeat, is intended to be a means of reordering, in a civilised way, the affairs of those citizens who have fallen into financial difficulty.
There are a number of other amendments contained in this legislation, including the abolition of bankruptcy districts, which will enable the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia to administer the personal insolvency system in a more efficient way. The bankruptcy districts are very much a 19th-century institution and do not bear much resemblance to any of the divisions that we see elsewhere in the court system at either the state level or the federal level. It is appropriate that these slightly antiquated districts be abolished.
The legislation also goes on to make other amendments, including some useful changes to the provisions that deal with trustee remuneration. The amendments will provide a clearer regime for settling and reviewing remuneration, and in particular they will provide a more accessible and streamlined process for challenging a remuneration claim once the trustee has made such a claim. There have for a long time been concerns expressed by creditors that they have no ready means of checking the remuneration charged by a trustee, the basis on which the remuneration has been charged, or indeed ensuring that the amounts charged truly reflect the value of the work that has been done by the trustee. These amendments will, as I said, provide a clearer regime.
Mr Speaker, I understood that there was a proposal to finish at six. I shall continue.
The amendments also introduce changes to the offence provisions. These include an infringement notice regime as an alternative to prosecution for offences of strict liability. Quite commonly there will be some infraction that has occurred in the administration of a bankrupt’s estate which might not call for the infliction of the most severe penalties possible, and the introduction of an infringement notice regime, which is a regime that is used to good effect in some other areas of federal administration, as well as in a number of state regimes, is very often an appropriate alternative tool in the armoury of prosecution authorities. The amendments also will ensure that the penalties for some other offences, particularly those involving fraud, do reflect the seriousness of the conduct and are consistent with penalties for similar offences in other Commonwealth, state and territory legislation.
The amendments will provide some stronger powers to obtain a statement of affairs from a bankrupt who fails to file that statement of affairs as required and also provide some stronger powers for the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy to investigate possible offences under the act.
There is a technical change which is being made to the process that is used at the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings by the increase in the stay period for declarations of intent to file from seven to 28 days. The declaration of intent to file is one of the steps right at the start of bankruptcy proceedings and by increasing the period from seven to 28 days there will be a proportionate increase in the likelihood that the debtor will obtain proper information and advice about all options, which of course is very important because putting a citizen’s affairs into bankruptcy is properly to be regarded as a last-resort step. By slowing down the processes right at the start of a bankruptcy it is likely that it will remain and be seen to remain a last-resort option. The official receiver under these proposed processes will notify creditors of the declaration, which will allow them to be proactive in contacting the debtor to negotiate alternative arrangements. The provisions envisage that the debtor will be required to file a simple statement of affairs with the declaration and that will mitigate the risk of the debtor dissipating assets during the period and also provide an opportunity for the debtor to have explained the seriousness of the action which is being taken.
The other matter which these amendments deal with is to increase the debt income and assets thresholds for debt agreements by 20 per cent. Again, these were last looked at in 2002 and their purpose was to encourage more people to consider a debt agreement as a viable alternative to bankruptcy. The proposed increase will make these agreements available to more consumer debtors.
It is entirely appropriate in the difficult economic times that the country is facing, and is certainly likely to continue to experience as a result of economic difficulties in many other developed countries, that these reforms are undertaken. They are properly considered as part of the government’s wider microeconomic reform agenda and as part of a continuation of improvement to the effectiveness of credit markets in Australia. They are appropriate reforms to the personal insolvency system, particularly at a time when it is likely that there will be increasing numbers of people in financial distress, at least for the next year or so, and that those increasing numbers of people are able to be given a more realistic opportunity to consider their options and, where possible, avoid bankruptcy. It is very important that the aim of avoiding bankruptcy be kept squarely in mind at all times. The bankruptcy system should be considered an option of last resort.
The commentary on these reforms since they were announced by the Attorney-General is to some extent misplaced insofar as it treats the whole of the bankruptcy system as simply a debt collection tool. It is not a debt collection tool; it is a way of ordering the affairs of people in financial difficulties and ensuring that we continue to be a civilised society in relation to matters of debt. The amendments have been supported by all speakers in the House, I am pleased to say, despite some very small criticism that seems to have been expressed by the opposition in relation to the threshold amount. They are timely and appropriate reforms. I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—I thank the House for its indulgence in continuing at this time. I would certainly like to thank members for their contributions to the debate. The principal purpose of the amendments in the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is to modernise the national personal insolvency scheme and make it more efficient. They strike a balance between the need for fairness and the need to ensure a strong economy. The bill contains reforms that will encourage debtors to obtain early advice and give debtors greater access to alternatives to bankruptcy by making debt agreements an option for more debtors. Last year, for instance, debt agreements provided an average return to creditors of around 60c in the dollar compared to less than 2c in the dollar in bankruptcy. In other words, there are benefits all round.
The increase in the minimum amount upon which a creditor can petition for bankruptcy to $10,000 will ensure that debtors are not bankrupted over a relatively small debt. As I mentioned when I introduced the bill, I believe that it is inappropriate to use bankruptcy to recover relatively small debts or to use it effectively as a debt collection device rather than as a last resort. In that respect, unquestionably, the increase in the minimum amount upon which a creditor can petition for bankruptcy to $10,000 has attracted the most attention from stakeholders and also the media. That has been the most controversial of all the reforms proposed in the bill. Critics of the increase in the minimum amount have argued that businesses, and in particular small businesses, will find it more difficult to collect smaller debts under that sum. This point was made, for instance, by the member for Farrer. I can only reiterate that the purpose of bankruptcy is as a last resort rather than a debt collection tool. As speakers have indicated, there are alternatives to seeking bankruptcy.
I should also point out that the increase in the minimum amount will not have a large or disproportionate impact on small businesses. For instance, in 2008-09 there were only 391 sequestration orders for an amount of less than $10,000. Given that there are approximately 1.93 million small businesses in Australia, it is likely that only a tiny proportion of small businesses would have filed a creditor’s petition for an amount of less than $10,000 in any given year. The measures in this bill will encourage more people to consider other options, such as debt agreements. As I have indicated, these most certainly can be a constructive alternative to bankruptcy.
The reforms contained in the bill related to trustee remuneration will reinforce the principle that creditors should have oversight of a trustee’s administration of a bankrupt’s estate. The requirement to lodge a statement of affairs also protects the interests of creditors. In particular, it prevents the debtor from dissipating funds and assets potentially available to pay creditors. This requirement is strengthened by this bill by increasing the penalty for failure to lodge a statement of affairs and providing the official receiver with a specific power to compel a bankrupt to provide such a statement of affairs. The bill also contains reforms in relation to offences. These amendments will help ensure that any criminal, dishonest or other inappropriate conduct by bankrupts is dealt with appropriately.
The bill highlights the government’s commitment to modernising the personal insolvency system and to ensuring that our personal insolvency system treats both debtors and creditors fairly. Given the tough economic times that we are currently experiencing and the fact that in the last financial year Australia recorded a record level of personal insolvency, it is evident that the reforms contained in this bill are necessary. The reforms strike an appropriate balance by giving additional grace to debtors in some respects but also imposing stronger obligations of good faith in other respects. Importantly, the reforms will encourage those facing financial difficulty to obtain early advice with a view to negotiating an appropriate resolution of their circumstances with creditors which can be in the interests of both parties. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Sitting suspended from 6.12 pm until the ringing of the bells
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm.
Mr Speaker, I have the honour to inform you and the House that a little while ago I was elected leader of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party and therefore as Leader of the Opposition. I inform you, Mr Speaker, that until further notice front bench arrangements otherwise remain the same.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: on behalf of the government, I offer my congratulations to Tony on his election as Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, I know Tony well; we spent a lot of time chasing each other around as Minister for Health and Ageing and shadow minister—
Government members interjecting—
I put that badly! We were politically arguing questions of health and questions of procedure in this House. We were for a while a Punch and Judy show for Australian politics and from time to time, when we were in that phase of our political careers, I did remark that it was my aspiration to see Tony as Leader of the Opposition, so there we have it. It would be my aspiration for Tony to remain in that job for a very long, long time. I wish him luck in that: long service as Leader of the Opposition. To my counterpart, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: we spent the end of last year in what I thought were very good-natured Catwoman jokes. I think she has one attribute—nine lives—which is coming in very handy indeed for her. My congratulations to her.
I say to the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, that politics is a fascinating business, it is an uplifting business and it is also from time to time a very bruising business. Unfortunately, part of the required art form is to not show when you have taken some bruises. I think Mr Turnbull in his conduct in the past few days has shown himself to be a man of great honour. He is a man who is conducting himself in a very gracious and dignified way now. We wish for him some moments of quiet repose and some good and happy days with his family over the forthcoming Christmas period.
On indulgence, if I may, Mr Speaker: I thank Julia, the Deputy Prime Minister, for those gracious remarks. It is true: we have been sparring partners in quite a few different contexts. I have even been accused from time to time of flirting with the Deputy Prime Minister. That must cease now, of course. I have always enjoyed those contests and I have to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is a formidable opponent. She has wished me a long and not very happy life in my current job. I can say that I hope she does ascend. I would like her to be the Prime Minister because I am sure question time would be much more interesting and much shorter if she were the Prime Minister.
I should also respond on behalf of the former leader, the member for Wentworth, to the Deputy Prime Minister’s particularly gracious remarks. We who have been in this place know that while politics is a high and noble form of public service it is probably the most unforgiving business of all. Everyone comes into this place with high ideals and high hopes. The hopes are sometimes dashed—not always permanently but often for a time—and I think it important that all of us bleed a little for our colleagues in this great pursuit when that happens. I think all of us should take a moment to reflect on what has happened to Malcolm and I think, as you say, Julia, we should all wish him well at this time.
I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and associate myself with the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition so far as the member for Wentworth is concerned.
My purpose in rising, Mr Speaker, is to advise the House that we are of course in continuation awaiting the Senate’s consideration of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills. We are at this time of the year, as I said yesterday, often in the hands of the Senate. I hope to be able to advise the House in the next couple of hours what our arrangements might be for continuing the sitting today, possibly tonight and possibly tomorrow. I will do my best to advise the House as quickly as possible about the proposed arrangements for today and possibly tomorrow.
I add my congratulations to the member for Warringah, now Leader of the Opposition, on his ascension to the great high office of Leader of the Opposition in this place. May it be a very short tenure as you lead us to the next election and become Prime Minister at the next election. Today, of all days, the Labor Party should want to have question time and give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to start holding them to account for their failures. Why wouldn’t you, if apparently it is so easy to knock over the opposition, have question time and put it to the test? I think you will find it will be a very different course of events between now and the next election as we hold the government to account for debt, for deficit, for high interest rates, for weak border protection and for exposing Australia and its industries to the risk of being destroyed by overseas competitors. I look forward to the great debate, the great battle, of the next three months. I intend to work cooperatively with the Acting Leader of the House to get us out of here as soon as possible. I am sure the members of the House of Representatives are yearning to return to their electorates after what has been a most afebrile environment in the last couple of weeks. I hope the Senate, with our sitting here, will feel the pressure to act, deal with the amendments and get the bills back to us as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I am always grateful for the cooperation of the Manager of Opposition Business. On this side, we continue to admire both his flexibility and his stoicism.
As this long parliamentary Thursday continues—
Honourable members—Tuesday!
You all might be on Tuesday; I am on Thursday—and the prayer that I gave on Thursday is still protecting us, I hope. I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Kerr to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in place of Ms Vamvakinou.
by leave—I move:
That Ms Vamvakinou be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in her place, Mr Kerr be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I present a replacement explanatory memorandum to the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2009.
Debate resumed from 29 October, on motion by Dr Emerson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009, which the coalition supports in principle. We should never underestimate the importance of markets in the functioning of an economy.
Hear, hear!
Indeed so, the minister interjects. Markets play a pivotal role in the allocation of resources and they ensure that resources are allocated efficiently. The Trade Practices Act has an important role in assisting competition policy to get the sorts of competitive outcomes that are going to benefit industry and benefit consumers. Alan Greenspan, in his book The Age of Turbulence, had a look at the issue of the relative performance of a controlled economy and a market based economy. That opportunity was provided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Economists had been speculating on the relative prosperity of the market based West Germany and the controlled East Germany, but the fall of the wall gave the opportunity for an experiment, if you like, to examine the relative prosperity of the two approaches. Economists were very surprised by the fact that the controlled economy was only able to achieve about 30 per cent of the GDP of the market based economy.
Germany certainly has a great deal of control in its market economy—it is not a purely a market based economy; there is a great degree of government intervention in that economy—but it was interesting to note that markets had provided great wealth and prosperity to the West Germans that the East Germans could only hope to aspire to in many years to come. So we see that our markets in this country have an important role to play, as do markets around the world. And our Trade Practices Act has an important role to play in ensuring that markets operate efficiently and effectively.
The objectives of this bill are to minimise delays in decision making under the National Access Regime. The National Access Regime provides a mechanism for business operators to be granted access to privately held infrastructure which cannot be reasonably duplicated by a competitor. The regime provides a mechanism for access to privately held, nationally significant infrastructure where two parties cannot reach an agreement on its use. The regime was introduced by the Keating Labor government in 1995 and was implemented by part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act.
In 2006, under the Howard government, COAG agreed to the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, or CIRA, which committed the Commonwealth to reform part IIIA. COAG agreed to introduce the requirement that regulators will be bound to make regulatory decisions within six months and that, where a merits review is provided for, reviews are to be limited to the information submitted to the original decision maker.
This bill gives effect to the amendments agreed to by COAG. Under the new laws, the National Competition Council must make recommendations on applications within an expected period of 180 days. The minister must then make a decision on the NCC recommendation within 60 days from receiving the recommendation. Where the minister does not make a decision within this time, it is assumed that he or she agrees with the recommendations made by the National Competition Council. Decisions by the ACCC on access undertakings, industry codes and arbitrations of access disputes must be made within an expected period of 180 days, and decisions by the ACCC on competitive tender processes must be made within 90 days.
The measures will support more efficient infrastructure investments where this investment by the private sector is dependent upon access to competitors’ infrastructure and a decision by the minister to grant the access. The bill will also help encourage investment where a company is concerned about delays in gaining access to infrastructure. The regime will enhance competition in industries where access to infrastructure is a necessity for companies to compete.
Competition benefits all Australians because it delivers better services, lower prices and more efficient markets. Unfortunately, this government does not always understand the needs of smaller businesses and the importance of their ability to compete in the market. We have seen the release of the report of the Senate inquiry into the government’s failed GROCERYchoice website. Many independent retailers gave evidence to that inquiry conducted by the Senate Economics References Committee that the website would have placed them at a significant disadvantage in the market. When designing the site, the government failed to take into account issues such as lack of competition in remote areas and the high costs of delivery to smaller retailers. Master Grocers Australia told the committee:
Smaller retailers certainly have less scale than a large, 3,000 square metre supermarket.
Or even larger supermarkets. They went on:
There are different costs associated with running those different businesses, whether it be labour, overheads, rent, wage percentages and so forth.
The committee made the following recommendation:
… both the Government and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission note that the operation of the GROCERYchoice website was prejudicial and unfair to independent retailers.
The committee concluded that GROCERYchoice would have been anticompetitive and hurt smaller retailers in their attempts to compete against the majors. The government has a history of promising big and delivering small. GROCERYchoice was nothing more than a fraudulent scheme aimed to get the Prime Minister off the hook with respect to his promises on the cost of living.
During Senate estimates hearings, the ACCC advised that $6.6 million had been spent on the GROCERYchoice scheme. The final cost is expected to be in the order of $8 million-plus. The Senate report into the farce also said the initiative was characterised by ‘waste and mismanagement’ and designed to fulfil a ‘hollow election commitment’ by Labor to bring downward pressure on grocery prices. The website was a mere stunt to convince the public that the government was acting on a promise, when in fact it was doing nothing at all and in the process wasting over $8 million.
The legal sector have expressed concerns in relation to the bill before the House by suggesting that the government’s amendments to infrastructure access will be illusory. The law firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques writes that the reduction in time spent examining applications may result in a ‘compromise in the quality of key regulatory decisions, especially where the review body has insufficient information to make a fully informed decision’. Given the government’s track record of rushing into economic policy and policies such as GROCERYchoice and FuelWatch without considering the nature of the market, the criticism from the legal sector would have to be taken very seriously indeed. To address procedural concerns, the bill contains a number of ‘clock stoppers,’ which extend the time limit for procedural reasons. These clock stoppers will apply to only the National Competition Commission and ACCC and tribunal decisions.
With regard to NCC recommendations and ACCC and tribunal decisions, the clock will be stopped when making requests for information and when the regulator agrees to stop the clock for a certain period on the agreement of relevant parties to the decision. There are three additional clock stoppers for ACCC decisions, including a time allowance for periods of public consultation. There are no clock stoppers for where a decision is being made by a designated minister. Therefore, a compromise of quality in decision making will not occur if the agencies use clock stoppers to perform their duties carefully. In the absence of legislative clock stoppers, the parliament must bring the minister to account where he or she has not made a decision and he or she has had reasonable time to do so.
The amendments to infrastructure access are welcomed by the coalition. If they function as intended, they will encourage competition in all sectors requiring access to privately held infrastructure of national significance. These are amendments originally agreed to by the Howard government through COAG. The coalition in principle supports the bill, which will result in a more effective and efficient market arrangement.
I rise in the House today to speak in favour of the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009. The bill, which amends the Trade Practices Act 1974, will implement certain commitments made by the Council of Australian Governments to improve arrangements currently existing under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement. In particular the bill makes changes that will improve regulatory certainty and streamline the administrative procedures under the National Access Regime.
The National Access Regime is a mechanism designed to regulate access by third parties to nationally significant infrastructure projects—such as port facilities and rail lines—which are owned and operated by another commercial entity. The most well-known recent example of disputation over access to such major infrastructure facilities was the ultimately successful attempt by the Fortescue Metals Group to gain access to the Pilbara rail lines owned by BHP Billiton. That dispute between the two companies dragged on in various courts for approximately 22 months. It involved considerable expense and created an atmosphere of great uncertainty for the companies, their shareholders and, most importantly, prospective investors in Australia’s burgeoning resources and export sectors. Nationally significant infrastructure projects are vital to ensuring Australia’s economic growth in the future.
The changes will make access to infrastructure facilities easier for third parties, increase competition and make sure our major facilities are utilised to their fullest potential and used in the most efficient manner. The Rudd Labor government is committed to achieving a seamless national economy. This aim has been one of the driving imperatives that underlie the reform initiatives being rolled out by COAG.
I am pleased to be speaking on this bill today because it highlights the importance that this government places on providing the infrastructure this country needs to successfully navigate its way out of the global economic crisis. For too long Australia has been held back by inadequate infrastructure provision. The existing and future infrastructure projects that will be dealt with by the bill before us today are large in scale and of immense significance to our national economic prospects.
The Rudd Labor government has also made great progress in providing community and regional infrastructure funding that is having positive effects in every town and city around Australia. I know that my own electorate of Robertson, which is based on the Central Coast of New South Wales, there have been decades hamstrung by a lack of infrastructure. Physical and social infrastructure provision has never kept pace with the growth in population in the Central Coast region. Nor has it met the growing expectation of the communities located there for better and improved facilities, such as parks, playgrounds, community buildings, safer streets and more liveable town centres.
After years of neglect under the former Liberal government, I am pleased that the present government is beginning the process of addressing the massive backlog in the provision of these community facilities. The delivery of infrastructure facilities to the people of Robertson has always been and will remain one of my top priorities. I made a number of infrastructure commitments to the people of Robertson before the last election and I am heartened to say that all of them are in the process of delivery as we speak. These projects are supporting significant numbers of jobs for tradespeople, contractors and small businesses across the Central Coast and they are delivering the infrastructure that our region needs for the future: $81 million has been allocated to build the Mardi Dam to Mangrove Creek Dam water pipeline, which is ensuring the Central Coast’s water security into the future; $840 million was invested to fund start-up planning and design works for a dedicated freight rail line between Sydney and Newcastle; $7 million was provided to Gosford City Council to build 400 additional commuter car parking spaces in the Gosford city centre; $900,000 has been invested to construct shared-use community sporting facilities at Erina High School; and, lastly, $680,000 was provided to install CCTV security cameras in three CBDs on the peninsula. These were all election commitments that are improving the quality of life for Central Coast residents and improving their communities.
In addition to these valuable projects, the Rudd Labor government’s Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan has been great news for infrastructure provision in my electorate. So far the economic stimulus plan has invested more than $110 million directly into the Robertson electorate. More than $81 million of this expenditure has flowed from the Building the Education Revolution program, which is transforming the schools of the Central Coast. The 33 primary schools in Robertson are now receiving new classrooms, libraries and covered outdoor learning areas under the government’s Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. In addition to this, we have received significant injections of funding in new and upgraded social housing, black spot road grants and energy efficient housing. The Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program has so far delivered more than $5 million to the Gosford City Council to upgrade our parks, playgrounds, sporting grounds and community buildings. Under this program, a $3 million peninsula recreation precinct will soon provide world-class sporting and recreation facilities to thousands of local families. These projects are giving a boost to jobs on the Central Coast by building the infrastructure our region needs for tomorrow.
While these projects are not in the same dollar-value league as the Pilbara rail line, they are no less important to the people of Robertson, whose lives are bettered by having them built in their community. We must remember that local infrastructure projects just like these are being rolled out in every school and every community across the nation. That is why I commend this government for its rock-solid commitment to infrastructure delivery, whether the projects are small playgrounds in areas of real need or nationally significant projects. The infrastructure access bill proposes new and fresh arrangements that will make far better use of our privately owned infrastructure. It makes modest but telling changes to the way the National Access Regime operates in a variety of ways—that is, ways that bring clarity and increased efficiency to decisions about who can legitimately gain access to certain facilities. The bill will help facilitate third-party access to nationally significant infrastructure facilities by ensuring that the decision-making processes are faster and more transparent.
There are three pathways for a business to gain access to a service under the National Access Regime. Firstly, access can be gained by a declaration of a service provided by an infrastructure facility. Secondly, it can be achieved through state or territory access regimes that have been certified as effective. Thirdly, it can be secured via access undertakings made by service providers. The regulatory processes associated with access to these infrastructure facilities and services will become more streamlined and more certain for all parties, particularly the owners of the infrastructure and those businesses seeking access to the facilities. The result will be greater competition in markets that depend on facilities that cannot be economically duplicated. For example, it would be a patently inefficient outcome for Australia’s economy to build two rail lines right next to each other so that iron ore exports to China from the Pilbara region of Western Australia could be enhanced and bottlenecks to trade overcome. The Australian government is now facing a huge infrastructure investment challenge. It is imperative that export bottlenecks are reduced and that the nation is provided with sufficient export infrastructure to allow Australia to meet the opportunities arising from the phenomenal and sustained growth of countries such as China. There must be strong incentives for private sector investment in major infrastructure projects that will aid this growth.
The Australian government must also ensure that existing infrastructure and, equally importantly, new infrastructure projects that will be necessary for future capacity increases are used efficiently. It is important to note that the infrastructure access bill does not seek to replace commercial negotiations between infrastructure facility owners and access seekers. Instead, it provides enhanced incentives for negotiation between infrastructure owners and those access seekers. The bill sets clearer rules for both parties and for regulators that will enhance access on reasonable terms and conditions, should negotiations between the parties fail. The bill sets time limits on decision-making processes under the National Access Regime, reducing what are sometimes lengthy and costly delays. The National Access Regime has been in place since 1995 and has proved a useful means to regulate access within key infrastructure sectors.
Both infrastructure owners and access seekers have stated that the decision-making processes under the regime are too lengthy and therefore can involve unacceptable costs. Some owners have in fact expressed concern that the regime was causing regulatory risks that may actually hinder investment in essential infrastructure. Since 1995 there have been a number of reviews of the National Access Regime to improve certainty and transparency in the decision-making process, to impose time limits on decisions and to introduce a limited form of merits review for regulatory decisions.
In November 2008, COAG 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 before us today implements the Australian government’s commitments under that agreement. One of the fundamental adjustments the bill makes to the National Access Regime is the introduction of binding time limits. These replace the target time limits introduced in 2006. Regulators under the regime—which include the National Competition Council, the ACCC and the Australian Competition Tribunal—must make decisions about infrastructure access within a statutory time period of six months. For relevant ministers the statutory period is set at 60 days. The existing merits review arrangements sometimes meant that parties to an access agreement review could bring up additional information that had not been provided to the original decision maker in their deliberations. The bill provides that where merits review of decisions is available, the Australian Competition Tribunal may only have regard to the information taken into account by the original decision maker.
For new infrastructure the bill provides for an up-front decision about whether a service to be provided by a proposed infrastructure facility is eligible or ineligible to be deemed a declared service. Once a minister decides that a service is ineligible, it cannot be declared for at least 20 years, or longer if the minister so determines. To improve regulatory certainty, the bill will enable a service provider to submit an access undertaking to the ACCC which includes one or more terms known as fixed principles. These fixed principles will apply for a certain period beyond the expiry date of the undertaking. When important variations are fixed, investors and access seekers have greater certainty regarding the terms and conditions of access to the service under future access arrangements. For example, a fixed principle could apply to the calculation of a regulatory asset base so that the value of the asset base is set for future undertakings. This would allow access providers and seekers to extrapolate access prices under future access arrangements and have more certainty in their investment planning.
A fixed principle could also be an obligation, such as the standard at which the service is to be provided. It could also be a process, such as a procedure that the service provider will follow before undertaking new investment in the relevant facility. 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. Under current arrangements, there are only limited means by which the ACCC can accept variations or amendments to access undertakings entered into by the various parties. For example, for a revised undertaking to be accepted, it first has to be withdrawn completely and then resubmitted for consideration. This has caused delays and increased costs and may have led to the perception that an infrastructure provider which had voluntarily agreed to grant third-party access had acted improperly. Under the bill, the ACCC now has enhanced ability to accept amendments and variations to undertakings.
The bill also streamlines the declaration test. This means that a minister or the National Competition Council will no longer need to be satisfied as to health and safety matters when considering applications. Clearly, these matters are dealt with adequately via other legislation. Also, the minister or the National Competition Council must take heed only of state or territory access regimes that have been certified as effective national access regimes, thus allowing easier and faster decisions to be made. Under the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement it is expected that state and territory access agreements are to be certified by the end of 2010.
The bill improves the efficacy of the National Competition Council’s decision-making process by providing it with the ability to make decisions without having to hold meetings. Decisions can now be effected by the simpler and quicker method of circulating a document for signature. Decision-making processes by 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 provides a strong incentive for service providers to initiate appeals and then delay their completion. Under the new arrangements, the tribunal will be empowered to determine whether a stay is appropriate. This provision removes the cumbersome and time-consuming automatic stay mechanism that currently applies. This will speed up the resolution of access disputes, as preliminary matters may be settled in advance of the tribunal making a decision under the review. The bill also gives the tribunal powers to award costs in reviews of declaration decisions. This will also reduce incentives for delaying tactics, frivolous review applications and other inappropriate actions.
In conclusion, it may be said that these changes to the National Access Regime are modest in nature, but they serve a larger purpose that is vital to the nation’s economic future. These measures will bring significant improvements to the infrastructure access arrangements that are currently in place in Australia. The incentives for parties to negotiate clear, appropriate and cooperative agreements will benefit all concerned. There will be speedier and more certain arrangements, the roles of the various regulators are now more clearly defined and their decisions will be more easily arrived at. The amendments contained in the infrastructure access bill demonstrate the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to fostering a seamless national economy. In combination with the massive program of local, regional and community infrastructure provision under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, Australia is undergoing an historic reshaping of its national economy and a transformation of its communities. I commend the bill to the House.
This has been the longest day. In parliamentary terms it is in its 131st hour, so it has indeed been a very, very long day—and it has been an extraordinary day. On indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, can I just pass on my congratulations to our new leader, Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah. I wish him all the best. We will be fighting hard with him, because this will be a big fight. I also place on record my deep and sincere thanks to Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, also a dear friend, and I wish him all the very best at this time. He showed tremendous grace today, and I commend him for that. So we go forward, choosing clearly to give the planet, but not Kevin Rudd, the benefit of the doubt.
The Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009 is a very important piece of reform which the coalition supports. This bill is part of a process of reform that has been going on for almost two decades and it adds to the work of successive governments. In our island continent, how we plan, build and operate our infrastructure to serve the needs of our people and their industries will be, I believe, our biggest challenge during the time I hope to serve in this parliament. Today we have an unexpected new framework against which all of our infrastructure decisions must be taken. Treasury’s revised forecast that Australia will be home to 35 million people by 2049 is a profound and challenging statistic, one that we need to get our heads around, and we must frame policy in this place across many different areas as we go forward.
I believe there is genuine and understandable concern in our community about how we will cope with this number of people and what we need to do to cope with this number of people, with a national survey published just two weeks ago revealing that four in 10 Australians are now worried about whether the infrastructure, the services and the various other things that we provide to sustain the quality of life in this country can service that population. These are fair questions, these are honest questions, and they are questions we must wrestle with in this parliament and in our policies.
Growth is a good thing—growth is a very good thing—and we need to also acknowledge that as we go forward in this debate. Our solution for dealing with growth is effective action now to encourage infrastructure provision that will meet our transport, education and health needs, and boost our export industries. There is no other option; we simply must achieve infrastructure resources that deliver new productivity gains and new competitiveness in our global markets if we are going to be able to provide and sustain the quality of life that we enjoy today and I am sure we hope future generations will enjoy.
The challenges that sit under this very complex policy conundrum relate to how we are going to deal with some very important issues, and they are as follows: we have the challenge of a shortfall of 200,000 dwellings in our housing resources, with construction unable to match our immediate growth rates let alone address the backlog; we have the challenge of coal loaders lining up 20, 40 or 50 at a time outside our terminals at Newcastle or Dalrymple Bay, wasting time and money; we have the challenge of a rail system that fails to maximise our productivity, with visionary projects such as the inland railway from Victoria to Queensland being placed on the backburner; we have the challenge of a road network masked by its missing links, not least of which is the F6 freeway extension from Sydney to the New South Wales South Coast and in particular the Illawarra which is the missing link in Sydney’s road system, which those opposite have chosen at both a state and a federal level to ignore time and again; and there are the challenges of public transport systems that need to be able to move a growing population around our cities, particularly when we are looking at having populations of seven million in cities such as Sydney and Melbourne, and a doubling of the population of Brisbane over the period that I have referred to. These are all big challenges, and hit-and-miss announcements of infrastructure upgrades will not deliver on them.
Look no further than hints recently of the opening of the Richmond Air Force base to commercial aircraft, with a complete lack of thought for the absence of adequate road and rail infrastructure to support those aircraft movements. Richmond has been defined as a potential or interim second airport. I know that the residents of that area—having spoken to the now member for Greenway and hopefully next member for Macquarie—have genuine concerns that this short-term second airport will become a long-term second airport. You cannot go and place those sorts of commitments on a local community when the infrastructure is simply not there to support an operation of that kind, let alone deal with the issues that relate to national security matters—how that airport would operate and how it will interface with its very important work, much of which is emergency service and rescue work and things of that nature at that base. That is what our Air Force and armed services are involved in. The infrastructure is currently not there to support that type of arrangement. It is important than when we make decisions about infrastructure they are not made in a slapdash way which only adds further burdens and complicates the problem rather than putting in place a long-term plan that will deliver on what we will need in the future.
A faster growing population must be viewed, as I said, as an opportunity. It is now time that we as a nation took a view on what our population target should be. It is not good enough for this government to simply say, ‘Our population is projected to be 35 million by 2049,’ and that is it. That is a number we need to think about. It is a number that we have to understand in terms of what our infrastructure can support. How are we going to grow our economy over that period of time to support a population of that size? We need to form considered views about that and then ensure that we take the responsible action to deliver on the consequences of our decision. If we say that there is going to be a population of a particular size, then the consequences of that are what we need to do in terms of how we run fiscal policy, infrastructure policy and regulatory policy in this country. We need to ensure that we put in place, for future generations, what we need.
I recall when I was in primary school, those 35 years ago, we visited not this place but the one down the hill, and they had to make the decisions on these same issues that we are going to have to make for the future. I remember the population at that time was around 13 million, and the scale of the increase was similar to what we face now over the next 40 years. So those in that time in that place made their decisions; we now in this place must make similar decisions, and good decisions, for the future.
The more substantial question is: how do we work through the policy challenges? Can we provide the infrastructure through public and private means? If not, what adjustments will need to be made to immigration or family policy and what adjustments will need to be made to infrastructure provision to match the framework we hope people will live in? Once we move into these sorts of questions, we can see there are ramifications across so many policy areas. We also see the governance challenges. The role of local councils, for example, becomes incredibly important—their planning policies, land availability; the provision of roads, waste collection and landfill, and waste management more generally—all the basic services that we depend on. States will need to assess population trends for everything from land release and public transport through to water and sewerage and the like—even policing. Federal policy adjustments to meet population trends go well beyond immigration and into communications, education, labour resources and our skills base, environmental impacts and many more areas. Human services provision alone ranges from pension entitlements to unemployment benefits.
I note with interest today that the debate is far from settled inside the government. Until today, all we had heard was the population projection of 35 million, through the Intergenerational reporta process which was begun by the Treasurer under the former government, the former member for Higgins. Now at least the member for Wills, I notice, has entered the debate and said, ‘There should be 26 million.’ He is entitled to that view, and I am glad that one person on the government benches is thinking about population policy and what is needed. Whether he is right about that is the nature of the debate, and it is a debate I think we should be keen to get into. The point is this: there is no distinguishable, coherent population policy coming from the government at this time, despite their having had two years to grapple with these issues. The fact is, as I said before, that growth is good, but growth will only be good if it is backed by a coordinated, proactive policy that delivers the infrastructure and services needed not only to support the population but also to sustain and enhance the quality of life we aspire to for all Australians in the future.
For infrastructure provision in particular, the task requires governments to come together to remove any possible roadblock to this growth. It means abandoning lazy, disinterested approaches to regulatory reform, which this bill I fairly acknowledge will address, and it demands a new concerted effort at all levels of government and, most importantly, in the relationship between governments and the private sector. Genuine regulatory reform must be an ongoing process. The Howard government made hard yards on this. Australia cannot now afford to see that momentum dwindle or be lost.
This legislation, as I mentioned, does take up something of these challenges that lie ahead of us and, as I said, it is supported by the coalition—drawing on the reform initiatives over almost two decades. Its intent is to increase regulatory certainty and streamline administrative processes under the National Access Regime. It is about how we better utilise the scarce infrastructure resources we as a nation have invested in, whether that investment has occurred from a private or public purse, and it is about certainty for business so they can make decisions about their investments with some knowledge of the processes and that those processes may be speedy to ensure that they can give their investments best effect.
The National Access Regime allows potential users of essential infrastructure to seek access on reasonable terms if commercial negotiation with the owner or operator has failed. Examples of essential infrastructure are natural gas pipelines, the electricity grid and rail track—assets which play a leading role in Australia’s economic growth. I refer to the Parliamentary Library’s most relevant quote from an article put together by Koshy and Kenyon, ‘Third-Party Access to Infrastructure: The Case of the Mount Newman Rail Line in the Pilbara’, where they say:
It is often the case that a market is dominated by a single piece of infrastructure and some form of monopolistic power is conferred on the firm owning the infrastructure, both in the existing, as well as related, markets. This can occur to the extent that the firm exhibits quite marked pricing power or where it is uneconomic for other firms to duplicate the infrastructure.
To balance the rights of consumers with the infrastructure owner in such cases, Australia has developed a national system for third party access to key economic infrastructures. This system allows potential competitors to seek access to infrastructure as a means to introduce competition into affected markets.
That is what these changes are seeking to achieve and that is why they are supported. The reality check, though, is that this bill actions one or two outstanding matters from COAG decisions and a Productivity Commission review, the vast majority of which—there are now just a number are remaining, which include those in this bill—were actioned by the previous government as a sound momentum of reform on these matters. That government enacted a series of improvements to the way that the National Access Regime operates, streamlining regulatory processes and applying meaningful deadlines and binding time limits. The Howard government was prepared to take hard decisions and it understood that infrastructure was not just about building things but about making sure that the things that are built, whether by governments or the private sector, could operate to best efficiency. There is no greater example of the tectonic shift in the performance of our infrastructure than the historic waterfront reforms of the Howard government, which saw crane rates—part of the infrastructure that sits all around our ports—move in productivity from an average of 17.1 containers an hour in 1996 to 28.2 containers an hour by 2004. Infrastructure policy is not just about hard hats, luminous vests and press releases but about the whole process of how we build it, how we plan it and how we operate it. That is why regulatory reform in this area is so vital.
More concerning, there is no indication that this government is giving any thought to coordinating a new infrastructure strategy other than statements of intent. Labor was elected on a platform that included:
… a pipeline of critical infrastructure projects will be available allowing the infrastructure sector to invest with certainty and make best use of available skills and resources.
This was the commitment of the now Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, but does anyone remember that he also said in the same breath that ‘superannuation fund managers, private investors and industry groups have been calling out for national leadership and coordination’? My point here is that there is plenty of rhetoric about moving forward with an infrastructure pipeline, but we are not seeing that followed through in practice. The Business Council of Australia, the Productivity Commission or those operating in industry are looking for the leadership that the minister for infrastructure said he would provide. But what they are seeing instead is a real failure to coordinate and streamline between government agencies, a failure to deliver on basic commitments, a failure to attack the central need in any significant way other than to pick up the work left over by the previous government that they had already spelt out and, in particular, a real failure to follow through with undertaking proper cost benefit analysis on projects such as the O-Bahn project in South Australia.
Regardless of what your views on the O-Bahn project might be, you do not go and invest tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money based on a flyover in a helicopter. That is not proper cost benefit analysis. That is not transparent. That is old-fashioned pork-barrelling infrastructure spending—something that this government made many accusations about when they were in opposition. Now, when they find themselves on the Treasury bench, they fly over cities in helicopters deciding where the votes are and ensuring the money follows. That is not proper cost benefit analysis. That is not proper transparency.
The government refuse to release the analysis on the projects they committed to. That is not proper transparency and that is not proper decision-making for a government that says it is all about proper processes. So what we are not seeing is a pipeline of projects that the private sector can be cognisant of as the direction of future infrastructure investment in this country. That is what we need. Infrastructure Australia is a fine organisation led by a fine individual in Michael Deegan. It is doing outstanding work, but it is not being listened to by this government. It is basically an outpost of great intellect and great merit but one that literally sits without influence in this government. I wish it had influence because if it did I think we would be getting a greater direction on where these dollars should be spent.
We need to recognise that at the end of the day the federal government does not spend 100 per cent of the money spent on infrastructure in this country. It is not the federal government. If you went by the government’s rhetoric on this issue, you would think that every brick that is being laid in this country, every load of cement that is being poured as a slab, was as a result of the direct investment of the Rudd government. That is the expectation that they created and that is the perception in government that they are trying to maintain. It is an absolute nonsense. The government is spending a handful of the dollars that are actually spent on infrastructure in this country. The private sector, the states and local governments are the heavy-lifters and have always been the heavy-lifters on infrastructure spending in this country. I believe that people will increasingly be disappointed as they wake up to the spin of this government, which says, ‘It’s actually us doing all this work.’ At the end of the day the people who are really making it happen are those in the private sector who are out there investing their dollars, and what they are looking for is direction.
It is the government’s obligation to create the right policy environment, a coordinated policy approach between federal, state, territory and local governments, to deliver reform and encourage private sector activity. It means ensuring governments are appropriately tasked, responsible, accountable and working together. It means targeting scarce resources, public and private, to projects that support and service growth and productivity gains for the long term. It is about conditioning a positive environment, whether it is in pricing issues or other regulatory matters. It is about planning it, building it and running it, and we need a policy that deals with all three. They are interlinked. If you cannot run it properly, you will not attract the finance. If the planning is substandard the costs will increase, and if costs are high, not least through excessive taxes and charges that run to construction projects like bees to a honey pot, then the economics of the work will be compromised and that work may not get done.
As I look at this bill, I support its intent. It carries on the many reforms that have been taking place over many years. But we still do not have a forward infrastructure agenda that deals with planning it, building it and operating it. This government is dealing with the leftovers of reform that they have picked up from the previous government. They will be supported because these are our reforms, basically, at the end of the day. I call on the government and the minister for infrastructure to put away his hard hat, to put away his vest, to put away his camera, to put away all of the trappings of politicking that go with the infrastructure investment under this government, and get out his pencil and his calculator and sit down with those like Infrastructure Australia who are trying to put a genuine pipeline of projects on the drawing board and listen to them and do the homework that he said he would do and be upfront and honest with the Australian people about where the bang for the buck is going to be in these investments. That is what is going to address our challenges for the future. (Time expired)
It is right that the member of the member for Cook refers to the issue of pricing principles and the significance of pricing principles when it comes to investment in infrastructure. For those of us who have been in the House a little longer than the member for Cook, I do recall back in 2006 when I spoke on the Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Regime) Bill. In that piece of legislation that passed the House under the Howard government I indicated then that the government had been drawn kicking and screaming through its pig-headedness to implement a measure of pricing principles into that legislation. That was something they were most reluctant to do. So when we are talking about the champions of investing in infrastructure, when it came down to the issues of the National Access Regime, clearly, whilst the words were there, it took the vibrancy of an opposition committed to infrastructure reform to drag the Howard government kicking and screaming into addressing pricing principles in terms of the National Access Regime. I do, however, agree with the member for Cook in his comment about Michael Deegan, the head of Infrastructure Australia. Apart from being a good friend, I actually know Michael Deegan to be very diligent, very competent and a person who is absolutely dedicated to the task at hand.
The national infrastructure access regime was introduced in 1995, following a recommendation of the Hilmer committee. It is an important piece of economic regulation. It is a key component of Australia’s regulatory framework promoting the development of competition and efficient markets. When we are talking about infrastructure we are talking about the veins and the arteries of our economy. Infrastructure such as roads, ports, railways, airports, power lines and gas mains are certainly all significant public commodities. All go to adding to the economic infrastructure of the nation. Infrastructure is a critical source of economic competitiveness. It represents the basic building blocks for our economy, and efficient management of our infrastructure is crucial to the long-term success of our economic progress.
The National Access Regime establishes the circumstances under which access to nationally significant infrastructure can be provided. There are three pathways to access under the National Access Regime. Firstly, the access seeker may apply for declaration of an infrastructure service; secondly, a certified state or territory infrastructure access regime may provide for access; and, thirdly, the provider of an infrastructure facility may have an access undertaking that sets out the terms and conditions for access.
A service may be declared where: access would promote a material increase in competition in another market; it would be uneconomical to develop another piece of infrastructure—in other words, to duplicate infrastructure; the facility is of national significance; access is not the subject of an effective state or territory access regime; access can be provided without undue risk to human health and safety; and where access would not be contrary to the public interest. It is important to note that declarations do not provide a right of access but rather a right to arbitration by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission if the commercial negotiations fail. I think that was the significance of the comment the member for Cook made when he referred to the issue of access to rail lines in the iron ore town up in the Pilbara. Although this regulation framework has proven to be a good model to date, infrastructure owners and access seekers have argued that processes under the access regimes are too lengthy and become too costly.
Some owners of nationally significant infrastructure have expressed concern that the Access Regime is generating regulatory risk that may hinder investment in essential pieces of infrastructure. That was the point I made in a speech in February 2006 when we were discussing the importance of incorporating pricing principles in the National Access Regime. People are not about to invest without certainty, and bear in mind that resources for investments in these pieces of infrastructure will ordinarily be raised publicly, whether through direct investment or through the share market. These things require certainty. Therefore, we need not only efficient operations but also efficient investment in these pieces of infrastructure in the first place. That was the point we made in the debate on the initial bill, in 2005, in terms of the government’s reluctance at that stage to incorporate pricing principles.
Although this regulation framework has proven to be a good model to date, people are still concerned about the certainty with which they would raise investment dollars in order to construct the infrastructure that falls under the National Access Regime. Some owners of nationally significant infrastructure have expressed concerns about what they want and each of those concerns has come down to certainty. They want to know whether, if they commit resources to invest in a piece of infrastructure, that piece of infrastructure is likely to be declared at some stage. They want to know whether it will be a matter that is open to competition—as in the case of the Pilbara rail line, operated by BHP—or, alternatively, it will be a matter of access, such as the national gas mains out of Moomba, for instance. The provider of these facilities needs to have significant knowledge as to whether they will be subject to the regime.
Therefore, this bill is designed to deliver a measure of certainty to those who are going to invest in the development of these pieces of infrastructure so that they can, at least, be mindful of two things: firstly, whether the infrastructure will fall under the regime and, secondly, how they will set the price for those who want to access those pieces of nationally important infrastructure.
Infrastructure is a critical component of the government’s productivity agenda. It is certainly significant in terms of micro-economic reform. Delays and cost in decision making under the Access Regime may have a clear and adverse impact on, firstly, the construction of the infrastructure and, in turn, on economic growth and national productivity.
This bill will provide regulatory certainty and will streamline administrative processes under the National Access Regime. The reforms in the bill drew on the recommendations of COAG, the Productivity Commission, the National Competition Council, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Competition Tribunal. Firstly, the bill will establish time limits for decision making about third-party access to infrastructure and it will limit reviews of those decisions to information provided to the initial decision maker. The bill will also provide greater regulatory certainty for potential investors in new infrastructure. As I said, this legislation is designed to overcome what is considered to be an impediment to investment—that is, the lack of certainty when it comes to the construction of major pieces of infrastructure in the country.
Under the existing Access Regime, a private investor who is, at least, considering building an infrastructure facility cannot determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the service to be provided will be either declared or declarable. This bill provides an upfront decision to be made by the designated minister. If the minister decides that the service provided would not meet the test of declaration under the Access Regime then that particular project or piece of infrastructure cannot be declared for a least another 20 years. That provides the constructor or the investor in the infrastructure with that degree of certainty. In other words, access to that piece of infrastructure cannot be then contested for 20 years.
The bill also improves regulatory certainty by enabling a service provider to submit to the ACCC an access undertaking which includes one or more terms that will apply for a certain period beyond the expiry date of the undertaking. When important variables are fixed, service providers and access seekers can more easily determine the terms and conditions under which access arrangements or agreements can be set. This bill contains a number of modest but important measures to increase regulatory certainty and improve decision-making processes under the National Access Regime, helping to support infrastructure investment that is needed to underpin the economic growth and national productivity of this country.
We on this side of the House are, quite frankly, proud of our position in putting infrastructure investment at the forefront of our economic credentials. This government set up Infrastructure Australia. This government set up an inventory of economic-development-generating infrastructure. In terms of providing attention to infrastructure, only the Rudd Labor government has taken up the cudgels since the Hawke-Keating days.
As a matter of fact, it was the micro-economic reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments that led to the strong period of growth that the Howard government inherited and squandered over a period 12 years by its failure to invest in infrastructure. The efficient operation of roads, rail, ports, airports and electricity and gas facilities is essential for lowering the input costs of Australian businesses, which often results in Australian businesses being more competitive on a world scale and in reducing prices for domestic consumers. These are things that were started in the period of the Hawke and Keating governments. They were the things that the Howard government inherited back in 1996. Along with education and health, infrastructure was one of the other things that the Howard government refused to invest in. It refused to back the Australian people in terms of their future.
We on this side of politics are determined to keep Australia on a competitive international footing. We have one of the few economies that did not go into recession recently. Of all the OECD’s 30 mainstream economies, ours did not go into recession. Among those world economies, our economy is now leading the way in terms of positive growth. Part of that is because of the attention that we are now giving to investment in infrastructure. That is not something on which we are going to rest on our laurels; that is something on which we need to be ever so vigilant. We must ensure the efficiency of our ports and our rail mechanisms.
My electorate is in the south-west of Sydney, and I have the Australian Rail Track Corporation, or ARTC, constructing their freight line through the south-west of Sydney at the moment. That is going to establish the south-west of Sydney as an inland port. It is going to be significant for generating thousands upon thousands of jobs as advanced intermodal terminals are built. It will mean that areas from Eastern Creek through to Picton will be the beneficiaries of being an inland port. Containers will be accessed from Port Botany and will be able to be accessed through each of those locations. That will stimulate new growth and in fact new industries, not only because of the access provided by that freight rail but, in addition, because of access to the road infrastructure, such as the M7 and the widened F5. These certainly are matters which come within the purview of this government in terms of its attention to providing efficient infrastructure management for this country.
The Rudd Labor government has been committed to the F5 widening, a $140 million project that was established. We committed to that road widening when we were in opposition. It was actually opposed by the other side of politics. They did not think we needed it. I think the local member argued that instead of widening the road we could have some form of overhead conveyance or something else. This was not a project that was taken on to limit the road traffic crawl in mornings and afternoons in the south-west of Sydney. This was very much centred on having the appropriate pieces of infrastructure, including road infrastructure, to establish the south-west of Sydney as an inland port, whereby organisations and companies that would benefit by using the rail network would also have access to the main southern highway to distribute their goods and services. That was certainly a significant piece of infrastructure that was committed to by the Rudd government prior to our taking office. As I have said, that is something that was opposed by the other side but on which we demonstrated foresight as to what was necessary to kick-start industry efficiency and drive economic growth throughout all levels of our economy.
These are things that we in Labor are committed to. These are things that make us fundamentally Labor. These are things on which, with any advancement that has been made—particularly with the National Access Regime in 2005—the other side has had to be taken kicking and screaming to actually make the changes necessary, particularly when it came down to the pricing principles. These are fundamental to us. We are not picking winners. We certainly want to establish the necessary infrastructure framework under which Australian industry and the Australian economy can excel. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.
It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009 and to do so after the member for Werriwa, who has made some significant contributions to this debate. I would like to reinforce some of the points that he has made, but I would also like to address some of my comments to the statements made earlier by the member for Cook. It was interesting to hear the member for Cook talk about the infrastructure needs that we face in this country, particularly with a larger and growing population. But, as the member for Werriwa pointed out quite succinctly, the member for Cook has not been in this place all that long—in fact, he was elected to the parliament at the same time as I was, at the last election—and perhaps he can be forgiven for showing some ignorance as to what occurred in this place and what occurred on the watch of the former government. When it comes to infrastructure spending, the Howard government was missing in action. Those on the other side very rarely put up a defence when it comes to infrastructure spending. They seek to try to turn to a fresh page and start to look forward, rather than try to defend the very poor record of the former government.
When it comes to infrastructure, we can go back and have a look at the many, many—in fact, over 20—warnings from the Reserve Bank in relation to some of the pressures that were leading to rising interest rates when those on the other side last held the treasury bench. When the coalition were last in government, the Reserve Bank issued warning after warning in relation to infrastructure bottlenecks. The failure of the former government to do anything to address those infrastructure bottlenecks clearly contributed to the inflationary pressures that ultimately led to the highest interest rates that we have seen for quite some time. They were the party, of course, that promised that they would keep interest rates at record lows.
The Reserve Bank is meeting today and will be deliberating on the future direction of interest rates. But—notwithstanding the decisions it takes today—clearly interest rates are at a much better level, in terms of affordability for people right around this country and where they are placed at the moment, than they were when we as a government came into office. In no small measure, the failings of the former government were as a result of their failure to address some of these infrastructure bottlenecks.
So it is interesting to hear the member for Cook talk about the challenges that we face. He did not provide a lot of commentary in relation to this particular bill, which I assume he supports. I assume that because these are good initiatives and good measures that will provide greater certainty to those private investors who are looking to invest in nationally significant infrastructure. Essentially, that is what this bill is about. It is about ensuring that, in that balancing act between not duplicating infrastructure and maintaining fair and reasonable access to nationally significant infrastructure, we are able to do that in a way that does not provide a disincentive for investment in new, nationally significant infrastructure. This bill addresses some of those concerns that have been voiced by many throughout industry and, indeed, by many of the key regulatory bodies.
It is worth noting that the proposals contained in this bill draw upon recommendations from a number of significant regulatory bodies over a number of years. More recently, we have seen COAG recommending some of these proposals, as have the Productivity Commission, the National Competition Council, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Competition Tribunal. But, even more significantly, we have heard the calls for the types of reforms that are proposed here coming from those in industry—those who have provided the capital, who have invested in the new nationally significant infrastructure facilities that our country has seen in recent times, and those who might be proposing to do so in the future.
I note that the member for Cook also, in the only attempt to defend the record of the former government, offered up waterfront reform as being the most significant contribution that the former government had made in improving productivity. I will let others judge the success or otherwise of those measures. But, as I said earlier, when the former government left office the Reserve Bank was making repeated warnings about the failure to meet the levels of productive capacity that our nation needed in places such as our ports. So, whatever decisions they took, they failed against that benchmark. But, if waterfront reform is in fact one of the key achievements of the former government, then that is perhaps a more polite way of expressing the ongoing commitment to Work Choices and labour market deregulation that is so central to the beliefs of those on the other side.
We saw that from the new Leader of the Opposition today—in some of his first comments as the Leader of the Opposition, breathing life back into the body that is Work Choices. He wants to give it another name; that was pretty clear from what he had to say today. But he certainly was not hammering that final nail into the coffin of the corpse that is Work Choices. In fact, he was breathing life back into it. Members in this place would be well aware of his ongoing commitment to driving down the terms and conditions of working people right around this country. For those who might have forgotten that, it is incumbent upon all of us to remind them over the coming period.
The member for Cook also made some comments in relation to airport capacity and the Richmond RAAF base. I put on record that the government, in the minister for transport’s statements, has made it very clear that no decisions have been taken in relation to the current reviews of airport capacity that are being undertaken. But I would like to read a couple of comments from the press release that was issued by the Hon. Anthony Albanese, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, on 23 November this year. Importantly, in that statement, the minister said:
… the Government will not engage in speculation about individual locations.
So there was certainly nothing to verify the suggestions in relation to Richmond RAAF base that are being made by those opposite. But, to my mind more importantly, the statement also says that the white paper and the government’s response:
… will also consider the future of the Badgerys Creek site given the Government has ruled it out as an option for a second airport. This will focus on how the site can provide a stimulus for jobs and economic development for western Sydney.
The member for Cook did not offer a view on this; perhaps some of the other speakers later in this debate might choose to do so. But my understanding is that it remains opposition policy that a second Sydney airport be built at Badgerys Creek. In fact, when they left office the position that prevailed was the retention of the Badgerys Creek airport site for Sydney’s second airport. I have not seen any statements made since, by anyone on that side of the chamber, that they were walking away from their commitment to preserve Badgerys Creek as an option for a second airport.
So if the member for Cook truly wants to point towards a failure by this government to take decisions in a consultative way on airport capacity—and the government, I might add, is currently going through an extensive consultative process through the white paper process—if that is the criticism that the member for Cook is levelling, let us just take a couple of steps back and look at what a debacle the handling of the Badgerys Creek site had been under the former government.
After all the toing and froing that occurred in the many years prior to the former government leaving office, the best position that they were able to come up with in relation to meeting future airport needs in the Sydney Basin was to retain in government ownership the Badgerys Creek airport site with a reservation over that site, as expressed in the Airports Act, with a commitment to roll out an airport on that site if and when it was required. There was no alternative planning for any sites elsewhere and no alternative process.
If the member for Cook is serious about holding up governments and their willingness to deal with airport related issues as being a measure of success or otherwise when it comes to infrastructure planning, the former Howard government got a fail with a capital F. We as a government are committed to working through these matters and to trying to address some of the key productivity challenges of our economy. Infrastructure is a central challenge of that nature.
In relation to the bill that is before the House, I mentioned earlier that there have been some recommendations that have come forward from various bodies, including the Productivity Commission, and I note that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics is currently undertaking an inquiry into raising the level of productivity growth in the Australian economy. This has been a very interesting inquiry. I am pleased to be a member of the committee and involved in that inquiry. I note that the Productivity Commission, in a submission dated as recently as September this year—and the content of their submission was reaffirmed in their verbal testimony—made a number of points in relation to infrastructure and the need to streamline the process for access approvals and to deliver greater certainty when it comes to investment in infrastructure for those private holders of capital that might be willing to undertake such investment. The Productivity Commission’s submission, on pages 46 and 47, says:
More broadly, good regulation is central to Australia reaping the potential benefits from private investment in infrastructure. Competition regulation has a key role. Third party access regimes for ‘essential facilities’ have been modified in recent years to reduce their potentially inhibiting effects on investment. But further legislative amendments are needed following a Federal Court decision in 2007 that has raised questions about the sustainability of the light handed approach for airports, posing risks for investment in infrastructure more generally …
That was the Productivity Commission. Having made earlier recommendations for governments to take action when it comes to this particular area, they raised it once again in that inquiry—an inquiry focused on how we can lift and improve Australia’s productivity to reap the benefits of continued prosperity in this economy. They highlighted third-party access arrangements and nationally significant infrastructure as a key consideration that should be on the table for government reform, as indeed it is in this particular bill.
The national infrastructure access regime was introduced back in the mid-nineties and emanated from the deliberations of the Hilmer committee and the reforms that flowed from that process. Essentially this regime is concerned with the development of both competitive and efficient markets. It is about ensuring that we are not duplicating essential infrastructure but that adequate arrangements are in place to provide access seekers with access to nationally significant infrastructure. Under current arrangements there are effectively three pathways: an access seeker may apply for a declaration of an infrastructure service; a certified state or territory infrastructure access regime may provide access; and, thirdly, the provider of an infrastructure facility may have an access undertaking that sets out the terms and conditions of the access.
Infrastructure services may be declared for a number of reasons. The primary reasons an infrastructure service may be declared are: where access would promote a material increase in competition in another market; where it would be uneconomical to develop another facility to provide the service; where the facility is of national significance; where access is not the subject of an effective state or territory access regime and therefore denying that second pathway; where access can be provided without undue risk to human health and safety—and that is to be repealed; and where access would not be contrary to the public interest. A declaration, of course, does not provide a right to access but it provides a right to arbitration by the ACCC if commercial negotiations do not lead to a successful resolution in respect of access arrangements.
The essential problem with the current set of arrangements is that the process ends up being far too lengthy and, as a consequence of that, far too costly. I know that there has been some criticism from some quarters. I have seen some of the criticism coming from the legal fraternity. Clearly, when it comes to the costs associated with the existing set of arrangements, one of the outcomes the government would hope for from these proposals is that it would streamline the process and would eliminate some of that cost associated with the ongoing legal wrangles that might be associated with battles over third-party access.
Earlier in the debate the member for Robertson referred to various disputes regarding BHP and the Fortescue Metals Group. When one looks at the amount of time that those particular disputes took before a resolution was achieved, regardless of which side of the debate one comes from, that is clearly evidence that the current set of arrangements do not provide for a speedy determination of these matters and, as a result, cost all parties a great deal. That detracts from the productivity benefits that would otherwise be reaped from investment in such infrastructure.
The bill establishes time limits for decision making about third-party access to the infrastructure. It also limits reviews of those decisions to the information that was provided to the original decision maker. That stops the opening and reopening of new matters of dispute and determination. The bill also provides greater certainty for potential investors in new infrastructure. Under the existing access regime, a private investor who is considering building an infrastructure facility cannot determine with any certainty whether or not the services that are to be provided by that proposed facility would be declarable. Obviously that gives rise to great regulatory uncertainty for the investor. This bill provides for an upfront decision to be made by the designated minister. If the minister decides that a service provided by a proposed facility would not meet the test for declaration, then it cannot be declared for at least 20 years, providing the investor with the certainty of knowing that for the next 20 years no such declaration can be made. The bill improves regulatory certainty by enabling a service provider to submit to the ACCC an access undertaking which includes one or more terms that will apply for a certain period beyond the expiry date of the undertaking.
When all of these measures are combined, the bill provides a number of sensible improvements to the infrastructure access regime that currently prevails. It provides a streamlined approach for determining whether or not declarations are to be made and, most importantly, it provides private investors—private capital—with the certainty of knowing that, once a decision has been made by the designated minister, they can undertake a substantial investment in a nationally significant project and do so without the uncertainty of having someone reopening these matters throughout. This means a significant dividend will be paid to the Australian economy and our productivity into the future. (Time expired)
I rise in support of the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009. The Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs outlined very succinctly in his second reading speech on 29 October 2009 in relation to this matter what this piece of legislation will do. He set out very clearly that we are honouring the commitments that were undertaken with respect to the Council of Australian Governments—known as COAG—under the competition and infrastructure reform agreements entered into with the states and territories.
We are amending the trade practices legislation which has been in operation since 1974, and particularly the National Access Regime which is found in part IIIA. The bill that is being debated today is designed to improve the regulatory situation by streamlining processes to enable companies and businesses who are undertaking infrastructure projects of a national and significant nature, giving them certainty and the opportunity to get access to facilities owned and operated by other companies and entities and ensuring that those projects can continue and are not held up by the burden of red tape.
We have about 22 million Australians living on this continent and, sadly, we often seem to have more regulation than the 500 million Europeans have to endure. We are overgoverned, often by weak government, in this country. We have a federal system that has a lot of eccentricities and oddities. There have historically been dingo fences throughout the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia which have prevented uniform practice of law. On numerous occasions we have had to overcome the strange jurisdictional aspects of the power of the Commonwealth, limited by section 51 of the Constitution and other provisions, to ensure that a national approach on many areas is undertaken. You only have to see the Corporations Law, the defamation law, the family law et cetera to realise that is the case. Certainly matters of environmental significance, national significance and international significance have had to be legislated for using foreign affairs powers contained in the Constitution. So dealing with the strangeness of our Federation has been a challenge for governments of both persuasions since Federation. Ensuring that we get adequate regulatory systems for infrastructure is simply crucial, not just nationally but for the area in which my electorate is contained, which is Blair in South-East Queensland, which is the fastest growing region in the country.
What we are doing here with the National Access Regime is about promoting a market economy, an open economy and an economy that works efficiently, seamlessly and effectively. It is not about replacing business arrangements, it is not about burdening companies with red tape and overregulation and it is not about replacing commercial negotiations which companies and individuals can undertake. It is about improving the relationship between facility owners and access seekers. It enhances the incentives to negotiate and create a seamless national economy that promotes the development of infrastructure, whether that is in health, education, road, rail, ports or other forms of infrastructure which are crucial to improving productivity, and undertakes macro- and micro-economic reform to make sure that our economy can operate efficiently in a fair and just way for all Australians.
The history of this can be found back in the early 1990s, but before I go through the history I want to commend the member for Werriwa, the member for Robertson and the member for Lindsay, who have gone through in detail the law which is being changed and how it will operate. I do not intend to speak in detail about the legal changes except to comment on a few of them as I go through. The history of this can be found in the Hilmer report. The chairperson of that inquiry was Fred Hilmer, a very eminent Australian businessman. That report goes way back to 1993.
The official title of the committee which developed that report was the Independent Committee of Inquiry into Competition Policy in Australia. That committee made the point that it was necessary to have efficient operation of a market economy that relied upon business dealings which were certain and were based on the fundamental notions of private property and the freedom to contract. It noted that we needed to improve our open market economy to make sure we are able to compete internationally.
The then Labor government took notice of what was said and adopted national competition policy principles, which were designed to improve our competitiveness, the productivity of our workforce and thereby the prospects of a more prosperous future for all Australians—one in which Australians lived a decent life, where their accommodation was accounted for and where they could raise their families in the way they hoped and aspired to. Australia adopted that commitment to national competition principles. That was enshrined in the term ‘competition principles’, which is well known to bureaucrats as well as the business community. We put that in legislation and amended the Trade Practices Act back in 1995, creating a legal regime to ensure that competition policy was adhered to and best practice and best principles could be looked at and followed.
The new legal regime under which firms and businesses could get access to essential facilities owned by another company or business was enshrined in legislation. That became known as the National Access Regime. It is contained in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. The Trade Practices Act is yet another great Labor reform—done under the Whitlam Labor government. Whether it was the Hawke and Keating government with opening up the economy, the development of a superannuation industry in this country, enterprise bargaining, the prices and income accord, or floating the dollar—Labor governments have had the will and the wisdom to undertake reform for small businesses as well as large businesses. Often those opposite say they are on the side of business, but the record of history shows that it is Labor governments which are the reformist governments in this area.
The amendments to the Trade Practices Act were crucial. To give the Howard government credit, they did instruct the Productivity Commission to review the National Access Regime back in 2001. The report that came down recommended that we continue to adhere to that access regulation system, not abandon it at the time. Fortunately, the Howard government took the view that they should comply with that. The Productivity Commission did recommend a number of changes which were regulated and brought into law on a bipartisan basis.
We looked at this again and COAG agreed to the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. That was undertaken back in November 2008. The then Assistant Treasurer made the point that it was important that we undertake those reforms to improve the efficiency, timeliness and effectiveness of regulatory decision making under the National Access Regime, so we undertook some reforms and looked at how legislation could improve the National Access Regime. There had been arguments and submissions made to the Productivity Commission by infrastructure owners and those people who were euphemistically described as access seekers that we needed to improve processes. I have looked at some litigation that was undertaken at the time and subsequently and it is clear that the cost of legal proceedings, the cost of doing business and the burdensome nature of the bureaucracy needed to change.
I commend the government for the reforms they have undertaken with this legislation. I think it is the case that most Australians recognise that we need competitive and efficient markets. We need to make sure that there are circumstances in which businesses—and often there are alliances of companies that undertake, say, road construction—need to have access to other facilities and other property to undertake their work. For example, with the Ipswich Motorway upgrade in my electorate it is important that we have access to property and access to other facilities so that that national project can be undertaken.
I will just briefly address how the law is changed and what it means. What is happening here with the legislative changes is that we are implementing, as I said, the COAG commitments to introduce some binding time limits. There is also some limited form of merits review. We are improving the regulatory certainty by determining the services that are ineligible for declaration, as the members for Werriwa and Robertson described in detail. We are streamlining the administrative and decision-making processes by allowing amendments to access undertakings and variations to declaration applications, streamlining the declaration test, allowing the deeming of decisions in some instances and providing the National Competition Council with the ability to make decisions without meetings.
So some significant changes are being made in that regard, as are improvements in the pathways to the National Access Regime—the declaration principles. There is the repeal, of course, of one of the factors—the undue risk to human health and safety. The circumstance in which a service can be declared is being repealed. It is important to note that declaration does not always provide a right of access but, rather, a right of arbitration, which the ACCC can undertake if the companies cannot determine through negotiation what should happen.
Infrastructure is absolutely vital to the government’s productivity raising and microeconomic reform agenda. It is important to make changes to improve regulatory certainty such as we are undertaking. The member for Cook made some very interesting points about this. He spoke about how the coalition government made improvements to the waterfront, which I would dispute, and he made a comment which I think was simply nonsensical: that we are undertaking the Howard government’s infrastructure reform agenda. I would ask the member for Cook to come up to South-East Queensland and have a look at some of the road infrastructure there. If he does that he will see that what he said about road infrastructure is simply rubbish. The main road between Ipswich and Brisbane is the Ipswich Motorway. This government is committing $2.5 billion across the project for upgrading to be undertaken.
The Howard government steadfastly refused to undertake the work on the Dinmore-Goodna section. This government has committed about $1.95 million in that area. The Rudd Labor government had to be elected for that project to be undertaken. The coalition, after 11½ years of opposing that vital infrastructure project of national significance, has voted against the funding for it since the last election. Curiously, on 27 October in this chamber, the Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Opposition came out publicly and said that if they win the election next time they will stop the work on that project. That is their commitment to road infrastructure in South-East Queensland.
What about the other projects? The Warrego Highway is a main road that links areas west of Ipswich through Toowoomba and beyond. We have heard the member for Maranoa on numerous occasions complain about the state of the Warrego Highway. This government is the government that has done the most work on the Warrego Highway in terms of committing dollars—far more than we ever saw the Howard government commit. It is the same with the Cunningham Highway. These are national highways—major roads leading west of Ipswich through Toowoomba and beyond and south of Ipswich towards New South Wales. These works are crucial national projects that the Howard government failed to deliver in 11½ years, and this government is undertaking that work.
I think the member for Cook happens to be the housing spokesperson for the opposition. He should have a good chat to the Queensland Minister for Housing and Homelessness Services, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, who has had that role for more years than I can remember. Mr Schwarten, affectionately known to all Queenslanders as ‘Schwarto’, constantly complained about the hundreds of millions of dollars—developing into billions of dollars—that the Howard government ripped out of social housing and public housing across this country. In contrast, in my electorate alone we have seen about $33 million invested in social housing since the Rudd Labor government undertook the nation building and economic stimulus strategies, and 133 Defence houses are being built in the Ipswich area as a result of what the Rudd Labor government is doing. That is investment in vital national infrastructure. Why is it vital? Because it supports the RAAF base at Amberley—the biggest Air Force base in the country, which is also having more than $1 billion of infrastructure built on it.
The coalition simply neglected South-East Queensland year after year after year. The Ipswich area has a population of about 160,000. The next 20 years will see about 434,000 living in that area. It is the fastest growing area in the fastest growing region in Australia. The whole western corridor and the whole of South-East Queensland will see another 1.2 million people living in it in the next 20 years. That is why legislation like we are debating today is so crucial—to make sure that the companies that build vital infrastructure, whether in road or rail, as we are currently seeing in South-East Queensland with the line between Ipswich and Brisbane and the Springfield area, or in hospitals or schools, can build it. My electorate alone has 313 projects across 85 schools.
Whether it is the BER funding, housing funding, Defence funding or the infrastructure funding that is developing the Ipswich CBD—and we are putting in $10 million there—these vital national projects need certainty and need companies that can get access to property and that do not have to fight with other companies. They need to get certainty in terms of business regulatory reform. That is why alliances of companies like Origin Alliance, which is building the Dinmore-Goodna section, need access to a nation building system and a legislative framework that will enable them to invest with certainty and efficiency and with commitment to South-East Queensland. That is why it is so important that we do this.
We had a National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission forum in my electorate. The overwhelming response was in support of the government’s infrastructure projects, whether it was in hospitals or health or schools or roads, and we got applause for it. Dozens of people there acknowledged that was going on. The legislation that is before the House will facilitate the legislative framework for that. The legislative changes will assist vital infrastructure in South-East Queensland. For that reason, I support the legislation. (Time expired)
I support the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009. This bill is in the great tradition of Labor governments’ concern for infrastructure in this country. It continues on from a substantial number of reforms that have already been made by the Rudd Labor government to infrastructure and to the system of regulation of infrastructure in Australia. This bill demonstrates perhaps better than most how the Rudd Labor government, in its focus on infrastructure reforms, is continuing reforms from the Hawke and Keating Labor governments.
Well-planned infrastructure is very important for a country as large as ours. I am talking about transport infrastructure, water infrastructure and communications infrastructure. We need transport infrastructure, we need energy and water infrastructure, to meet the challenges presented by climate change, to meet the challenges that are presented by the size of the continent that we occupy and to meet the reality of the mostly dry and mostly brown land that we inhabit. We need of course social infrastructure, in the form of schools and hospitals, and we need to ensure that the infrastructure we have is properly utilised. This is what underlies the scheme of regulation that the amendments contained in this bill are concerned with. The particular form of regulation here is the national infrastructure access regime which was introduced following the August 1993 report of the Hilmer inquiry—an independent committee of inquiry established by the Keating government—often referred to as the Hilmer report.
The Hilmer report recommended, as part of a scheme of national competition policy, that there ought to be an access regime so as to properly share, in an economic and efficient way, infrastructure that already existed on a national scale. To bring this to life a little: the national infrastructure access regime is concerned with infrastructure such as national-scale railways and gas pipelines. Another example of how this national infrastructure access regime has been used since it was introduced by amendments made to the Trade Practices Act which came into effect in 1995 is the freight handling regime at our large airports. All of these types of infrastructure are very expensive to duplicate and it is appropriate that there be an access regime which makes possible—but certainly does not compel—the sharing of that infrastructure by other enterprises or businesses which may wish to use the existing infrastructure in their own businesses.
The other emblematic aspect of this legislation is that any examination of the history of the national infrastructure access regime demonstrates that, while the Hawke and Keating governments had a great concern for both the building of infrastructure in our country and the efficient utilisation of existing infrastructure, the former government had nothing of the same concern; indeed, the dilatory way in which the former government attended to the Productivity Commission’s very detailed recommendations for reform in 2001 is emblematic of the lax and lazy attitude of the former government on matters concerning infrastructure. You could extend that to saying that the former government had very little care for microeconomic reform and matters of economic regulation. Throughout the former government’s 11½ years in office it appeared that their primary concern with economic regulation was to lessen the rights of Australian workers. The major piece of economic legislation by the former government was the Work Choices legislation that they introduced and rushed through as soon as they got control of the Senate. We have heard an echo of that today from the new Leader of the Opposition who it seems is still devoted to Work Choices. In his very first media conference as leader he referred to the Work Choices regime. He said—and we should all be very concerned about this—that the phrase ‘Work Choices’ is dead. That would suggest that we are about to see a return to a promotion of the industrial relations policies of the former government.
To return to the subject matter of this bill: the national infrastructure access regime, introduced in 1995, was the subject of very detailed recommendations by the Productivity Commission in a review published in September 2001. In that report the Productivity Commission analysed at considerable length—as the Productivity Commission are wont to do; the report runs to over 500 pages—the purpose of a scheme of access regulation. They considered whether or not the national infrastructure access regime had been successful and the ways in which it might be possible to improve it.
The Productivity Commission made the point in their report that, although determinations under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act had been few in number up to that point, 2001, the existence of the regime influences investment decisions and decisions that are made about essential infrastructure throughout Australia. It has an influence on the value of infrastructure assets. The report notes that the value of infrastructure assets affected by the regime—this is at 2001; there would be an even larger sum now—was over $50 billion. Infrastructure services affected by this regime affect very many important aspects of the Australian economy and the report gave examples of gas regimes, rail regimes, Victorian shipping channels and other matters that are potentially affected.
The Productivity Commission went on to note the potential costs that are bound up in having an infrastructure access regime, noting, obviously, that access regulation can intrude very significantly on property rights. It can give rise to a range of costs that have to be set against the benefits. Those costs would include administrative costs for government, compliance costs for business and constraints on the scope for access providers to deliver and price their services. And, probably the most important one, they drew attention to the reduced incentives to invest in facilities to provide new essential services or to maintain existing facilities. They noted other costs as being an inefficient investment in downstream markets and also wasteful strategic behaviour by both service providers and access seekers. They were talking there about a gaming phenomenon in business.
They explained in their report how there can be a deterrence for investment for two reasons, saying:
Potential exposure to access regulation is likely to increase the general level of risk attaching to investment in essential facilities.
The second reason offered was:
Investments in essential infrastructure will also be deterred if regulated terms and conditions are not expected to provide a sufficient return.
Notwithstanding those potential costs and the difficulties of administering a national infrastructure access regime, the Productivity Commission concluded in no uncertain terms that retention of what they described as a ‘modified’ national access regime was warranted. They went on in their very lengthy report to make some very detailed recommendations about how the provisions found in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act, inserted by the Keating government in 1995, might usefully be amended so as to ensure that the national infrastructure access regime would work better, have less risk of cost, have less risk of deterrence to investment and in all respects provide a more timely and efficient system of access.
The recommendations that the Productivity Commission made included inserting provisions that changed the objects clauses for this part of the Trade Practices Act, some changes to the declaration criteria, provisions for dealing with negotiation and arbitration, provisions that removed immunity to Commonwealth access regimes and amendments which looked quite closely at improving the efficiency of the access regime and access pricing principles, and otherwise made suggestions as to procedural and administrative matters—in particular, introducing time limits for decisions by the Commonwealth minister, time limits for assessments by the National Competition Council and reporting arrangements and requirements for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
I mention all that because I am very critical—and we should all be critical—of the slowness that was shown by the former government in taking some five years to act on a detailed set of suggestions made after considerable consideration by the Productivity Commission which were designed to ensure that this important form of economic regulation, the national infrastructure access regime, could work. It was not until 2006 that the Trade Practices Act provisions which set up this national infrastructure access regime were amended. In large part, the former government did act on the suggestions that had been made some five years earlier by the Productivity Commission, but it really was all too slow, which is representative of the attitude that the former government took to infrastructure matters.
In February of the same year, 2006, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, which in turn made some further suggestions, among others to:
… introduce requirements that regulators will be bound to make regulatory decisions under an access regime within six months, provided that the regulator has been given sufficient information.
Again, no action was taken by the former government to ensure greater timeliness of the decision making that is bound up in this infrastructure access regime. Winding through the courts as far as the High Court, regrettably we have had a very dramatic example of just how slow the making of decisions in relation to infrastructure can be in the form of a very long running dispute between the Fortescue Metals Group and BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of BHP Billiton, concerned with the access that is sought by the Fortescue Metals Group to two distinct rail lines in the Pilbara region, the Mount Newman and Goldsworthy rail lines. These rail lines are excellent examples of the kind of infrastructure that is intended to be the subject of the national infrastructure access regime.
I am not going to pre-empt what ought to be the eventual outcome of that particular dispute on the use of those rail lines between Fortescue and BHP Billiton. They are rail lines to which the Fortescue group wishes to have access. I mentioned this dispute as an example of why it is necessary for the amendments that are contained in this bill to be made, because these amendments are directed at increasing the speed with which the access regime is to be operated. It is a regime that depends on the making of declarations and a recommendations process involving the National Competition Council.
What has been demonstrated by the Fortescue-BHP dispute over access to those two rail lines in the Pilbara is that, starting in 2004 when the request for access was first made, the matter has been before two judges in separate decisions of the Federal Court, before another decision of the full Federal Court and finally before a decision of the High Court. All of those decisions and hearings before single judges of the Federal Court, before the full Federal Court and before the High Court were, regrettably, only bound up with preliminary aspects of the process by which decisions are to be made under the national infrastructure access regime.
It is to be hoped that, if the amendments contained in this bill are passed, in terms of some of those preliminary stages and the speed with which it is possible to, firstly, get recommendations from the National Competition Council and, secondly, have them reviewed under the review processes that are provided in the legislation, it is then going to be possible for the national access regime to be operated a great deal more quickly. The key provisions of the legislation are directed to timing, but there are also provisions in this legislation which will streamline the process for amending access undertakings.
The disincentive to investment that the Productivity Commission looked at when it did its report back in 2001 is of course, in part, a disincentive that is created by uncertainty in the way in which a regime like the national infrastructure access regime is going to work. The more that the legislative scheme, which introduces the obligations that will apply to infrastructure, is given clarity, the better in terms of removing the disincentive to investment, which we would all wish to avoid, that is going to be bound up with having an access regime of this nature.
This legislation deals with a key component of Australia’s regulatory frameworks. It is legislation which is going to promote the development of competitive and efficient markets. It is entirely consistent with a concentration that the Rudd government has had on infrastructure matters, I might say, not just in relation to the regulation of national infrastructure but in relation to the provision of national infrastructure. It is worth reminding the House of what the OECD Economic Outlook interim report released in March this year had to say about the Australian government’s response to the global economic crisis, because it noted in no uncertain terms that the composition of Australia’s fiscal response to the economic crisis had been tilted very heavily in favour of investment spending, that is, spending on infrastructure to a much greater degree than in any other OECD economy.
What we have seen from the Rudd government is very large spending that is to be made on more efficient metropolitan rail networks, which will deliver significant economic and social benefits through less road congestion and will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions and faster travel times for commuters. It is also worth mentioning the $3.4 billion that is going to be spent on the Network 1 road freight corridor linking Melbourne and Cairns and the $389 million for port infrastructure, which will improve access to global markets for our export industries. The Rudd government is very concerned to not just create actual building of infrastructure where government can do that but also create the conditions in which private investment can take place in an atmosphere of certainty and in an atmosphere which promotes investment. What we see in the provisions here in the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill—(Time expired)
The lack of public infrastructure spending over the last 12 years prior to 2007 has led to many areas of our states and territories selling off assets and now having to buy them back because of their neglect or closure. Because the public sector should operate under the same terms of reference as those in the private sector, there needs to be regulatory processes to ensure that that is the case and that it is as transparent as possible.
My learned colleague the member for Isaacs just mentioned access to iron ore trains in the Pilbara in the north of Western Australia and the amount of costs that have gone into the courts since 2004 as one example where there needs to be quite a lot more work. I think the Trade Practices Amendment (Infrastructure Access) Bill 2009 will pull together some of that and save people a heck of a lot of money.
The honourable member for Kalgoorlie, who is at the opposition table, has probably come to the front bench under the reshuffle of the leadership on that side of the House. I congratulate him on that promotion. I am sure he will comment a great deal about this bill when he has an opportunity to speak.
There has been a lot of news coverage and discussion lately about the large corporations, and about one wanting to hire or use the present infrastructure instead of building their own. This bill deals with that important matter. I note also that the declaration does not provide a right of access but rather a right to arbitration by the ACCC if commercial negotiations fail. We need to make sure that it is cost-effective. Tying arguments up in courts over a long period of time certainly does not serve our nation well. It does not get that infrastructure working in the interests of the nation so that infrastructure and capital, where it has been outlaid, are paying their way and increasing productivity. According to the Independent Committee of Inquiry into National Competition:
As a general rule, the law imposes no duty on one firm to do business with another. The efficient operation of a market economy relies on the general freedom of an owner of property and/or supplier of services to choose when and with whom to conduct business dealings and on what terms and conditions. This is an important and fundamental principle based on notions of private property and freedom to contract, and one not to be disturbed lightly.
Despite this acknowledgement, the Committee of Inquiry report of August 1993—known as the Hilmer report after the chairman, Fred Hilmer—recommended the implementation of a national competition policy for Australia to improve productivity, to increase international competitiveness and to maintain and improve living conditions. Australia’s commitment to national competition principles was subsequently enshrined in the Competition Principles Agreement and the Agreement to Implement the National Policy and Related Reforms entered into by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in April 1995.
Amendments to the TPA which came into effect in 1995 established a new legal regime under which firms could be given a right of access to essential facilities owned by another firm, when the provision of such a right meets certain public interest criteria. That legal regime is the National Access Regime, which is contained in part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. Section 44DA of part IIIA requires decisions about access regimes to be consistent with the principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement. In 2001 the Productivity Commission reviewed the National Access Regime. It considered that:
Given the in principle case for some curbs on the exercise of monopoly power in the provision of essential infrastructure services, the limited experience in Australia with access regimes, and ongoing structural change in a number of infrastructure sectors, abandoning access regulation at this stage would be inappropriate.
However, the Productivity Commission did recommend a number of changes. The government’s response to the recommendations was largely positive. The Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Regime) Act 2006 made the necessary amendments to the TPA. In particular, the amending act inserted statutory pricing principles to provide guidance for pricing decisions and to contribute to consistent and transparent regulatory outcomes over time as well as certainty for investors and access seekers.
I believe that this bill is an important piece of economic regulation because it helps to address the time taken in allowing government to undertake scrutiny of projects and it will help transparency and consistent guidelines to operate. It is a key component of Australia’s regulatory frameworks, which promote the development of competition and efficient markets.
The National Access Regime establishes the circumstances under which access to nationally significant infrastructure can be provided. There are three pathways to access under the National Access Regime: (1) an access seeker may apply for a declaration of an infrastructure service; (2) a certified state or territory infrastructure access regime may provide for access; and (3) the provider of an infrastructure facility may have an access undertaking that sets out the terms and conditions of access.
A service may be declared where access would promote a material increase in competition in another market; where it would be uneconomical to develop another facility to provide the service; where the facility is of national significance; where access is not the subject of an effective state or territory access regime; where access can be provided without undue risk to human health and safety; and, of course, where access would not be contrary to the public interest.
It is important to note that declaration does not provide a right of access but rather, as I said earlier, a right to arbitration by the ACCC if commercial negotiations fail. One would hope that corporations—and we are encouraging them—could work together and reach those commercial arrangements. But if that cannot happen then the ACCC can arbitrate. Although this regulatory framework has proven to be a good model to date, infrastructure owners and access seekers have argued that processes under the access regime are too lengthy and costly. We heard the previous speaker on this side of the House, the member for Isaacs, outline the legal situation in relation to that very well. One case which began in 2004 has not been resolved yet.
Infrastructure is a critical component of the Rudd government’s productivity-raising, microeconomic reform agenda. This was also the case under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments. They laid down this regime and spent a lot of time endeavouring to improve the infrastructure in this country. The Rudd Labor government has gone out of its way to build on the needs of the nation with infrastructure. We need to catch up on a lot of infrastructure which the last government failed to put in place or to encourage the states to get involved in to help increase the productivity of the nation.
Australia needs to use its infrastructure well and cost efficiently. We have to make sure that we are increasing our productivity through the use of infrastructure. When you look at all the coal ships anchored outside ports and coal loaders with bottlenecks in rail services to them, you see that these are all inefficiencies where the infrastructure needs to be improved. We need to make sure that these costly inefficiencies are dealt with. Roads around capital cities which cause congestion are also costly. Of course, with climate change, congested roads pollute greatly and the vehicles on them use more fuel. Transport needs to be efficient and effective to reach its total potential. And then there is the matter of the Pilbara, which I mentioned earlier.
Tasmania has many infrastructure issues. We had a real issue with our rail system, but a lot of money is now being put into it by the Rudd government. The infrastructure money is bringing our rail system between the north and the south and the north-west coast down to the west coast back to a reasonable state. This infrastructure, which transports our mining resources to the port of Burnie, was greatly rundown by the previous operator over many years. The need to upgrade it has been great.
Delays and costs in decision making under the access regime may have an adverse effect on the infrastructure investment that is needed to underpin economic growth and national productivity. This bill will improve regulatory certainty and streamline administrative processes under the National Access Regime in several ways. The reforms in the bill draw on recommendations from COAG; the Productivity Commission; the National Competition Council, NCC; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ACCC; and the Australian Competition Tribunal. The bill will establish time limits for decision making about third-party access to infrastructure and it will limit reviews of those decisions to information provided to the initial decision maker.
The bill will also provide greater regulatory certainty for potential investors in new infrastructure. Under the existing access regime, a private investor who is considering building an infrastructure facility cannot determine with certainty whether or not services to be provided by the proposed facility would be declarable. The bill provides for an up-front decision to be made by the designated minister. If the minister decides that a service provided by the proposed facility would not meet the test for declaration under the access regime, it cannot be declared for at least 20 years, thereby providing the certainty investors need.
The bill also improves regulatory certainty by enabling a service provider to submit to the ACCC an access undertaking which includes one or more terms that will apply for a certain period beyond the expiry date of the undertaking. When important variables are fixed, service providers and access seekers can more easily determine the terms and conditions for access under future arrangements.
In conclusion, I think this bill contains a number of modest but important measures to increase regulatory certainty and improve decision-making processes under the National Access Regime. This will help to support the infrastructure investment that is so vitally needed to underpin economic growth and national productivity in this country. I support the bill.
in reply—I thank those members who have spoken on this legislation: the member for Lyons, who has just finished; and the members for Isaacs, Blair, Lindsay, Werriwa and Robertson. I also thank the members for Paterson and Cook and the member for Cowper, the shadow minister for competition policy and consumer affairs. I take the opportunity to thank the coalition for the indication of support for this very important legislation. I further wish to take the opportunity to thank my predecessor in the role of Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, because it was the member for Prospect who conceived of these reforms, and he is at the table today as we bring these reforms to the attention of the House for a vote, quietly confident that it will enjoy bipartisan support. That is a tribute to the work and the consultation that was undertaken by the Minister for Human Services and the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law—so thank you very much, Minister.
Since its introduction in 1995, the National Access Regime has proven to be an innovative and important piece of economic regulation. However, infrastructure owners and access seekers have argued that processes under the Access Regime are too lengthy and costly. Indeed, some owners of nationally significant infrastructure have expressed concern that the Access Regime is generating regulatory risks that may hinder investment in essential infrastructure, and we do not want that. The government acknowledges that delays and costs in decision making under the Access Regime may be having an adverse effect on the infrastructure investment that is needed to underpin economic growth and national productivity. As we have heard during this debate, the bill will improve regulatory certainty and streamline administrative processes under the National Access Regime. The bill will establish time limits for decision making about third-party access to infrastructure and limit reviews to information provided to the initial decision maker.
Importantly, the bill will provide greater regulatory certainty for potential investors in new infrastructure. Under the existing Access Regime, a private investor who is considering building an infrastructure facility cannot determine with certainty whether services to be provided by the proposed facility would be declarable. The bill provides for an upfront decision to be made by the designated minister. If the minister decides that a service provided by the proposed facility would not meet the test for declaration under the Access Regime, it cannot be declared for at least 20 years. The bill also improves regulatory certainty by enabling a service provider to submit to the ACCC an access undertaking which includes one or more terms that will apply for a certain period beyond the expiry date of the undertaking. When important variables are fixed, service providers and access seekers can more easily extrapolate the terms and conditions for access under future arrangements.
I would like to inform the House that this bill has been referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 March 2010. This will enable further public consultation on the proposed reforms. The government will consider the committee’s findings and recommendations carefully before the debate on the bill in the Senate.
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. These reforms will help to support the infrastructure investment needed to underpin economic growth and national productivity in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 8, government business, be postponed until a later hour.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 29 October, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The coalition strongly supports our national broadcasters. We recognise the important role that both the ABC and SBS play in broadcasting both television and radio services across Australia and, more recently, in terms of their online content and presence. While in government the coalition ensured that the ABC and SBS were well resourced and able to meet the challenges of the future, including the transition to the digital environment.
We want both the SBS and ABC to be strong and innovative broadcasters and to serve well the unique roles they play in Australia and in Australian life. The coalition is committed into the future to ensuring a well-resourced ABC and SBS in recognition of their unique role as national broadcasters. However, it is because these organisations receive substantial taxpayer funding that we need to ensure that they adopt the highest level of corporate governance and have in place appropriate governance structures. These broadcasters need strong and professional boards who understand the role of the broadcasters and their responsibilities to Australians, who fund them.
This legislation consists of two parts. The first part of the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 seeks to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation Act 1991 to implement a new, merit based board appointment process to appoint directors to the ABC and SBS boards. The merit based selection process establishes a nomination panel that is to conduct a selection process for each appointment of a director. The nomination panel will comprise a chair and at least two, and not more than three, other members appointed by the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for part-time office for a period not exceeding three years.
The nomination panel must advertise any vacancy nationally, assess all applications against selection criteria set by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and provide a report to the minister, or the Prime Minister and the minister in the case of the ABC chairperson, containing at least three nominations. The Prime Minister must consult the Leader of the Opposition before recommending the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson. If the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson is not nominated by the nomination panel, the Prime Minister must table the reasons for that appointment within 15 sitting days. The bill proposes that the following candidates are not eligible for appointment to the boards of national broadcasters: a member or former member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth; a member or former member of the parliament of a state or the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory or the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory; or a person who is or was a senior political staffer. The bill gives the minister the ability to determine by legislative instrument the definition of ‘senior political staff member’, but the explanatory memorandum says that it is envisaged that it would specify positions such as chief of staff, special adviser, principal adviser, senior adviser, media adviser and adviser.
In October 2008, Labor announced that they would commence a new merit based selection process and seek to reinstate the staff elected director. At this time they called for public nominations for the positions of directors of the two boards and created a nomination panel to assess the applications. In April 2009, the government announced the appointment of two directors to the SBS board and two directors to the ABC board, using the new merit based selection process. Senate estimates confirmed that the government spent approximately $200,000 on the selection process utilised to appoint the four new directors to the boards of the national broadcasters in April 2009. This included payment for the members of the nomination panel, engagement of a recruitment firm and the advertisement of the vacancies. As mentioned in the bill, there is no guarantee that the nomination process will produce a successful nomination and it is still within the government’s power to make an appointment that is not a recommendation of the nomination panel, provided the selection process has been undertaken. Further, the legislation is not actually required to facilitate the government’s nomination and appointment process, as the government has already undertaken such a process.
Senator Conroy told Lateline Business on 5 December 2007 that the merit selection process was based around the Nolan principles imported from the UK. In 2006, when the Senate held an inquiry into the composition of the ABC board and the coalition’s changes to remove the staff elected director of the ABC, departmental officers told the inquiry:
If the argument to implement something like the Nolan rules relates to avoiding the appointment of board members who are too closely associated with a political party, a Nolan rules type process would not necessarily deal with that issue.
The bill proposes that former state and federal politicians and senior political staff are not eligible for appointment to the boards of the SBS and ABC. Former politicians have made a valuable contribution to the board of the ABC and other government bodies. For instance, in 1994 Labor appointed former South Australian Labor Premier John Bannon to the ABC board. Former Liberal senator Neville Bonner was appointed to the ABC board in 1983.
Labor’s position on the value of former politicians on government boards is entirely inconsistent, as evidenced by Mr Rudd’s appointment of former Labor minister John Kerin to the CSIRO board, former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks as an adviser for the car industry and former coalition Treasurer Peter Costello to the Future Fund Board of Guardians. It is hypocritical for the government to claim on the one hand that former politicians provide valuable skills and experience to assist some boards but on the other hand not the boards of the national broadcasters. Further, there is no cooling off period for former staff or politicians but rather a blanket ban on them ever being eligible for appointment to the board of a national broadcaster. This is at odds with the principle of the 18-month cooling off period incorporated in the Rudd Labor government’s Standards of Ministerial Ethics. These proposals need to be examined for what they really are. They do not prevent current or former party officials or those with other political affiliations from being appointed to the boards. For instance, in the past former Labor candidate David Hill has served as both Chairman and Managing Director of the ABC and Michael Kroger also served as a director on the ABC board. These proposals do not restrict such appointments, which further serves to highlight how superficial the proposals really are.
We should also at this point question the bona fides of this minister, Senator Conroy, when it comes to political interference. Senator Conroy has done very little during his time as minister besides waste money on his flawed NBN. We have seen millions wasted on the failed NBN mark 1 tender and we are now seeing some exorbitant salaries being paid as part of the NBN Co, including to former staffer Jody Fassina, who was appointed to the board of Tasmania NBN Co and the $450,000 salary—almost $100,000 more than is paid to the Prime Minister—being paid to Senator Conroy’s mate and disgraced former Queensland MP Mike Kaiser to do government relations for a company with no customers, no services, no income and no business plan. Senator Conroy seems happy to have an empty Labor suit for an empty shell company created on an empty Labor promise but not to even consider a competent and capable former parliamentarian or senior public policy specialist for the SBS or ABC boards. Despite the nomination process machinations, the candidate selection and evaluation process and the superficial personnel prohibitions that we have talked about, the Rudd Labor government can still appoint whoever they want to the ABC and SBS—and you can be certain that they will not be a Labor critic.
The second part of this bill relates to the position of staff elected director on the ABC board. The first staff elected position on the ABC board was introduced by the Whitlam government, without legislation, in 1975. The position was then abolished by the Fraser government before the Hawke government enshrined a staff appointed director position in legislation in 1986. In 2006, the coalition amended the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to remove the position of staff elected director from the legislated composition of the ABC board to improve corporate governance of the organisation. The decision to abolish the staff elected director was announced following the coalition government’s Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders conducted by Mr John Uhrig AC, and the removal of the staff elected director was consistent with Uhrig’s recommendations about representative appointments. The Uhrig review concluded:
The review does not support representational appointments to governing boards as representational appointments can fail to produce independent and objective views. There is the potential for these appointments to be primarily concerned with the interests of those they represent, rather than the success of the entity they are responsible for governing. While it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is to not create circumstances where they arise.
A staff elected director will be forever mindful of his or her constituency—in this case, the staff of the ABC. I am certain that much of the time there is a coincidence of interest, a shared purpose and alignment of objectives between the staff and the corporation. But that is not always going to be the case. Innovation and reform, by their very nature, distresses and disturbs the status quo and can disrupt settled positions and ways of doing things.
Innovation and reform is about change. Change can be resisted by those that it is impacting upon by the transformation of the staff elected director into a position of conflict. Does the staff elected director feel obliged to defend the entrenched, or feel a duty to protect the potentially retrenched? A director fully discharging their responsibilities, who values the important role and contribution of staff and who fully embraces the corporate objectives and imperatives, will engage in the thoughtful change management strategies of the organisation and ensure there is effective and sensitive transitional support.
Would the remarkable gains made by the ABC online, for instance, have occurred? Would the ABC’s presence and service reach and the expansion of its activities into rural and remote areas have occurred if a staff elected director was of the view that these welcome and important innovations were at the expense of resources going to roles and positions in the traditional or established and existing areas of activity?
It may well be possible to abate and manage corporation and constituency conflicts of interest, but is it not preferable to not create the potential for that conflict in the first place? The position of staff elected director was seen as an anomaly amongst government agency boards. The other broadcaster, SBS, does not have a staff elected director.
The coalition was also concerned about the potential conflict of interest of a staff-elected director who is legally required to act in the best interests of the ABC but is appointed as a representative of staff and is elected by them. The explanatory memorandum to the 2006 bill stated:
The Bill addresses an ongoing tension relating to the position of staff-elected Director. A potential conflict exists between the duties of the staff-elected Director under paragraph 23(1)(A) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to act in good faith in the best interests of the ABC, and the appointment of that Director via election by ABC staff. The election method creates a risk that a staff-elected Director will be expected by the constituents who elect him or her to place the interests of staff ahead of the interests of the ABC as a whole where they are in conflict.
The Senate held an inquiry into the legislation to remove the staff elected director in 1996. In relation to conflicts of interest, in giving evidence to the Senate committee inquiry officers from the department confirmed the view of Uhrig to the committee that ‘while it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is not to create circumstances where they arise’. Professor Stephen Bartos, Director of the National Institute for Governance, made a submission to the inquiry that stated:
… the Uhrig Report is an accurate reflection of commonly accepted practice in Australian corporate governance. In this country we have applied a model of governance that does not favour representative appointments.
And that:
More broadly, staff-elected directors on a Board do represent an anomaly amongst Australian public and private sector boards in general governance terms …
At the time of the 2006 announcement, the then Chairman of the ABC, Mr Donald McDonald AO, stated that he had worked with three staff elected directors and said:
Inevitably there has been a tension between the expectations placed by others on their role and their established duties as directors of a corporation.
In further evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, the department told the committee:
The issue is not really about what may or may not have happened in relation to individual directors in the past. The issue is one of what is best practice corporate governance for the ABC, and Uhrig has recommended that there should not be positions like this on government boards.
The 2006 Senate committee concluded:
This Bill aligns the operations of the ABC Board with modern principles of corporate governance and accountability, as explained in the Uhrig Review. By abolishing the position of staff-elected Director, the Bill resolves the potential conflict of interest in being under a legal duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the ABC, whilst at the same time being expected by those that have elected them (i.e. ABC staff) to primarily represent and act in their best interests.
This bill represents an important step forward in reforming the ABC board and ensuring the longevity of the ABC as a public broadcasting service to the people of Australia today and into the future. The same concerns that led to the coalition decision to remove the staff elected director position from the ABC board remain, and these have not been addressed by the government. Not one single piece of challenging evidence or argument has been brought forward to tackle assessment after assessment about why this proposition is inconsistent with modern concepts of corporate governance.
The minister’s second reading speech merely states that the government does not believe there is any inherent conflict of interest. The government offers no evidence to support that assertion. The coalition does not agree. The coalition’s position in relation to this legislation is twofold. We remain resolutely opposed to the reinstatement of the position of staff elected director. We also believe that the bill should be amended to provide for an 18-month cooling-off period for former MPs and political staff serving on the board.
The coalition think Labor’s perpetual ban on former political staff and members of parliament serving on the boards of the national broadcasters is a cheap stunt. It is hypocritical and inconsistent. Former politicians and their staff may have skills and experience applicable to the board. Indeed, former politicians, including Labor’s John Bannon, have made valuable contributions to the boards in the past. Why are the government so against former politicians on the boards of the ABC and SBS when they have appointed former politicians to other boards and positions? It is inconsistent. If they claim appointing former politicians equates to political interference, why are they so comfortable putting former MPs on other government boards? Labor’s arguments do not stack up. They should be seen for what they are: more, and merely more, Labor spin—particularly in this portfolio.
How can Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, claim with any semblance of credibility that he does not play politics with appointments? He has appointed his mate Jody Fassina to the board of Tasmania NBN Co., and his mate Mike Kaiser is receiving a $450,000 salary as government relations adviser to NBN Co. The approach of the government should be seen for what it is. They have given us absolutely no reason to believe that they are genuine about removing apparent or perceived political interference on the boards of our national broadcasters.
This merit selection process is full of holes, and I have no doubt this government will fill every one of them with their like-minded mates. They cannot tell us why it is okay to appoint former politicians to some boards and not others and, even with this system, they cannot guarantee that the ABC and SBS boards will not be stacked with Labor sympathisers. The coalition do not oppose the merit selection process but we think there should be some consistency so that former MPs and their staff can be considered for the boards if they have the necessary skills.
For consistency with the Rudd government’s own ministerial code of ethics, we will seek to amend the bill to implement an 18-month cooling-off period for former MPs and political staff. In relation to schedule 2 of the bill, Labor has not been able to justify the need to reinstate the staff-elected director. We remain opposed to the reinstatement of a staff-elected director on the ABC board for the same reasons we acted to remove that position when in government. If our amendments to omit this schedule from the bill are not successful, we cannot support the bill. I will speak further about the specific amendments in the consideration-in-detail stage. I urge members of this parliament to see these changes for what they are: they are a stunt and they add nothing to the long-term wellbeing, viability and vitality of our national broadcasters.
I will start by saying I do not agree with the previous speaker’s assessment of the bill. In fact, I rise to support the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The ABC has a long and proud history of providing an independent, high-quality broadcasting service to the people of Australia. It has always been the ABC’s job to nurture our sense of national identity, reflect the richness of our society and give people the accurate and unbiased information they need to fully participate in the life of our nation. In more recent times, SBS has joined the ABC in filling that crucial role.
In recent years there have been genuine concerns that governments on both sides of politics have sought to put their own views of the world or political stamp on the ABC. This kind of political interference, however it is imposed on the ABC, threatens the independence of the ABC and the important and unique role it plays in Australia’s cultural life.
There has been particular criticism of the way in which appointments have been made to the ABC board. It is difficult to defend many of the appointments under previous governments because of the lack of proper process and transparency. Whatever other attributes and experience the candidates had, they invariably had some connection to the politicians who appointed them. This has fed into perceptions of bias that undermine the ABC and lead to poor decision making. The management and editorial teams at the ABC are not doing their job as independent broadcasters if they are constantly looking over their shoulders and worrying about which of their masters they might offend.
There is no doubt that the media world is changing rapidly, and the challenges and opportunities for the ABC in the very near future will be enormous. We need a top-class board whose focus is on the future of the ABC and how it can best fulfil its obligations to the Australian people. The ABC should in no way be a political battleground.
The Labor Party therefore went to the last election, in 2007, with a promise to end political interference in the ABC, and this bill puts in place one of the key mechanisms to achieve that aim. The bill introduces a new transparent and democratic board appointment process in which non-executive directors are appointed on the basis of merit. The government promised to deal with SBS board appointments in the same way and to restore the position of staff-elected director to the ABC board. This National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 will amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to establish in legislation the new merit based appointment for ABC and SBS non-executive directors and to reinstate a staff-elected director on the ABC board.
A strong and independent national broadcaster is an essential pillar of our democracy. It is incumbent on the ABC and SBS boards to be able to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the emerging digital and online environments. The ABC and SBS cannot function to their maximum capacity without excellent boards. This legislation will ensure that all Australians will have an opportunity to nominate for a place on the ABC or the SBS board and all claims will be considered on their merits by an independent panel. All future appointments will be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit. Individuals who, through their abilities, experience and qualities, match the needs of the ABC and SBS will be selected.
The policy makes explicit the exclusion of certain people with political backgrounds from eligibility for board appointments. Current or former members of the Commonwealth parliament, state and territory parliaments or legislative assemblies and current or former senior political staff are not eligible for appointment to the ABC or SBS boards. All future appointments to the ABC and SBS boards will be subject to independent scrutiny by the nomination panel. The process promotes the principles of equal opportunity, and gender and geographical diversity.
The reinstatement of the staff-elected director will further enhance the governance arrangements on the ABC board. The position of staff-elected director is an important enhancement to the ABC’s independence by providing the board with a director who has a unique and important insight into ABC operations. The staff-elected director may often be in the best position to critically examine the advice coming to the board from the ABC’s executive, given their knowledge of the daily operations of the broadcaster.
I began this speech by describing the unique role the ABC plays in our community. The value that people place on the ABC, its credibility and the trust people place in it comes out of the fact that it is part of the community. The ABC is the national broadcaster but its national status is built on its network of local stations. People trust the ABC because the ABC has a presence in their local community. People see themselves and their stories reflected in the programs of the ABC because those programs are produced locally and presented by ABC broadcasters who live in the local community. Nowhere is this better illustrated than by my local ABC stations —ABC Capricornia based in Rockhampton and ABC Tropical North based in Mackay.
I will speak a bit more about ABC Capricornia because there is a message about the operation in Rockhampton that I would like to give to the ABC’s senior management and board. But I will start at the beginning. ABC Capricornia is one of the ABC’s original radio stations. Known originally as 4RK, this radio station predates the commencement of the Australian Broadcasting Commission on 1 July 1932. It was also the first radio station in Queensland outside Brisbane. ABC Capricornia (4RK) started as a commercial station, owned by the Australian Broadcasting Co., beginning its broadcasts on the 29 July 1931. According to information received from radio history enthusiast David Brownsey quoting an unpublished book by Doug Sanderson, On Air, the first broadcast was from the School of Arts building in Bolsover Street Rockhampton at 8 pm on Wednesday 29 July 1931. The official program of the evening shows that the local Musical Union Choir, assisted by the Rockhampton City Band, sang the national anthem and Advance Australia Fair to open the proceedings. A photo in the ABC Capricornia foyer indicates the station was also situated for a time at the post office in Rockhampton in its early years. The station has been located at various places around the Rockhampton city centre over the years. It moved to its present location at 236 Quay Street in 1963. The ABC has moved to identify its stations according to the regions they serve; hence, 4RK is now known as ABC Capricornia. The station celebrated its 75th birthday in 2006.
While ABC Capricornia has transmitted programs through its 837AM transmitter at Gracemere since 1931, the relay stations are more recent additions. FM transmitters at Gladstone, Biloela and Alpha came on stream in later years. ABC Capricornia also has a powerful transmitter near Emerald, broadcasting on 1548AM. The station staff tell me they frequently get calls from interstate and overseas listeners who pick up the broadcasts through the Emerald transmitter.
From 1963 until 1985, ABC Television also broadcast regional programs from Rockhampton. In the mid-1980s, the ABC decided to centralise its television broadcasts, ending the regional programs broadcast from Rockhampton and Townsville. In 2007, an archiving project was started in cooperation with Central Queensland University to copy as much of the old television news footage as possible. That will be a great asset for our region in years to come.
The staff at ABC Capricornia cover all areas of ABC radio operations. They have news journalists, a rural reporter, program presenters and producers and an online producer who maintains their website, along with field reporting. ABC has a strong history of community service, which is today demonstrated by the station’s involvement in community and industry events around central Queensland. The main studio of ABC Capricornia in Quay Street was refurbished in 1998. The building is the former headquarters and gold store of the Mount Morgan Gold Mining Co. The wealth coming from Mount Morgan is responsible for much of the heritage architecture in Quay Street and our local ABC are proud to be part of that history.
Just recently Rockhampton suffered some devastating bushfires in the Mount Archer mountain ranges that ring the north side of Rockhampton. The following is an account written by one of the announcers at ABC Capricornia that highlights the enormous value of an ABC radio station to the local community in these kinds of events.
During the recent bushfires the breakfast program opened up the phone lines to thank the firies following the hellish weekend of the 17-18 October and what was a pleasant surprise was that along with the firies and other emergency services being thanked on air, a few of the listeners rang in to thank ABC Capricornia for our coverage of the fires. This meant a great deal to the crew at ABC Capricornia who had dropped what they were doing over the weekend to provide the best coverage they could. The listeners called in to say that ABC Capricornia was the station that they turned to in times of need and emergency.
ABC Capricornia as a part of local radio is a part of the community; we live here, we work here, we identify with the people here and want to do the best by them at all times. It’s a responsibility and a privilege to be invited into people’s homes both literally as well as figuratively over the airwaves and we never take the loyalty of ABC listeners for granted. The ABC now has a more official role as the Emergency Services Broadcaster, but it’s really just formalising what we’ve been doing for 75 years or so, being a lifeline to people bringing news and information.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you can see from that, the staff at the ABC in Rockhampton are rightly proud of the entertainment and, more importantly in the case of emergencies, the service they provide to our region. Because of their commitment and professionalism, the people of Central Queensland rely on them to give us information and to tell us about the stories and issues that matter to us.
We are also proud in Central Queensland of the job that has been done by the television news team that operates out of the Rockhampton studio. As I mentioned earlier, the local news bulletins ceased in 1985. The job of the television crew now is to film and produce material for inclusion in statewide and national broadcasts. This is incredibly important to us in Central Queensland. Just as we want to know what is happening in our local region, so too do we want the rest of Queensland and Australia to know about the events and issues relevant to us. As a national broadcaster, it is incumbent on the ABC to tell the whole story about this country, not just what happens in the major cities.
So it has been extremely disappointing to learn in recent months that the management of the ABC has been discussing the possibility of shutting down the television side of the operation in Central Queensland. Instead, the news crew will be relocated to the Gold Coast if this plan goes ahead. This is an enormous kick in the teeth to the staff of ABC Capricornia, and I am angry on their behalf and on behalf of the people of central and western Queensland who deserve to have their stories told. How can anyone tell us that there is not enough happening in this region when it is one of the major hubs of economic activity in this country and when it is at the heart of major developments and innovations in the mining, agricultural, natural resource management and environmental sectors? There are communities going through unprecedented change and growth. I know the member for Flynn, who was to join me in the chamber, knows all about this because it relates to his electorate as well. This all has implications at a state and national level, yet the ABC, the national broadcaster, wants to walk away from being part of this development and does not want to tell those stories. The whispers are that ABC management wants to shift the news crew from Central Queensland so that it can have a full-time news crew at the Gold Coast. The ABC has given assurances that the studio capacity in Rockhampton will remain so that when the need arises a crew can fly in, produce the story and have it broadcast.
I say to the ABC: spare us the weasel words. The truth is that the ABC is considering moving the news crew out of Central Queensland so they can set up at the Gold Coast. What use is studio technology in Rockhampton without a camera person and a journalist to travel to a story in Moranbah or Longreach or Biloela? Those stories about agriculture, mining, renewable energy, clean coal, LNG, rural health, and so on will not be told. Why? So there can be a news crew at the Gold Coast. I mean no disrespect to the Gold Coast. It is a very beautiful part of Queensland. But it is another city and one only an hour’s drive from Brisbane. What about the one-third of Queensland from Bundaberg to Mackay, and west, a centre of economic activity going through enormous change and at the front line of challenges such as climate change, land use, the social impacts of mining and growth? Can the ABC seriously turn its back on those stories so it can run more stories about drunken brawls in Surfers Paradise? To me this is not fulfilling the charter of a national broadcaster. Anyone can tell the stock standard stories of life in the cities, and they all do, but is a news bulletin full of car chases and armed hold-ups telling the whole story of what is important in Australia? I fear that without a news crew based in Central Queensland the ABC news and current affairs programs will look like all the other commercial stations and there will be no-one telling the stories about the Australia beyond the cities.
I am calling on the management and the board of the ABC to reconsider any decision they might have made to go down that path. I want them to recommit to these important parts of Queensland outside the south-east corner by retaining the full television crew in Rockhampton. If the Gold Coast, which I understand is a fast-growing area, needs its own news crew, then work out how to achieve that, but do not do it at our expense. The ABC belongs to all Australians not just those in the city and it must reflect the lives and interests of all Australians. The ABC has always done that by having a genuine presence in, and commitment to, local communities and to change that will undermine the relevance of the ABC and destroy its unique position within Australia’s media landscape.
This bill fulfils an election promise made to those Australians who care about quality independent broadcasting and the unique roles of the ABC and SBS in our social fabric. This bill puts in place the right mechanism to ensure the best possible governance of the ABC and SBS. Those of us in rural and regional Australia especially rely on those board members to honour the ABC’s commitment to be a truly national broadcaster and that commitment must not be surrendered to any other agendas.
I will just return to the central features of this bill and the amendments that we are discussing. Of course the key one is the new mechanism by which directors of the ABC and SBS will be appointed. I think that it is a positive step forward to introduce the notion of merit based appointments. If you look at the guidelines and material that has been published setting out the mechanism, it is robust. There will be advertisements placed right across Australia seeking those who are interested in becoming a member of the ABC or SBS board to put an expression of interest forward. I understand that they have just gone through that process. Expressions of interest closed yesterday. I hope that there is a very broad-ranging cross-section of people from all over Australia who put their names forward to be considered by the nomination panel.
Reflecting on the situation of the ABC in Central Queensland, I would certainly be hoping that there will be a good selection of people from rural and regional Australia. I think that the ABC plays an even more central and important role in telling the stories of rural and regional Australia and providing that link to what is going on in communities and in the world for people living in rural and regional Australia. There are some parts of ABC programming that are particularly geared towards the interests of those people in the country and they have become institutions down the years. I am thinking there of the Country Hour of course on every weekday, and also who could forget Australia All Over with Macca on Sunday mornings?
Some years ago in my first term in this House I was part of the inquiry into regional radio broadcasting around Australia when there were concerns about the decline of regional broadcasting in this country. As we travelled around the smaller rural communities throughout Australia, people told us over and over about that almost personal connection to some of those presenters and programs. Everyone has their favourite stories of where ABC programs and personalities have played their role in our lives. In finishing up, I want to return to the job that local broadcasters do both in Mackay and Rockhampton. They do a terrific job of keeping in touch with our communities and providing that service. (Time expired)
Like the previous speaker, the member for Capricornia, I represent a pretty vast rural area—64,000 square kilometres. It is bigger than Tasmania and certainly relies very heavily on the services of the ABC. There is only one television station that covers all of my electorate, and that is the ABC, and it covers it well. Indeed, we have five national ABC radio stations: one that covers the Mount Gambier area, one that covers the upper south-east, one in the Riverland and one in the Barossa, and many parts of my electorate can get Adelaide’s 891. When I am driving around in my electorate—as I often am because, as I said, I have a vast rural seat—I have access to five different radio stations, and they are all ABC. That is what I listen to, and I am sure there are a lot of farmers on their tractors who do the same thing, along with many people who are travelling around the electorate who rely on the ABC radio stations for their daily needs.
SBS, although one of my colleagues said that it stands for ‘sex between soccer’, attracts a lot of demand in my area. In fact, quite a few other areas do not have access to SBS and want that access. There is more than a multicultural aspect to it. SBS has some amazing programs. I remember one about the American Civil War, which was an extraordinary program and almost made you feel as though you were there. SBS serves a great need in Australia. It was instituted by the Fraser government. I think the retiring member for Kooyong had a fair bit to do with ensuring that SBS became a reality. There is no way we would ever get rid of that sort of TV channel. Even though it has some advertising now, I think people have accepted that as part of the service.
I rise today to speak on the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The legislation consists of a few key parts: the implementation of a supposedly new merit based appointment process to appoint directors to the ABC and SBS boards, the banning of former politicians from appointment to the ABC or SBS boards and staff elected directors. These are key issues for the coalition and for me. In October 2008 Labor announced that they would commence a new merit based selection process and seek to reinstate the staff elected director. This merit selection process is full of holes and allows Labor to fill all the vacancies with their own like-minded people. I am not sure how a staff elected director fulfils the criterion of a merit selection process. In fact, I have very grave doubts that it can.
Both the ABC and SBS have a significant and unique role in Australian broadcasting, and the coalition strongly supports our national broadcasters. As these organisations receive substantial taxpayer funding, it is imperative that they adopt the highest levels of corporate governance—and we are talking here about millions of dollars, of course. It is also important that they have in place appropriate governance structures. The first part of the legislation—the implementation of a new merit based board appointment process—will establish a nomination panel that is to conduct a selection process for each appointment of a director. Labor has pushed for a merit based selection process for the ABC and SBS and proposes the following:
The Nomination Panel comprises a chair and at least 2 and not more than 3 other members appointed by the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department for part time office for a period not exceeding 3 years.
The Nomination Panel must advertise any vacancy nationally, assess all applications against selection criteria set by the Minister and provide a report to the Minister or the Prime Minister and Minister—
I suggest that in the case of the present Prime Minister he would certainly be meddling in that—
in the case of the ABC chairperson, containing at least 3 nominations.
The Prime Minister must consult the Leader of the Opposition—
it does not say he has to pay any attention but ‘must consult’ the Leader of the Opposition—
before recommending the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson and if the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson is not nominated by the Nomination Panel, the Prime Minister must table the reasons for that appointment within 15 sitting days.
At the time Labor announced it would commence a new merit based selection process in October 2008 it called for public nominations for the positions of directors of the two boards and then created a nomination panel to assess the applications. In April 2009 Labor announced the appointment of two directors to the SBS board and two directors to the ABC board using the new merit based selection process. Senate estimates later confirmed that the government spent $200,000 on the selection process utilised to appoint the four new directors to the boards during this time, which works out at $50,000 per director. I am not sure that that is good value for taxpayers’ money. This amount included payment for the members of the nomination panel, advertising of the vacancies and the engagement of a recruitment firm. It is worth noting that the bill states that there is:
… no guarantee that the nomination process will produce a successful nomination and it is still within the Government’s power to make an appointment that is not a recommendation of the Nomination Panel …
So there is this easy way out for the Labor government. And they can do this ‘provided the selection process has been undertaken’. But, if Labor wants to appoint one of their own, they certainly can under these rules. It is certainly not a hard and fast rule that the nomination panel will come up with the directors. It still leaves it very much open to government manipulation. It is through the holes in legislation like this that Labor will slide in their own. The legislation is not actually required to facilitate the government’s nomination and appointment process either, as the government has already undertaken this process.
The coalition does not oppose the merit selection process but there does need to be consistency within the legislation. With this system they cannot rule out that the ABC and SBS boards will be stacked with Labor sympathisers. They are talking the talk but not necessarily giving us what they say they are going to do. The bill proposes that former state and federal politicians and senior political staff not be eligible for appointment to the boards of the SBS and the ABC. I can assure those here in the chamber that I have no intention of being a member of the ABC board or the SBS board. That is certainly not a career move I would ever be interested in. I want to get that straight from the outset.
Senator Conroy told Lateline Business on 5 December 2007 that the merit selection process was based around the Nolan principles in the UK. It would be good if the legislation was based on the Nolan principles in the UK, but of course it is full of holes. At the 2006 Senate inquiry into the composition of the ABC board and the coalition’s changes to remove the staff elected director of the ABC, departmental officials said:
If the argument to implement something like the Nolan rules relates to avoiding the appointment of board members who are too closely associated with a political party, a Nolan rules type process would not necessarily deal with that issue.
Indeed, if we are going to appoint staff representatives why don’t we elect a representative of the NFF, for example, to represent the rural needs of the ABC? I suspect that they would have a lot more merit than a staff elected representative. If this is the case then Labor’s perpetual ban on former political staff and members of parliament serving on the boards of the national broadcasters is really just a cheap stunt and is full of inconsistencies.
Former politicians have made a valuable contribution to the ABC board and other government bodies. Labor’s position on the value of former politicians serving on government boards is entirely inconsistent, as evidenced by Mr Rudd’s appointment of former Labor minister John Kerin to the CSIRO board and former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks as an adviser to the car industry. It is hypocritical for the government to claim that former politicians can provide valuable skills and experience to assist some boards but not the boards of the national broadcasters. They have failed to point out how these boards are different from any other arm of government.
Senator Conroy had no problems with former Labor staffer Jody Fassina being appointed to the board of Tas NBN Co. He also has no qualms about the $450,000 salary being paid to the disgraced former Queensland MP Mike Kaiser, who had to resign from parliament for stacking the electorate numbers in the hope of controlling things in Queensland. Mike Kaiser is doing government relations for a company with no customers—so who is he going to relate to?—and no income. But the company has plenty of expenditure, by the sound of it, because Mike Kaiser is getting $100,000 a year more than our Prime Minister.
Instead of offering a ‘cooling-off period’ for former staff and politicians—which we might have some sympathy for—Labor has placed a blanket ban on them ever being eligible for appointment to the board of a national broadcaster. This is a contradiction of the principle of an 18-month cooling-off period contained in the Rudd government’s ‘Standards of Ministerial Ethics’. Labor is inconsistent and has its own rules depending on the circumstances and what suits it at the time.
This legislation does not prevent current or former party officials or those with other political affiliations from being appointed to the boards. For instance, former Labor candidate David Hill served as both Chairman and Managing Director of the ABC and Michael Kroger also served as a director on the ABC board. These proposals do not restrict such appointments, which further serves to highlight how superficial the proposals are.
The coalition proposes that the bill should be amended to provide for an 18-month cooling-off period before former MPs and political staff can serve on the ABC board. I think that is a very sensible amendment that should be accepted by the government. Former politicians and their staff may have skills and experience applicable to the board. Indeed, former politicians, including Labor’s John Bannon, have made a valuable contribution to the board in the past.
Why is Labor so against former politicians serving on the boards of the ABC and SBS when they have appointed former politicians to other boards and positions? It is inconsistent and it is total hypocrisy. If they claim that having former politicians serving on the boards of the ABC and SBS equates to political interference, why are they so comfortable putting former MPs on other government boards? This is another example of Labor spin.
The second part of this bill relates to the position of staff elected director on the ABC board. The first staff elected position on the ABC board was introduced by the Whitlam government, without legislation, in 1975. This position was then abolished by the Fraser government, before the Hawke government enshrined the position in legislation in 1986. In 2006 the coalition amended the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to remove the position of staff elected director from the legislated composition of the ABC board to improve the corporate governance of the organisation. The decision to abolish the staff elected director was announced following the coalition government’s review of corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, conducted by Mr John Uhrig AC. The removal of the staff elected director was consistent with Uhrig’s recommendations about representative appointments. As I said earlier, if we are going to have a staff representative why not have a representative from the rural areas, a representative from the poorer areas, a representative from the richer areas, a representative from the female side and a representative from the male side? I mean, how far should we go with these appointments?
The Uhrig review concluded:
The review does not support representational appointments to governing boards as representational appointments can fail to produce independent and objective views. There is the potential for these appointments to be primarily concerned with the interests of those they represent—
if they are appointed by those whom they represent, of course they will wish to make sure that those feelings are expressed in the board—
rather than the success of the entity they are responsible for governing. While it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is to not create circumstances where they arise.
The position of staff elected director was seen as an anomaly amongst government agency boards. This is not the Liberal Party speaking; this is the Public Service. The other national broadcaster, the SBS, does not have a staff elected director. The coalition was also concerned about the potential conflict of interest of the staff elected director, who is legally required to act in the best interests of the ABC as director but is appointed as a representative of staff and elected by them. It is totally inconsistent yet again. The explanatory memorandum to the 2006 bill stated:
The Bill addresses an ongoing tension relating to the position of staff-elected Director. A potential conflict exists between the duties of the staff-elected Director under paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to act in good faith in the best interests of the ABC, and the appointment of that Director via election by ABC staff. The election method creates a risk that a staff-elected Director will be expected by the constituents who elect him or her to place the interests of staff ahead of the interests of the ABC as a whole where they are in conflict.
The Senate held an inquiry into the legislation to remove the staff elected director in 1996. In relation to conflicts of interest, in giving evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, officers from the department confirmed the view of Uhrig to the committee:
… while it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is not to create circumstances where they arise.
Professor Stephen Bartos, Director of the National Institute for Governance, made a submission to the inquiry that stated:
… the Uhrig Report is an accurate reflection of commonly accepted practice in Australian corporate governance. In this country we have applied a model of governance that does not favour representative appointments.
And:
More broadly, staff-elected directors on a Board do represent an anomaly amongst Australian public and private sector boards in general governance terms …
At the time of the 2006 announcement, the then Chairman of the ABC, Mr Donald McDonald AO, stated that he had worked with three staff elected directors and:
Inevitably there has been a tension between the expectations placed by others on their role and their established duties as directors of a corporation.
In further evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, the department told the committee:
… the issue is not really about what may or may not have happened in relation to individual directors in the past. The issue is one of what is best practice corporate governance for the ABC, and Uhrig has recommended that there should not be positions like this on government boards.
The 2006 Senate committee concluded:
This Bill aligns the operations of the ABC Board with modern principles of corporate governance and accountability, as explained in the Uhrig Review. By abolishing the position of staff-elected Director, the Bill resolves the potential conflict of interest in being under a legal duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the ABC, whilst at the same time being expected by those that have elected them (i.e. ABC staff) to primarily represent and act in their best interests.
Labor have given us no reason to believe that they are genuine about removing the apparent political interference on national broadcasting boards. The coalition remains opposed to the reinstatement of staff elected directors, in particular to the ABC board. If the coalition’s amendments to this bill are not successful we cannot support the bill. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, and I do so very proudly as, with its introduction and passing, the Labor government will deliver on yet another promise made prior to the 2007 federal election. That promise was to free both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service of potential political interference. The changes in the bill will achieve better long-term outcomes for both boards by improving governance in our national broadcasters.
As the situation currently stands, ABC and SBS board appointments are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the government of the day. This is, of course, in accordance with provisions in the ABC and SBS acts, which require the minister to write to the Governor-General recommending the appointment of a selected candidate. While there are generic criteria specified in these acts which candidates are to be assessed against prior to their appointment, there is no formal process established for appointments and absolutely no degree of transparency required in relation to how candidates are selected. This means that, while there are some generic criteria, there is no formal process to select a candidate and there is no requirement that any information be divulged as to why a candidate was selected, meaning that the government in power at the time could influence the Governor-General and subsequently appoint, ultimately at their own discretion, anyone they want to positions on the board.
This is an outrageous state of affairs. The government in power can effectively hold control over decisions of who gets appointed to the board of two major broadcasters in Australia, which effectively means that they can control two of Australia’s larger media outlets and thus a large percentage of the information consumed by the public. If the government can control who gets appointed, they can control, through the candidate they select for appointment, the portrayal of information in the media and thus control the public’s perception of events and people.
Just imagine the grisly outcome if a government chose to manipulate this situation to grasp power over their country’s national broadcasting services. It would mean a very biased skew on any issues of political interest. Despite the potential for this, when you consider that the ABC is one of the most trusted media sources in the country, it is quite daunting to think that a government could effectively control it. To prevent this potential situation I am delighted to acknowledge the good fortune we have as a government to remove the temptation to manipulate this power, which is something the Labor government committed to prior to the last federal election and something we are delivering on with this bill.
The delivery on this promise began when the government released guidelines in October 2008 pertaining to a new merit based process which was used to appoint four excellent candidates in March 2009. An independent nomination panel was convened to assess the applications and provide a short list of recommended candidates to the minister from an exceptional field of over 300 applicants from across the community. With so many applicants the quality of the appointments increased, resulting in four exceptional new directors; two each for the ABC and SBS. This practice run of the new merit based selection process showed that, by using the new model, better quality directors can be appointed and that the nomination panel can work effectively and independently of the government for the short list process.
This bill will formalise this new merit based selection process and will fulfil two very important and longstanding commitments made by the Australian Labor Party. It will effectively end potential political interference in the ABC by introducing legislation that formalises a new transparent and democratic board appointment process in which non-executive directors are appointed on the basis of merit. It is important to note that it will change the system to allow people to be appointed on the basis of merit. In any system, merit is the most effective tool that can be employed to ensure a fair and unbiased outcome. It allows the most deserving person to be given the position and completely eliminates the influence of any parties looking out for their own interests. Appointments to the SBS board will be handled in the same way and the staff elected director will be restored to the ABC board.
To remove the potential for political interference by way of appointment on the basis of merit this bill will introduce a number of provisions. It will formalise a new merit based appointment process in the legislation of both ABC and SBS and ensure it is used consistently to fill all future non-executive director vacancies, free of control of the government in power at the time. Under the bill the new process will ensure that all non-executive director vacancies on the ABC and SBS boards be advertised widely. This will include, at a minimum, advertisement in the national press and/or in major state and territory newspapers. It will also be a requirement for it to be advertised on the website of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
An independent nomination panel will be established to short-list suitable candidates, free of government influence, with its role being to invite written applications by persons seeking to be appointed as a director of either the ABC or SBS board and to conduct the merit based assessment process for all applicants against the selection criteria. Under the legislation the panel will be appointed by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and will have the processes for its operation dictated by this legislation, which specifically states that the panel is not subject to direction by the government.
The selection criteria will be solely merit based, with the assessment of candidates being made against a core set of published selection criteria which can be, where necessary to address particular skill gaps, supplemented by additional criteria. After the selection criteria have been applied, the nomination panel will provide a report to the minister with a short list of a minimum of three candidates for each vacant position. As specified under the ABC and SBS acts the minister will then select a candidate from the short list and write to the Governor-General recommending the appointment. If the government fails to appoint a short listed candidate, they must provide reasons to the parliament in explanation of their decision.
The appointment of current or former politicians or senior political staff will be strictly prohibited. If the vacancy is that of the chair of the ABC board, all aspects of the merit based process would be applied in the same manner as they would to any other position, except the Prime Minister would, in conjunction and consultation with the minister, select the preferred candidate. The Prime Minister would then confer with cabinet about the selected candidate and, once having achieved cabinet approval, would consult with the opposition leader before providing a recommendation to the Governor-General.
By introducing these provisions, we can ensure the appointments of non-executive directors are merit based and free of all potential bias and government influence. This will encourage the growth of strong and independent national broadcasters, which are the essential pillars of our democracy. It is incumbent upon the ABC and SBS boards to be able to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the emerging digital and online environment. To this end, both organisations must have transparent and accountable governance processes. Transparency of a merit based system ensures that appropriate and deserving candidates are appointed to positions on the ABC and SBS boards, which is vital if they are to function effectively. The ABC and SBS cannot function at their maximum capacity without first-rate boards.
By opening up the application process to all Australians and allowing them to nominate for a place on either the ABC or the SBS board, more eligible candidates can be considered based on their merits, and more skills can be presented for selection. The merit based selection process will primarily consider their abilities, experience and qualities as the focus of these considerations. The merit assessment will be based on matching the candidates’ skills to the needs of the ABC and SBS which, combined with transparency of independent scrutiny by the nomination panel, will allow the most appropriate candidates to be appointed.
The merit based selection process promotes the principles of equal opportunity, and gender and geographical diversity. Potential bias will no longer have a place in the selection of candidates. Appointment will depend solely on the merit of the individual candidates and how effectively they match the needs of the ABC and SBS. This system will take politics out of the selection process and put the focus on what should be the priority: ensuring the best candidates are appointed to the boards.
Another important amendment this bill will make is the reinstatement of a staff elected director on the ABC board. By reinstating the position of a staff elected director, which was abolished by the previous government, we can effectively enhance the governance arrangements on the ABC board. The position of staff elected director is vital as an important enhancement to the ABC’s independence as it provides a unique and keen insight into ABC operations. More often than not, the staff elected director is the only member of the board that has the expertise and first-hand knowledge to question the advice coming from the ABC’s executives. The staff elected director is in the best position to critically examine the advice from the executives because of their knowledge of the daily operations of the broadcaster. Despite the fact that their actual duties, rights and responsibilities are the same, the process by which they are appointed provides a fundamental difference and gives them unique knowledge and experience that they can bring to the board to assist with the critical task of ensuring the ABC can operate at its maximum capacity. The reinstatement of this position is good news for the ABC as it means important insight can be added to the pool of knowledge held by the board of directors.
The changes introduced by this bill will formalise a system that has proven to be effective and will reintroduce the position of staff elected director, a position that has been proven in the past in that it brings important knowledge and experience to the board of directors. For regional areas such as my electorate of Flynn, where the ABC is a highly respected source for information about contemporary issues and events, the integrity of our national broadcasting service is fundamental. In Flynn, the ABC is very much a part of the community with local offices in Longreach and Gladstone, to which the people of Flynn look to first for information, in good times and in bad. When there is a natural disaster it is the ABC or other local media outlets that people from my community look to for updates and vital information—a service that is absolutely critical in potentially life or death situations such as cyclones and bushfires. This bill will ensure that both the ABC and SBS cannot be abused and that the integrity that makes them the first port of call for information in regional communities, such as my electorate of Flynn, can be maintained.
It would be ludicrous to deny the passing of legislation that will ensure an important part of Australia’s news and media will never be misused or abused. This bill will formalise a tried and tested system and reintroduce an important position to the board of directors, which will prevent any potential political interference and make certain that the integrity of these national broadcasting services can never be lost. It is for these reasons that I commend the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 to the House.
Debate interrupted.
On indulgence, Mr Speaker: I would like to take the opportunity to advise the House as to where we are now up to. We remain, as earlier, patiently in the hands of the other place. They are continuing to move through various amendments but are not yet at the stage where they are ready to report to us. With that in mind, I suggest, Mr Speaker, that it might suit the convenience of the House at this point for you to leave the chair, to suspend the sitting and to cause the sitting to resume at the ringing of the bells, which we envisage might be convenient to occur at 10 o’clock tomorrow.
Order! The chair will be resumed at the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 3.50 pm to the ringing of the bells
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s requested amendments—
(1) Clause 6-1, page 10 (line 11), omit “or agriculture”, substitute “, agriculture or forestry”.
(2) Clause 6-1, page 10 (lines 14 and 15), omit “or incidental agricultural activities”, substitute “, incidental agricultural activities or incidental forestry activities”.
(3) Heading to clause 6-5, page 11 (lines 18 and 19), omit “or agriculture”, substitute “,agriculture or forestry”.
(4) Clause 6-5, page 11 (line 28), omit “and”, substitute “or”.
(5) Clause 6-5, page 11 (after line 28), at the end of paragraph 6-5(1)(c), add:
(iii) *forestry; and
(6) Heading to clause 6-10, page 12 (line 6), omit “or incidental agricultural activities”, substitute “, incidental agricultural activities or incidental forestry activities”.
(7) Clause 6-10, page 12 (line 16), omit “and”, substitute “or”.
(8) Clause 6-10, page 12 (after line 16), at the end of paragraph 6-10(1)(d), add:
(iii) *incidental forestry activities; and
(9) Clause 7-5, page 19 (table item 1), omit “or agriculture”, substitute “, agriculture or forestry”.
(10) Clause 7-5, page 19 (table item 2), omit “or incidental agricultural activities”, substitute “, incidental agricultural activities or incidental forestry activities”.
(11) Clause 7-5, page 20 (table item 3), omit “or incidental agricultural activities”, substitute “, incidental agricultural activities or incidental forestry activities”.
(12) Clause 13-1, page 33 (after line 29), after the definition of fishing operations, insert:
forestry has the same meaning as in the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme Act 2003, but does not include an activity relating to *carbon sequestration. For the purposes of this definition, disregard the repeal of that Act on 1 July 2012.
(13) Clause 13-1, page 34 (after line 20), after the definition of incidental fishing activities, insert:
incidental forestry activities has the meaning given by the regulations.
I move:
That the requested amendments be made.
These amendments in relation to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2] provide that businesses undertaking forestry activities and businesses engaged in incidental forestry activities will now be eligible to receive CPRS fuel credits from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2014. This will relieve forestry and incidental forestry activities from the fuel price impact of the CPRS and ensure consistent treatment with the agriculture and fisheries sectors. Under the amendments, carbon sequestration activities will not receive CPRS fuel credits, as they will benefit from eligibility to opt into the CPRS reforestation scheme.
Mr Speaker, I understand that there are no other speakers on this matter.
The question is that the requested amendments be made.
Question agreed to.
Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s requested amendments—
SCHEDULE A
(1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 20 (line 17), omit “$60,000”, substitute “$58,000”.
(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 20 (line 28), omit “$60,000”, substitute “$58,000”.
SCHEDULE B
Amendments made by the Senate
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
2. Schedule 1 | 1 July 2011. However, if section 3 of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act 2009 does not commence before or on 1 July 2011, the provision(s) do not commence at all. |
2A. Schedule 1A | Immediately after the commencement of Schedule 5 to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform and Other 2009 Budget Measures) Act 2009. However, if that Schedule does not commence, the provision(s) do not commence at all. |
2B. Schedule 2 | 1 July 2011. However, if section 3 of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act 2009 does not commence before or on 1 July 2011, the provision(s) do not commence at all. |
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 5), insert:
5A. Schedule 3, Part 3 | Immediately after the commencement of Schedule 5 to the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform) Act 2009. However, if the provision(s) covered by table item 3 do not commence, the provision(s) covered by this table item do not commence at all. |
(3) Page 19 (after line 15), after Schedule 1, insert:
Schedule 1A—Other Social Security Act amendments
Social Security Act 1991
1 Subsection 1061ZAAZ(2) (at the end of the definition of adjusted taxable income)
Add:
; and (c) if the person (the claimant) was a member of a couple at the end of the year—the superannuation benefits (within the meaning of that Act) (if any) received by the person who was the claimant’s partner at that time in relation to the income year to the extent to which those benefits are non-assessable non-exempt income (within the meaning of that Act).
2 Subparagraph 1061ZAAZB(1)(g)(v)
Omit “$280”, substitute “$240”.
3 Subparagraph 1061ZAAZB(1)(h)(iv)
Omit “$385”, substitute “$330”.
4 Paragraph 1061ZAAZC(b)
Omit “$550”, substitute “$500”.
5 Paragraph 1206GI(a)
Omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
Note: The heading to section 1206GI is altered by omitting “1.8%” and substituting “1.5%”.
6 Section 1206GI (note)
Repeal the note, substitute:
Note: The 1.5% increase includes the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’s estimated cost of living increase of 0.7% for the 2012-2013 financial year, which has also been brought forward. The change to the indexation factor on or after 20 March 2013 under section 1206GM takes account of this second brought forward increase.
7 Subsection 1206GM(2) (definition of brought forward indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
8 Subsection 1206GM(2) (example at the end of the definition of brought forward indexation amount)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
9 Subsection 1206GM(2) (example at the end of the definition of brought forward indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
10 Subsection 1206GR(3) (paragraph (a) of the definition of CPRS amount)
Omit “1.8%” (wherever occurring), substitute “1.5%”.
Note: The heading to section 1206GR is altered by omitting “1.8%” and substituting “1.5%”.
11 Subsection 1206GR(3) (note at the end of the definition of CPRS amount)
Repeal the note, substitute:
Note: The 1.5% increase includes the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’s estimated cost of living increase of 0.7% for the 2012-2013 financial year, which has also been brought forward. Subsection 1206GS(2), and the change to the indexation factor, and living cost indexation factor, on or after 20 March 2013 under section 1206GS, take account of this second brought forward increase.
12 Subsection 1206GS(1) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
13 Subsection 1206GS(1) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
14 Subsection 1206GS(3) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
15 Subsection 1206GS(3) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
16 Subsection 1206GS(4) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward CPI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
17 Subsection 1206GS(4) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward PBLCI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
18 Subsection 1206GU(3) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
Note: The heading to subsection 1206GU(2) is altered by omitting “1.8%” and substituting “1.5%”.
19 Subsection 1206GU(3) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
20 Subsection 1206GU(4) (definition of brought forward CPI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
21 Subsection 1206GU(4) (definition of CPRS amount)
Omit “1.8%” (wherever occurring), substitute “1.5%”.
22 Subsection 1206GU(4) (note at the end of the definition of CPRS amount)
Repeal the note, substitute:
Note: The 1.5% increase includes the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’s estimated cost of living increase of 0.7% for the 2012-2013 financial year, which has also been brought forward. The change to the indexation factor on or after 20 March 2013 under subsection (3) takes account of this second brought forward increase.
(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 21 (line 10), omit “$680”, substitute “$620”.
(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 21 (line 14), omit “$680”, substitute “$620”.
(6) Schedule 2, item 2, page 21 (line 16), omit “$680”, substitute “$620”.
(7) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 15), omit “1.4%”, substitute “1.1%”.
(8) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 18), omit “0.014”, substitute “0.011”.
(9) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 24), omit “1.4%”, substitute “1.1%”.
(10) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 24), omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
(11) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 25), omit “1.4%”, substitute “1.1%”.
(12) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 27), omit “0.8%”, substitute “0.7%”.
(13) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 30), omit “4.8%”, substitute “4%”.
(14) Schedule 2, item 7, page 23 (line 33), omit “0.048”, substitute “0.04”.
(15) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 2), omit “4.8%”, substitute “4%”.
(16) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 2), omit “5.2%”, substitute “4.4%”.
(17) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 3), omit “4.8%”, substitute “4%”.
(18) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 5), omit “0.8%”, substitute “0.7%”.
(19) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 8), omit “4.5%”, substitute “3.8%”.
(20) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 11), omit “0.045”, substitute “0.038”.
(21) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 16), omit “4.5%”, substitute “3.8%”.
(22) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 16), omit “4.9%”, substitute “4.2%”.
(23) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 17), omit “4.5%”, substitute “3.8%”.
(24) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 19), omit “0.8%”, substitute “0.7%”.
(25) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 30), omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
(26) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 35), omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
(27) Schedule 2, item 7, page 24 (line 36), omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
(28) Schedule 3, page 32 (after line 20), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 3—Amendments indirectly depending on main amendment
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Note: This Part is to amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 as amended by Schedule 5 to the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Reform) Act 2009. That Schedule is to repeal and substitute the Division 5 of Part XII of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to be inserted in that Act by Part 1 of this Schedule.
14 Paragraph 198S(a)
Omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
Note: The heading to section 198S is altered by omitting “1.8%” and substituting “1.5%”.
15 Section 198S (note)
Omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
16 Section 198S (note)
Omit “0.8%”, substitute “0.7%”.
17 Subsection 198V(1) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
18 Subsection 198V(1) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
19 Subsection 198V(2) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
20 Subsection 198V(2) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
21 Subsection 198V(3) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward CPI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
22 Subsection 198V(3) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward PBLCI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
23 Subsection 198W(1) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
24 Subsection 198W(1) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
25 Subsection 198W(2) (definition of brought forward CPI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
26 Subsection 198ZB(3) (paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of CPRS amount)
Omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
Note: The heading to section 198ZB is altered by omitting “1.8%” and substituting “1.5%”.
27 Subsection 198ZB(3) (note at the end of the definition of CPRS amount)
Omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
28 Subsection 198ZB(3) (note at the end of the definition of CPRS amount)
Omit “0.8%”, substitute “0.7%”.
29 Subsection 198ZC(1) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
30 Subsection 198ZC(1) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
31 Subsection 198ZC(3) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
32 Subsection 198ZC(3) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
33 Subsection 198ZC(4) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward CPI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
34 Subsection 198ZC(4) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward PBLCI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
35 Paragraph 198ZF(a)
Omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
Note: The heading to section 198ZF is altered by omitting “1.8%” and substituting “1.5%”.
36 Section 198ZF (note)
Omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
37 Section 198ZF (note)
Omit “0.8%”, substitute “0.7%”.
38 Subsection 198ZG(1) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
39 Subsection 198ZG(1) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
40 Subsection 198ZG(2) (example)
Omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
41 Subsection 198ZG(2) (example)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
42 Subsection 198ZG(3) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward CPI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
43 Subsection 198ZG(3) (paragraph (b) of the definition of brought forward PBLCI indexation amount)
Omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
(29) Schedule 4, item 2, page 33 (line 20), omit “1.4%”, substitute “1.1%”.
(30) Schedule 4, item 2, page 33 (line 25), omit “0.014”, substitute “0.011”.
(31) Schedule 4, item 2, page 33 (line 26), omit “1.4%”, substitute “1.1%”.
(32) Schedule 4, item 2, page 33 (line 26), omit “1.8%”, substitute “1.5%”.
(33) Schedule 4, item 2, page 33 (line 27), omit “1.4%”, substitute “1.1%”.
(34) Schedule 4, item 2, page 33 (line 29), omit “0.8%”, substitute “0.7%”.
(35) Schedule 4, item 2, page 34 (line 10), omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
(36) Schedule 4, item 2, page 34 (line 15), omit “1.005”, substitute “1.004”.
(37) Schedule 4, item 2, page 34 (line 16), omit “0.008”, substitute “0.007”.
(38) Schedule 5, item 10, page 37 (line 8), omit “$105”, substitute “$90”.
(39) Schedule 5, item 11, page 37 (line 15), omit “$78,250”, substitute “$77,250”.
(40) Schedule 5, item 12, page 37 (line 17), omit “$1,930”, substitute “$1,890”.
(41) Schedule 5, item 13, page 37 (line 21), omit “$38,762”, substitute “$38,514”.
(42) Schedule 5, item 14, page 37 (line 24), omit “$32,948”, substitute “$32,737”.
(43) Schedule 5, item 15, page 37 (line 26), omit “$46,500”, substitute “$46,000”.
I move:
That the requested amendments be made.
These amendments are part of a package of changes to CPRS household assistance that will adjust the level of household assistance due to a lower assumed carbon price reflected in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. As a result of a lower assumed carbon price, the overall rise in the cost of living for households due to the CPRS is estimated to be lower than was first the case, and therefore the changes propose a change to the assistance in the CPRS household assistance package to reflect that expected fall in the carbon price.
Question agreed to.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: to advise members of the current state of play, we have now dealt successfully with matters that have been returned to us from the Senate. As we speak of course the Senate continues to deliberate upon the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. My suggestion, which I have discussed with the Manager of Opposition Business in accordance with our cordial relations established over the last couple of days, is that the House now be suspended and that the House be reconvened on the ringing of the bells. That of course will be subject to the Senate’s deliberations and further consideration of the legislation.
Sitting suspended from 10.06 am to 12.15 pm
I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Acting Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker, you describe me as Acting Leader of the House. I have been acting ‘Albo’ all week. I am not sure whether that has helped or hindered. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that this will be the last occasion for this year.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: as members would be aware, the Senate has dealt with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation in the negative, regrettably from the government’s perspective. I will not dwell on that for fear of encouraging unnecessary debate at this stage. I spoke earlier to the Manager of Opposition Business.
Before I move a formal motion adjourning the House, I think it is appropriate to say that, whilst formal valedictories have previously been made, this will be the last occasion that the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Ian Harris, sits in the clerk’s chair. At this late stage of a ‘Thursday’ sitting we should reflect upon that and again record our thanks, our admiration but most of all our enduring respect and regard for his substantial contribution to this parliament.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
I thank the House, Mr Speaker.
The following notice was given:
to move:
That the House adopt the following standing order, to appear between standing orders 216 and 217: House Appropriations and Administrative Committee
to ask the Speaker:
As at 26 November 2009:
Prior to the last election the Howard government made a commitment to protect and save Warley Hospital. The commitment was made before the commencement of writs. It was a decision of government. It was a decision that was then backed up with a promise of $2.5 million. It was a decision which should have been honoured by the incoming government. That decision was not honoured by the incoming government. There was then a ‘blame game’, to use a phrase, between the federal and state governments. The federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, said it was not her issue. The Victorian Premier, John Brumby, said Warley Hospital on Phillip Island was not his issue. Neither Labor government would take responsibility. We had kept that hospital going; we had supported it at federal level. The result was that neither of the two Labor governments would take responsibility. They walked away from Warley Hospital and Warley Hospital closed. As a result, the people of Phillip Island have not had a hospital now for two years. An area of residential need does not have a hospital. An area which quadruples in population over summer does not have the emergency services needed to support that population. So lives are at risk, let there be no doubt about that.
Against that background, in the last few days there has been an announcement of $2.35 million in funding for Sea Lake bush nursing hospital, another bush nursing hospital in Victoria, along with the Bays Hospital in Mornington, from the federal and state governments—almost exactly the amount of money that was promised to Warley Hospital by the previous government, withdrawn by the incoming government and denied by the state Labor government. If that money can be found, as it rightly was for Sea Lake hospital, to help a small community with similar characteristics to maintain a bush nursing hospital, the question is: why has no funding of comparable nature been allocated to the people of Phillip Island? What is the reason? There has never been a good reason. The minister has never visited Phillip Island and faced the people. So I respectfully but clearly say to Minister Roxon: come to Phillip Island, face the people, explain why you can support Sea Lake but you cannot support Phillip Island and make the decision that it is time to recognise that Warley Hospital on Phillip Island deserves its $2.5 million. (Time expired)
Three weeks ago I proudly attended the launch of the Macarthur Building Skills Centre project in the suburb of Ingleburn in my electorate, a project which I have been very excited about ever since first learning of the concept a few years ago. The Macarthur Building Skills Centre, which is due to open next June, not only will become a centre of excellence and the focal point for building and construction training in the south-west of Sydney but will play a significant role nationally. Earlier this year the Rudd Labor government awarded TAFE NSW’s South Western Sydney Institute a $9.9 million grant through the Education Investment Fund, which is investing in tertiary education and innovative infrastructure, to buy and refurbish an existing Ingleburn building for the centre.
The Ingleburn centre, which is located in the industrial precinct, will specialise in construction and building trades, offering programs in rigging, scaffolding, preapprenticeship carpentry and joinery, and also construction of full-size transportable buildings. It will feature multipurpose workshop spaces, classrooms and computer and conference facilities, and it will allow students to obtain university admissions through their studies. It will also be able to be accessed through pathways with high schools, which will be fantastic for young people in my area.
Given the expanding residential and industrial areas, the forecast of population growth in the south-west of Sydney and, more significantly, a very high youth unemployment rate in this community, this centre will not only be a great boost in targeting the growing needs of the community; it is also an opportunity for the young people in the area. It is logically placed to go about and pursue careers in the building and construction industry, one of Australia’s biggest industries, which employs around one million people, including my two sons, Nicholas and Jonathan. The Macarthur Building Industry Skills Centre is one such initiative towards achieving vocational education training in areas of great need, including areas of growth such as south-western Sydney.
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank Barry Peddle, Institute Director of TAFE NSW South Western Sydney Institute, for his continued dedication to this project and for helping many young people who hope one day to achieve their dreams with a career in the building and construction industry.
I rise to table the following petition from constituents in my electorate of Forrest who strongly oppose the Labor government’s cut to the Medicare rebate for cataract surgery. The petition consists of 529 signatures from constituents who believe that slashing the cataract surgery rebate by 46 per cent and forcing senior Australians and pensioners to delay having the surgery is a major problem for people throughout my electorate and across Australia. The government is punishing patients needing cataract surgery by making them pay hundreds of dollars more for treatment. This is contradictory behaviour by the government given that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is increasing the rebate for the very same surgery for veterans. We certainly believe that veterans deserve first-class health care, but so too do seniors in the south-west, who are now being forced to pay back the reckless spending of the Labor government. This is the way that Australians will pay for the Labor government’s debt and deficit.
According to the Australian Medical Association, 79 per cent of Medicare rebates for cataract surgery are paid to men and women over 65. I have over 16,500 residents in my electorate in this age group who will be hit hard by this cut, and I stand here in this House on their behalf. One constituent who contacted my office explained that her husband recently had cataract surgery on one eye but, due to the cut in the rebate, cannot afford to have surgery on the other. She said it would make it difficult for him to just do the simple things in life.
I would like to make special mention of the principal petitioner and local resident, Shirley Robb, and five local businesses and organisations that were instrumental in gaining so many signatures: the Busselton Senior Citizens Centre, the Busselton Association of Independent Retirees, Capel Pharmacy, Collie day care centre and South West Eye Surgeons. In conclusion I, like the many constituents in my electorate, call on the government to reverse this ill-considered cut to the cataract rebate. I am pleased to present this petition.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:-
The 120,000 senior Australians who, each year, have 200,000 surgical procedures to treat cataracts.
We therefore ask the House to:-
Block any Labor Government effort to halve the Medicare rebate for these treatments. Any reduction in the Medicare rebate will force thousands of Australians into an already overburdened public health system and inflict unnecessary financial hardship on many others.
from 530 citizens
Petition received.
I rise today to send a message to all Territorians and to those people who are fortunate enough to visit our great part of the world. The message is about taking care on our roads. In July this year the ABC in Darwin reported on a report by the federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that in 2007 the Northern Territory had by far the highest per capita rate of road deaths when compared with the rest of Australia and OECD countries. In 2007 there were 27 deaths per 100,000 people in the Northern Territory. The next highest rate in Australia was Western Australia, which recorded 11 deaths per 100,000 people. Australia’s average is almost eight. Poland had the highest death toll rate of any OECD country with 15 people in every 100,000 killed in road accidents.
The Northern Territory road toll in 2007 was 57. Last year 75 people died on territory roads, by far the worst year in the last six years. The numbers and statistics are pretty easy to rattle off and we do this all the time in this place on all sorts of issues, but it saddens me greatly when I reflect on the staggering numbers: 75 families lost loved ones, children lost fathers, brothers lost sisters, uncles lost nieces, grandmothers lost grandsons and mates lost mates forever. On a positive note, I am very pleased to report that this year’s road toll stands at 29. However, I have heard unconfirmed reports that someone lost their life last night. Thirty people possibly killed on territory roads already this year is 30 people too many. However, it is a vast improvement on last year’s statistics. But it is not a time to be complacent. It is so important that we remain vigilant.
I wish to put on record my thanks and absolute support for the Northern Territory Police Force, which has no doubt played an integral role in keeping our roads safe and continues to save lives just as all our emergency services personnel do—the ambos, firies, emergency services workers and hospital staff. I ask that all Australians take a minute to reflect during this upcoming festive season and thank these fantastic men and women. While we will all be enjoying time with our families during the festive season, these people, our men and women, will be working continually to do a great job protecting us on the roads and supporting people after accidents. I would like to send a Christmas message and New Year wishes to all the great people in my electorate of Solomon, in Darwin and Palmerston. But, as I said, I really do need to stress this: take it easy on our roads, don’t drink and drive, don’t speed, don’t run red lights and, most of all, drive to survive and to spend time with your family during the Christmas and New Year period.
I take this opportunity to place on the record the disappointment of the constituents of the Dickson electorate with the Rudd government’s refusal to provide them with certainty as to the future funding of the National School Chaplaincy Program. After some pressure the Rudd government made this week a temporary extension to the program at a reduced funding level until the end of 2011, after which time there may be no more funding despite the program’s social benefits, sound administration and strong community support. Malcolm Turnbull announced last Friday that the coalition, if elected, would continue funding for the program in its current form at its current level of $165 million over three years. We call on the Rudd Labor government to do the same.
That fact that I have with me this morning a petition approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions with 1,114 signatures collected from concerned constituents of Dickson over a 10-day period—with hundreds more signatures received this week which I will table in due course—shows the genuine concern arising when families are told that the funding for their local chappie may not continue. I table the petition with 1,114 signatures.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Rudd Government’s failure to commit to ongoing funding for the National School Chaplaincy program beyond mid 2010.
Figures show that 97% of school principals who have engaged a chaplain strongly support the program and recognise the benefits for their school communities. If Federal funding is discontinued, many chaplaincy services will have to cease operating. This will have an incredibly negative impact on our children in schools who are looking for that independent, trusted friend who can help them navigate through life’s issues.
We ask the house to recognise the importance of the National School Chaplaincy Program and intervene to put pressure on the Federal Government to continue support and provide funding for this vital program.
from 1,114 citizens
Petition received.
Having been part of the effort to initiate the National School Chaplaincy Program under Prime Minister John Howard, I have been a strong supporter of the program and its benefits throughout my electorate. I understand and recognise the importance of and the valuable role that the chaplains play and I have attended many fundraising dinners, a cappuccino day, morning teas and committee meetings where I have heard many success stories from school principals and teachers who acknowledge and agree that the chaplains support not only students but in turn their families and local communities by offering pastoral care and guidance across religious denominations and beliefs. I quote one of my constituents:
The children of today are faced with so many issues and a lot of them have no support and no-one to turn to for encouragement to be a role model for them.
School chaplains, I believe, have filled this void. I commend this petition to the House. I support all of those who have instigated and supported this petition. (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the same issue that the member for Dickson just raised, but with one difference: there has been an announcement made for funding beyond 2010. I have spoken to the Deputy Prime Minister and the PM’s office about the very important National School Chaplaincy Program. I am very pleased to say that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, having heard the community on this issue, have decided to extend the funding by some $42.8 million, extending the program to December 2011. I have been contacted by many concerned parents, schools and chaplains regarding the continued funding of this program. Under the previous government it was funded only until next year, 2010.
The government has made the commitment to take stock and review this program—to look at the evidence of what has happened, at what should continue to happen and at what improvements should be made. In particular, the government is keen to look at better ways to accommodate schools in rural and regional areas, small schools and small disadvantaged communities. This is obviously the responsible thing to do, and it should not have been problematic. However, as I said, the program was funded by the previous government only until late next year.
Given the necessary review, the smooth ongoing administration of the program, specifically the continuation of the payment of wages to those employed as school chaplains, was looking pretty awkward. The last thing I would want to see is a good program supported by the government coming to trouble due to an awkward link between one funding period and the next. We do not want to see the people performing the role of chaplains not knowing what is happening to the program, due to the review, and taking a safer bet in leaving that work for what might be in the end no good reason.
Schools across my electorate of Hindmarsh and the chaplains can watch the review process unfold, safe in the knowledge that the program now has funding to appoint well after the review process concludes, and that is through to 2011. We all have a better idea of where the program might be going. Schools like Grange Primary School in my electorate, where parents and friends have been so amazingly supportive of the program, have been emailing me requesting assistance. I am pleased that the PM and the Deputy PM have heard their requests. These people can rest a little easier knowing that this funding is coming.
This is a terrific result, not just for the schools in my electorate but for schools all around Australia, the churches that support the chaplains, the chaplains themselves and each and every student who may need a quiet word of advice, gentle persuasion to stick up for their principles and do the right thing or some help getting professional help outside the school system. We need to give our school students the very best start in life, and this is just one way that we as a federal government can help. I am extremely pleased that we have this program. It is another example of this government’s preparedness to help.
I am sad and disappointed that I have to rise today to talk about the fact that on 24 September, almost two months ago to the day, I wrote to the Prime Minister outlining to him in detail the state of affairs for western New South Wales with regards to crops. The Lachlan River is now no longer flowing below Condobolin. We are not talking about two or three years of problems here. People out west of the Newell Highway in my electorate have not had any good times in an awfully long time—unlike the member for Hume, who has now got good crops and had some good times.
I laid on the line for the Prime Minister how devastating it was and how bad the crops were going to be. We now know they are as bad as we then thought. It is water, crops and people who have been in hell for a long time. A few days ago I got a reply on what I think is a huge national problem—mental, physical and financial—especially for the people who live out there. I asked the Prime Minister to visit and take a leadership role, but no. The parliamentary secretary gave the government spiel about drought programs and how they would like to come up with a new drought program to get people ready for drought. We have had a disaster for six or eight years and they are talking about a new drought program to help people get ready for drought!
I think this letter is a denial and repudiation of the people in western New South Wales. I did not tell the Prime Minister what he had to do. I asked him to come out, as his predecessor did, when his people were in trouble and have and look at it to see what the federal government could do to help the state government and to help the people of that region get through the most tumultuous time of their lives. We are talking about a Prime Minister who would go to the opening of a toilet block in Brussels if he had the chance—he has spent far more time overseas than he has in regional Australia, let alone in the west of New South Wales. He did get just across the mountains to Bathurst the other day, but that is the only time in two years he has been near it. I am not talking about people who moan because they do not have a bit of bitumen or even because their hospitals are not right; I am talking about people who face a community-threatening situation that has been going on for a long time in the worst drought of my lifetime. If the Prime Minister can only get his parliamentary secretary to write to me and give a spiel on drought reform, then I wonder who exactly he thinks he is representing.
The Bankstown District Cricket Club has proven to be the most successful club in the Sydney Cricket Association over the past 20 years. Over recent years the club has involved itself in numerous causes, including continually raising money for cancer research, supporting the St George Cancer Clinic and the McGrath Foundation and, this year, directing its efforts to prostate cancer research. It also donated the $20,000 proceeds from a match between its first grade team and the Sri Lankan national team, played as a warm-up to the one-day international series, to the Hope Cancer Hospital, which gives free treatment to underprivileged people in Colombo under the Foundation of Goodness, an organisation set up to assist and educate the orphans of tsunami victims. The club donated Kanga cricket kits to the orphanage in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, set up by Father Chris Riley and assisted by Bankstown MP Tony Stewart for tsunami victims; and it has collected and shipped cricket gear to Uganda.
The club resolved to conduct a campaign to collect, repair, clean, pack and ship as much cricket gear as possible to Uganda. All the gear was sorted, repaired, cleaned and packed by mostly junior club members. In early 2005 a container, containing in excess of 300 bats, 380 pairs of pads, 360 pairs of batting gloves, 80 pairs of wicketkeeping gloves, 100 helmets, as well as protectors, thigh pads, stumps and balls, was shipped to Uganda. The consignment got such a reception and caused so much excitement in Uganda that the club decided to conduct a further campaign in conjunction with the 2007 Sydney Ashes test. Again, the campaign proved successful, collecting similar quantities of gear as before, but this time cricket clothing was also included.
The club shipped a third container a few weeks ago, again with a similar amount of cricket gear together with a huge amount of clothing, including almost 2,000 new cricket shirts from Cricket New South Wales, as well as football equipment and uniforms from various schools, surgical equipment for a Kampala hospital and books and uniforms for the Kikandwa School, which has been set up by a parishioner from the Bankstown Baptist Church. The container is expected to arrive in Kampala at the end of November. The task of shipping containers to Uganda is complex and expensive. It costs about $8,000 each. The club remains grateful to the Bankstown Sports Club, which covered the cost of all three shipments. Since the last container was shipped, donations have continued to come in and the Bankstown District Cricket Club is now aware that its Ugandan project will be ongoing for many years to come.
The wider cricket community has continued to donate the cricket gear, and other organisations and companies have offered merchandise such as surgical equipment, footballs, football boots and uniforms, school uniforms and almost 2,000 mostly educational books, most of which are brand new. The cricket club is to be commended for its activities. We are all proud of them and I wish them success in the current competition as well.
I rise in this debate today to present to the House of Representatives a petition signed by 265 people. This is one of a number of petitions that are now coming into my office; others will be put to the Standing Committee on Petitions for their approval and I will once again table them in the House. The petition is from a group of people who have drawn to the attention of the House of Representatives that the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, as the foundation upon which our families are built and upon which our society stands. I fully agree with all of the sentiments of the signatories on that petition.
I just want to make a couple of points I picked up in a submission on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 from the FamilyVoice Australia group. It graphically spells out what I and these constituents are concerned about in relation to the proposal that we should look at marriage equality for people who have alternative lifestyles or gay lifestyles. In the ‘Conclusion and recommendation’ part of their submission, they say:
The Bill would radically alter the nature of “marriage” and the law of Australia by effectively abolishing marriage as traditionally understood in most times and places and in common law in Australia since settlement. Instead a new thing, falsely called “marriage”, would be established in law: a union between any two persons.
Such a legal concept would lack any obvious connection with the purpose of marriage as traditionally understood: to regulate the sexual relationships of men and women to ensure the well-being of children by providing for a publicly recognised commitment to a voluntary, exclusive and lifelong union of a man and a woman.
I concur wholeheartedly with those sentiments in the submission. I would just make a final point: no matter how intense they may appear to be, same-sex relationships cannot be considered the equivalent of marriage. They confer none of the unique benefits of marriage and family on Australian society.
In closing, I wear a white ribbon here today. As a male, I do not have to give a commitment to the terrible issue of assault on women. I left home when I was 14 years of age because I could no longer tolerate the physical abuse I received protecting my mother from the age of eight years. My commitment to this issue is life long and I commend all parliamentarians on their support for the elimination of violence against women. I would like to table the petition I have just talked about on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill to the parliament.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
RETAIN THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN
We, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled, that the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriage”, as proposed by the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, would be to change the very structure of society to the detriment of all, especially children.
We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, be opposed.
from 265 citizens
Petition received.
In recent months there have been some unhappy developments regarding Tibet, with the Chinese government announcing the executions of a number of Tibetans for their role in the events in Tibet last year and the subsequent crackdown. With the usual aplomb, the Chinese government sent the bill for the bullets to the families of those who were executed. China has one of the highest rates of execution in the world—at one point a few years ago exceeding 3,000 a year.
On a more positive note, last week we saw an impressive expression of support for the Tibetan cause by the international community. On Wednesday last week the Dalai Lama addressed the 5th World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet, held in Rome. Over 100 parliamentarians from 28 countries were in attendance. Although I was not able to be there my parliamentary colleague, the member for Fisher, Mr Peter Slipper was. It is very encouraging to hear that so many elected officials from around the world feel so strongly about the struggle of the Tibetan people for personal freedom and greater autonomy within Tibet. The two-day convention was held in the lower house of the Italian parliament and was organised by the Italian Parliamentary Intergroup for Tibet. President Gianfranco Fini, the president of the lower house of the Italian parliament, welcomed and met His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the parliament. Both President Fini and the Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, addressed the convention.
The object of the conference was to develop a plan of governmental action to advance Tibetan issues and secure effective government support for the process of dialogue between the Chinese leadership and His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives, leading to a negotiated solution for Tibet. The solution that the Tibetans support is autonomy within a Chinese federation. They do not seek independence, as the claims of the Chinese communist leadership wrongly and remorselessly repeat.
Although I was not able to attend the event myself, several other members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet will be meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama very soon, on 10 December, at the new convention centre in Melbourne. At eight o’clock on that day Amnesty International and the Australia Tibet Council will be organising a major breakfast to welcome His Holiness to Australia, and I anticipate there will be thousands of people at the new convention centre. Most importantly, the Tibetan cause is making an important outreach to the Chinese community and they will be having a felicitation with the Chinese community at 10.15 pm. I will welcome His Holiness to Australia and I think many Australian parliamentarians will too.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
I want to address this motion on the national apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants through the eyes of Phil Manniche who lives within my electorate: I spoke with him this morning. Phil came to Canberra for the apology and it was a profound event for him. I would like to tell his story.
He is the father of four children. He is a 56-year-old pensioner. He struggles as a father as it is a one car family. He and his wife do a Herculean job. He has spinal injuries, difficulties with his legs and he told me this morning that he has cardiac difficulties. Right from birth he has effectively been an orphan. He was born into the Haven, as it was known, in North Fitzroy. He said his mother was destitute. He was raised in his very early days in the Darling Babies Home in Malvern of which he has no recollection. The bulk of his formative years were spent in St John’s homes Church of England, Canterbury.
During the course of the inquiries into the forgotten Australians and former child migrants, he presented 130 pages of child abuse, abuse against himself. It is almost inconceivable. He has had that corroborated not just by other students or children who are there but also by one of the carers. He said that as a young boy he was friends with a young Aboriginal boy and he was beaten repeatedly and severely for that friendship. As a consequence of that friendship, he was alienated and as a consequence he suffered enormously. He said in particular his head was driven through a wall and he was sexually abused. He asked me to place on the record in the Parliament of Australia in the course of this motion that he was subject to 9½ years of sexual abuse as a young boy, facing things which I cannot imagine. As a father of two children, it cuts to the core of everything we believe in.
That is why, when I look at this motion, I am only going to speak briefly today because I think Phil Manniche’s story says everything we need to know. His story sadly is the story of thousands and thousands of other young Australians who are either born into foster care or more particularly into institutional care. I know that in my own electorate we had the Newhaven boys home and just outside my electorate in Mornington there was the Andrew Kerr home. As a student at Mornington Primary School I knew young children who were going to Andrew Kerr. I have no information on what the conditions were like there. I do know that in the midst of all the darkness there were points of light, and there were people who showed great care and great compassion, but it is absolutely and profoundly clear that there was significant, systemic and sustained violence, physical abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse and emotional distortion which occurred throughout Australia in a way which we now need to acknowledge.
I have to confess that I was largely ignorant. I did not believe that we could have sustained such a systemic problem in Australia. This comes from the practice of turning a blind eye. Let it be absolutely clear that child abuse continues in Australia today but behind closed doors, so we must be ever vigilant. That means that, if there is cause to doubt or suspect, we need to act. We need to act carefully, of course—not be engaged in some sort of McCarthyism—in a way which ensures that people who are most vulnerable are protected. The task of protecting those in greatest need of care continues, but the moment for apology is now. I say on behalf of the people of Flinders, and behalf of myself and my family, I am sorry for that which Phil Manniche and hundreds of thousands of others suffered. To Phil, you are a beacon of what can happen in the human spirit. You have had a profoundly difficult upbringing. You have been abused in the worst way, but you have resolved to live your life with a sense of purpose, spirit and fortitude and you have brought up four children, so you should be proud. You can reflect on what you have done, but you should be proud that you have conquered and your life is a success for that. For this reason I support this motion.
Debate (on motion by Mr Schultz) adjourned.
Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That further proceedings on the motion be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2009. The coalition fully supports the passage of this bill. Bills of this nature are regarded as an essential tool in the process of keeping the Commonwealth statute books accurate and up to date. The coalition supports the view mentioned by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech that this parliament has had a strong tradition of passing statute law revision bills in a bipartisan manner since they were introduced by the Fraser government in 1981. In the second reading speech to the Statute Law Revision Bill 1981, the then Attorney-General Senator Durack said:
The Government has decided to introduce Statute Law Revision Bills into the Parliament on a regular basis, at least once in each year and, if required, once in each sitting. This will enable the prompt correction of mistakes and errors and removal from the statute book of expired laws.
The acts to be repealed are self-evidently obsolete and have been superseded by other legislation. Of the acts to be amended, most of the proposals relate to spelling, grammatical and technical errors and to the removal of gender-specific language.
Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to 33 principal acts. Schedule 2 amends 22 amending acts. Schedule 3 repeals five acts. The remainder of the bill makes bulk amendments with respect to spelling and capitalisation. A large number of Commonwealth acts are amended to ensure consistency of language used to describe the internet and internet related technology. The corrections and repeals are desirable in order to improve the quality of the text of Commonwealth legislation and, in particular, to facilitate the publication of consolidated versions of acts by the Attorney-General’s Department and by private publishers of legislation. None of the corrections make any changes to the substance of the law. I commend this bill to the House.
I speak in support of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2009. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech described this as housekeeping work. He is correct. The retention of outdated, complex and unclear legislative provisions makes it more difficult for Australians to come to grips with how the law applies to them, their businesses, their family life and their community. Certainly the provisions we are changing here do not have the beauty and elegance of the King James Bible, but, to take the religious analogy even further and paraphrase St Paul for the 21st century, everyone makes mistakes, and certainly the legislative drafters have made some mistakes in those provisions.
The shadow minister outlined the number of pieces of legislation, the principal acts and some of the obsolete acts, but I just want to point out a couple of them to show for the purposes of the record why we are doing this, so that anyone who might be listening to this broadcast or who might be reading the Hansard can understand why we are doing this. We are not making any controversial changes. We are not changing much of the substance of any legislation, but it is important for them to understand what we are doing.
For example, in the Banking Act 1959, we are renumbering the subsections. We are making some consistency in the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the term ‘ballot paper’. The Customs Tariff Act, strangely enough, has the numeral ‘1’ where it should be ‘i’ in the word ‘preparations’. There are other changes. For example, in the Defence Force Discipline Act, there is a reference to ‘the a court martial’. The Family Law Act, with which I was very familiar when I was practising as a lawyer, has a missing semicolon after the word ‘information’ in section 12G(2)(a), and there is a missing parenthesis in the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008. There is a double ‘the’ in the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2008. We have already repealed some sections of the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment Act. There is an extra ‘s’ in the Tax Laws Amendment (Repeal of Inoperative Provisions) Act 2006.
I just wanted to outline a few of those to show the Australian public why we are doing this, to show that it is housekeeping. We are not making major changes but we are ensuring that where mistakes have been made they are being corrected, and we are also ensuring that there are gender-neutral provisions in legislation. There is also a change where we have—as I would describe it—‘decapitalised’ the ‘I’ in ‘internet’, ensuring that the words ‘internet protocol’ no longer start with the capital letters ‘I’ and ‘P’. They are minor changes but they are important to make sure that the law is consistent and no longer obsolete and that, where there are redundancies and a need to correct the legislative record, this is done. It is done in a bipartisan way. It is to the benefit of all us to ensure that the law is not an ass, that it is reformist, applicable and useful to all us. Anything that makes the law more utilitarian, appropriate and contemporary is worthy of support, and I am glad that the opposition have supported it. I commend the legislation to the House.
I thank the members for their contribution to the debate on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2009. I am encouraged to see that the tradition of bipartisan support for these bills continues. This government is proud to continue its support of statute law revision bills. This is the second such bill we have introduced during our term in government, reflecting the importance we place on updating Commonwealth legislation and improving its quality and accessibility.
While this bill does not change the substance of the law, it is an important responsibility of any government to carry out the passage of statute law revision bills. Minor drafting and clerical errors are bound to find their way into legislation, given the volume of bills passing through the parliament. The regular review of legislation by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel enables the prompt correction of these errors. These bills also remove from the statute book expired laws.
This is in line with the government’s recently adopted strategic framework for access to justice, which arose out of a report by my department’s Access to Justice Taskforce. One of the five justice principles contained in the framework is accessibility: justice initiatives should reduce the net complexity of the justice system. The removal of errors and obsolete legislation through the Statute Law Revision Bill is one means by which parliament can improve the accessibility of the law consistent with that strategic framework. These amendments also ensure that our laws reflect contemporary social standards by amending statutes containing gender-specific language to produce a statute book that is gender neutral and more inclusive.
These bills are prepared on the initiative of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I commend the office for the quality of its work in ensuring that our statute book remains as accurate and effective as it can possibly be.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
I rise to speak about Business and Professional Women Australia, which has made a major contribution since its inception in 1946 to Australia and in my seat of Forrest. The aims of the BPW are to maintain high standards of service, to stimulate and encourage women in the realisation and acceptance of their role in the community at all levels, to encourage women and girls to accept leadership roles, and to work for equal opportunity, the elevation of the status of women and the removal of discrimination. These aims were written in the early part of the 20th century yet, despite the good work of this organisation and others like it, they are still extremely relevant today.
Like many organisations, BPW’s membership has fluctuated over the years. In WA there have been over 40 clubs based in both metropolitan and country areas. The most recent was formed this year. Within my electorate there are clubs in the towns of Harvey, Bunbury, Collie, Busselton and Margaret River and until recently Donnybrook. In 2009 Busselton BPW has one of the largest membership bases in Australia. Bunbury and Collie BPWs are the oldest clubs in my electorate, celebrating 40 years of women working for women. I attended the Bunbury BPW’s celebration dinner on 19 September. The inaugural president, Joy McMahan, the secretary, Joan Jenkins, and over 70 other members and dignitaries celebrated the club’s charter in 1969. I congratulate them.
Over the years Bunbury BPW has hosted many events, including three state conferences. For many years Bunbury BPW held an educational weekend for both its members and the general public. Topics were varied and ranged from ‘Alpha to omega—in vitro fertilisation to euthanasia’—and that was in the mid-1980s, so they were well ahead of their time—to businesswomen mentoring other businesswomen, to equal pay issues. These issues are still relevant today.
For over 20 years Bunbury BPW has provided an education scholarship to a female student in years 11 and 12. This was recently revamped. Today they award scholarships to young businesswomen and recently sponsored two young people to attend special leadership training. Throughout the years, Bunbury BPW has, along with other clubs in my electorate, been heavily involved in women’s issues. They have campaigned, lobbied, held workshops, actively participated in the establishment of breast self-examination clinics—the forerunner for the mobile mammography units—business enterprise centres, citizens advice bureaus and local libraries. Some have even become local government councillors just to get that message across within their respective communities.
The club has not stopped with women’s issues. They educate themselves on many national and international matters. In 1994, at its 25th celebration dinner, the club hosted a non-partisan discussion on the implications of Australia becoming a republic. That was a very hot topic at the time. All of the clubs in my electorate have participated in what is known as Project Five-0, which is the coming together of five international women’s organisations to foster projects in Third World countries.
Individual members of Bunbury BPW have attended numerous state and national conferences and one member, Joan Morton, has attended three international conferences. Each time the members take with them the voice of women from my electorate of Forrest to be heard in the wider arena and have brought back with them opinions and thoughts on how to better the lives of women living in country areas.
Many members of the groups from Bunbury, Busselton, Collie and Margaret River have gone on to take leadership roles at higher levels. One state president, Maureen Wright, from the Bunbury club, took on a commitment to become a vice-president at the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women. Shortly after stepping down, she was invited to be the state coordinator of a research project looking into women in urban areas.
The work of the Business and Professional Women Australia clubs and their members in my electorate has been varied. However, it has always met the original aims of the international organisation, which is to work to increase the status of women, especially those in the workforce. In 2009, the main projects of the members have been associated with addressing the issues of modern women. In Bunbury, the BPW is still the voice of working women, especially in the area of pay equity. I commend the clubs in my electorate for their work towards improving conditions for all women, but especially for women in the south-west region of Australia. I suspect they will be taking a direct interest in the recently delivered report Making it fair.
The Parliamentary Friends of Epilepsy is a very active group working in this parliament. The group was formed earlier during this parliament and is committed to publicising issues around epilepsy and trying to determine ways in which we can help people who suffer from epilepsy. For the benefit of the chamber, epilepsy is one of the most prevalent neurological disorders. It can be effectively treated but some people never really develop a stable situation with their epilepsy. So for most people it can be effectively treated but not for all. There are over 50 million people who suffer from epilepsy in the word today, and 85 per cent of them live in developing countries. In Australia we have an estimated 200,000 people with epilepsy, and it is believed that three times as many will have epilepsy at some time in their lives.
On 29 October, the Parliamentary Friends of Epilepsy had a breakfast at which Wally Lewis, the noted Rugby League star, football commentator and media personality, addressed us. On 30 October, we held a public hearing in the morning at Parliament House at which we heard from Mr Graeme Shears, from the Joint Epilepsy Council of Australia; Professor Mark Cook, a paediatric neurologist; Glenn Moore, the director of Aurora Bio-science; Dr Kate Riney and Dr Sophie Calvert, two Queensland paediatric neurologists; and Dr Christine Walker, who has previously addressed a breakfast at Parliament House. Dr Walker is a sociologist and represented the Chronic Illness Alliance. In the afternoon we had a roundtable discussion that included some of the groups that were present in the morning in addition to family members and people who suffer from epilepsy.
It was a unique experience. Some of the things that people said during the roundtable included, ‘Thanks for giving us a voice.’ They were very pleased with the work of epilepsy support groups in the community. We came to a realisation of the effect of epilepsy on siblings. We learned how difficult it is for people with epilepsy to obtain a correct diagnosis, of issues around MRIs and of the continual need people with epilepsy have in relation to changing medications and their side effects.
There is the impact of losing your driving licence and not being able to travel where you want to when you want to, having to rely on public transport or relatives. There is discrimination in employment and discrimination in education by peers and teachers. There is the dealing with depression, social isolation, loss of self-esteem and lack of public awareness. There are problems in obtaining information and dealing with government departments.
This was a unique experience. The Parliamentary Friends of Epilepsy will be tabling a full report in parliament in the new year. We will be making some recommendations. Epilepsy is an illness that has been misunderstood throughout the ages, but it is an illness that people can live with and still make a valuable contribution to our society. (Time expired)
I would like to express my thanks to the Parliamentary Friends of Epilepsy. I know many of my constituents have expressed their thanks also.
Today I rise to speak in support of the RACV Energy Breakthrough. It is a joint initiative of the Country Education Project, the Central Goldfields Shire Council and the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria. It is an exciting program designed to provide opportunities for students, teachers, parents and local industry to work together to design and construct a vehicle, a machine or an innovation in technology that will represent an energy breakthrough. It began in 1992 with the Country Education Project trying to seek new ways to engage young people in regional Victoria with a wider range of challenges.
Entrants need to come up with a human powered vehicle. They need to design, build and compete using a vehicle powered solely by human power. There are specifications for the construction of the vehicle, including specifications on safety, dimensions, steering, lighting and warning devices. Leading teams can complete almost 900 kilometres in 24 hours with advanced materials such as carbon fibre, Kevlar and titanium infiltrating vehicle designs. But it is not just about the cutting edge; it is about participation, fun and learning new skills. It is a cross-curricular activity.
I am delighted that the Peninsula School in my electorate entered two vehicles this year, ‘Sirocco’ and ‘Mistral’. After great determination, skill and commitment from the school community, in extreme weather conditions—it was extraordinarily hot at Maryborough—this year the Peninsula School came home with the bacon. The year 6 human powered vehicle team participated, and the school is proud to announce—and I am very pleased to support that announcement—that Sirocco was placed first overall and Mistral was placed a commendable sixth overall. This is an outstanding result, the best result the school has had in its primary section. It is a reflection of the outstanding commitment made by everyone towards the event.
I particularly want to pay tribute to the five dedicated staff who showed incredible commitment—and a slight disconnection from the real world!—in their involvement in this program. I pay tribute to Robert Ogle, John Howard-Jones, Jeff Welsh, Jennifer Kimpton and Virginia Sugars, as well as to all of the 23 students from the Peninsula School who devoted 10 hours a week over the past six months to construct and design the vehicle, to develop their skills as riders, to do the drama rehearsals that are part of it and to do the pit crew training. It was a great effort, with an extraordinary outcome for students, parents, staff and sponsors. It is not just a once-a-year event; it is a six-month commitment that involves a 30-minute drama presentation, scrutineering of the vehicle by RACV engineers and a 14-hour road race on a closed street circuit in a very hot part of Maryborough. So congratulations to all of the kids.
That initiative started in 1992, and it is terrific. Something else terrific started in 1992 at the Peninsula School, and that is Ray Hille. Ray Hille became principal at the Peninsula School in 1992. He is about to retire. He has done a remarkable job. His commitment to teacher and student development, to pedagogy and to delivering a program of academic and personal development through the Peninsula School has shaped remarkable kids at that school. I say to Ray and to Jennie: enjoy the golf courses. You have done a remarkable thing getting the school into a wonderful position, recognising that good management, strategic planning, leadership and careful resource management are a crucial part of delivering an outstanding educational and teaching environment. Congratulations to Ray and Jennie, and to Ray particularly for his wise counsel on education policy over many years. I value him as a friend and as a source of great guidance and insight into education policy. I hope he hits the ball straight down the middle in the many days of golf ahead of him.
In the last minute that is available to me I want to touch on a trend that is quite disturbing—that is, drunken and disorderly behaviour on the great beaches of the Mornington Peninsula. Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, you must look with envy down towards the Mornington Peninsula. If it is not God’s country, it is only a local phone call to God. It is a wonderful place. We are seeing people flocking to the beaches. Summer has started early. It has been hot down our way. But we have seen some disturbing trends. I thank Andrew and Mary Helen from Mornington, who contacted me about the deteriorating amenity at Mills Beach. Mills Beach has been a favourite for generations, but early in this summer we have seen a large number of mainly young—sadly, some not so young—people on the beach consuming way too much alcohol, behaving appallingly and making it very unpleasant for the many families who have grown up enjoying Mills Beach. I urge the council and the local police to come together. I will provide my support. There is scope to work through the local laws of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. We have deployed technology in other parts of the community that has made a real difference. I think we need to tackle this now and make sure it does not become the scourge of this summer.
Today I speak in praise of Life Education Australia and, of course, Healthy Harold. I think most members would be familiar with Healthy Harold, and we grown-ups seem to like him as much as the kids do. I know that I am not averse to a cuddle from Healthy Harold. I can see the member for Hume nodding in agreement.
He’s had a cuddle from Harold too, has he?
I think we have all had cuddles from Healthy Harold. My most recent was earlier this year at Lismore Heights Public School, where I met with Healthy Harold and the team, including Life Education Australia CEO Jay Bacik, to celebrate 30 years of Life Education Australia. Jay and his team do a tremendous job outreaching to all schools across Australia, including the 96 schools we have in my seat of Page. Two weekends ago I saw Healthy Harold in Grafton. He was riding in the Jacaranda Festival float. He gets around. He is everywhere.
Also present at Lismore Heights Public School was John Crowther, former mayor and councillor, aviation buff and member of the local support group back in 1979—I think it was 1979—when Reverend Ted Noffs founded it. What a good man the Reverend Ted Noffs was. Ted believed that each child was unique. He wanted them protected from drugs, including alcohol, and wanted to build a better world for the world’s children. That is one thing I like about Life Education Australia—it does not differentiate between illegal and legal toxic substances, and of course this includes alcohol, which is legal but toxic and deadly. It costs our nation dearly in health, family disruption, accidents and workplace impacts.
The plan of Life Education Australia is to reach a million children annually by 2012. They have approximately 100 mobile learning centres and countless volunteers all over the country, including in my local community, and they say that they are on track. They do of course need money and support. They get some privately from the corporate sector as well as from local communities and state and federal governments. They say that the total cost of developing and delivering programs to each child is about $14 per child, which requires an annual budget beyond $10 million. In 2006 a review of Life Education Australia was commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing and conducted by Erebus International. I would like to put a couple of the review’s findings on the record. It said:
At grassroots level, it is both well-known and well respected for the contribution it has made towards encouraging young people to lead healthy lives.
… … …
Over 91% of teachers sought to ensure that the Life Education visit to the school was repeated for their students.
The review noted a couple of significant achievements, saying:
And they found some challenges for the organisation as well:
One of Life Education Australia’s strengths is that it outreaches to all children. It provides education around healthy eating and healthy habits, particularly with regard to drugs and alcohol. It is important that it does that, but equally important is that we as adults, as parents, as community leaders provide that leadership too. It is not just about law enforcement or about policing, it is about how we act because children copy us. We are the role models and we have to take that seriously.
Hear, hear!
I thank the member for Hume for his affirmation. Thank you.
I rise in the House today to present a petition. The petition does not meet the requirements of the Petition Committee, so I am using this time available to me to explain the reasons behind this petition. The petition’s signatures have been collected by a gentleman by the name of Des Downes in Tumut, known to most as ‘Demon Des’. Des sat in a wheelchair and collected these signatures for the upgrade of Gocup Road. The fact is that Gocup Road has been an issue for well over 20 years. There has been regional development taking place in and around Tumut and the forestry areas and there has been a need for the significant upgrade of Gocup Road for those 20 years.
However, it has been most pressing over the past 10 to 15 years, since the advent of many of the industries in Tumut. Tumut is not in my electorate, but Gocup Road is also in Gundagai, which is part of my electorate. And now we have come to a point whereby the businesses that were enabled to be established in Tumut through both the federal and state governments have now been severely compromised. There has been an enormous expansion, and as a result of the shutdown of all of the rail links between Gundagai and Tumut and many other areas, we have seen the concentration of trucks on that road. You have several hundred B-double truck movements a day on a road that is ill-equipped to meet the demand of the timber industry. It needs to have a focus on regional development.
When we were in government, in the last election campaign we promised that we would provide $11 million towards an upgrade because it was then determined that it would cost around $22 million to make the roads safe—to put in passing lanes and to widen shoulders and to enable the industries that are servicing the forestry industry, and which are serviced by this road, to be able to be competitive with their product. After the election, we were then in opposition and that commitment was not met.
Now, through the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority, we have been quoted an amount of $83 million to do this road. It cannot be expected that Tumut Shire Council and Gundagai Shire Council could meet $83 million out of their rate revenue. It is simply impossible for two very small shires to be expected to meet $83 million out of their rate revenue. Even if you put together all of the financial assistance grants and all of the Roads to Recovery grants to both shire councils, it would not amount to $10 million, basically, for this road. If they put all of their money in one pile, it would still go nowhere toward having this road improved enough to enable the competitive business of forestry to take place.
This petition, with 2,152 signatures from local people, which does not meet the requirements of the Petitions Committee, is extremely important because the people of the community are saying, ‘We want help.’ So I am appealing to the New South Wales government to seriously look at and determine this as a regional development issue. This is an issue that is not going to go away. Parliaments over the years have encouraged these expansions to take place. They get enormous tax revenue from these businesses and industries. It is time that the Gocup Road were fixed and completed, and it is time that the New South Wales government and the federal government stopped playing politics with this issue. I am therefore pleased to present this petition.
The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
I seek leave to present the petition.
Leave granted.
Today I wish to speak about energy efficiency—a topic of great importance. I want to make particular reference to the Australian Alliance to Save Energy, or A2SE, which is an independent and not-for-profit coalition of environmental, business, government and community leaders that seeks to inform, influence and promote the consideration of energy efficiency in Australia.
When it comes to key energy policy issues—that is: how much do we need; how are we going to produce it; how much will it cost; and what are the implications when it comes to climate change—there does not seem to be enough focus, at least in the public mind, on the potential contribution of energy efficiency measures. That is not to say that this potential is unrecognised. Indeed, in the 2007 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report on technology and low emissions, it was estimated that energy efficiency measures would account for something like 55 per cent of projected Australian emissions abatement at 2050. While much of the buzz in the area of emissions reductions focuses on renewable energy generation and the possibility of things like hydrogen cell vehicles, there is the tendency to forget that some of the greatest gains, or the lowest fruit, exist in available efficiency measures and demand management.
Last year, in the context of the debate about fuel prices, there was little acknowledgment of the fact that the wider use of vehicles with above-average fuel efficiency offered perhaps the straightest path towards easing the fuel cost burden on Australian families, and there was even less acknowledgment of the failure to make technological and behavioural progress in that regard. We know, for example, that there has been virtually no change in the average fuel efficiency of Australian passenger cars between 1965 and 2005. That is 40 years of massive scientific and technological change, yet there has been no significant improvement in the fuel use or cost efficiency of standard petrol cars. But of course energy efficiency is not just about technology; it is also about behavioural change. The average passenger car may use something like 10 or 11 litres per 100 kilometres, but there are vehicles that easily use a third to half less fuel, and that kind of efficiency is not confined to newfangled, electric hybrid vehicles. Smaller cars with smaller engines offer a huge jump in efficiency and, therefore, in both cost savings and emission reductions, but only if people make that choice.
It is not as though there are no price incentives. The Western Australian Sustainable Energy Association has suggested that people who shift from a large six- or eight-cylinder car to a smaller, fuel-efficient four-cylinder vehicle can effectively save around 45 cents a litre. That makes the 5c a litre excise issue seem ridiculous by comparison. Yet there is still no overwhelming trend towards greater efficiency in motor vehicles, nor any indication that we will see a radical shift in car consumer sentiment.
On this point I note the recent work by my predecessor in the electorate of Fremantle, Dr Carmen Lawrence, whose paper titled ‘Changing your behaviour to save the planet’ examines the behavioural aspect of the climate change task. In relation to the necessary economic reforms, Dr Lawrence writes:
Fundamental to the success of any of these strategies is social change, including people’s willingness to accept the seriousness of the situation, to support the necessary government intervention and change their own behaviour.
The car efficiency price incentive example appears to bear out Dr Lawrence’s observation that ‘in reality, limited information, high transaction costs and a variety of cognitive and behavioural tendencies limit the extent to which price alone affects behaviour’. So when it comes to the pursuit of energy efficiency, we need to accept that improvements are going to be dependent on greater behavioural understanding as much as technological change—and, of course, government has a role to play in supporting both.
As announced this week, the Prime Minister will establish a task force on energy efficiency next year. Such government initiatives, together with actions by independent groups such as A2SE, will assist in creating the momentum for change in our community. I am very pleased to be a member of the A2SE Formation Advisory Group, and I also note the keen participation of the member for La Trobe. This represents bipartisan support for A2SE’s work to make both efficiency and demand-side issues a prominent part of the energy policy debate in Australia.
The impetus for the creation of A2SE has to a significant degree come from the success of its equivalent in the United States, the Alliance to Save Energy, which has been a policy leader in this area for over 30 years. One of its programs, Green Schools, helped introduce operational, maintenance and behavioural changes that have achieved energy use reductions of between five and 15 per cent at participating schools. A school in my electorate, South Fremantle Senior High School, has become carbon neutral and, through its use of solar-PV power and allied efficiency measures, has greatly reduced its use of electricity. I hope that is the future for all of our schools.
Energy efficiency is a critical part of the policy equation when it comes to Australia’s energy profile and climate change response. I welcome the creation of the Australian Alliance to Save Energy as a participant in the policy debate.
I rise to speak about an issue that is very important to the people of the lower Lachlan River in New South Wales. As of the last couple of weeks, the lower Lachlan River has ceased to run below the weir at Condobolin. This is unprecedented and it resents a crisis to small communities and individual farms—people numbering in the hundreds—in the lower Lachlan area. I would like to speak about the need for emergency funding to overcome this problem through either piping water from other areas or sinking bores. It is my understanding that there are viable aquifers in the area, but unfortunately many of these people are cash-strapped after eight years of continuous drought and do not have the resources to put these bores down. What is going to exacerbate the problem is that, even though they do have some amount of grass for their stock, they are going to have to de-stock because of lack of water. Probably worse than that, communities like Euabalong, Euabalong West, Oxley and others will have to have water carted in.
The problem with carting water is that it is very expensive and it is a constant requirement. I believe there is a good case to be made for emergency funding to sink bores and help with piping. This is an investment that goes beyond this drought and will add value for many years to come. I find it rather strange that in this place last Thursday we passed a bill to allocate another $650 million to accelerate the water buyback program in the Murray-Darling Basin yet we are having trouble finding funding for this scheme. This is essentially a water saving scheme. If this money had been spent in the last little while on putting these bores down, we would be saving water. One of the problems with the water delivery systems is that, while they are very cost-effective when water is plentiful, they are quite wasteful in terms of the amount of evaporation from the very long open channels. Even Lake Cargelligo, a community of 1,400 people, is looking at having to pump water from a bore field some 33 kilometres to the west. This is going to be quite a considerable cost, but once again it will be a cost that will carry this community well into the future.
This area, the Lachlan shire, will be coming into the Parkes electorate at the next election, with the redistribution. I was out there a couple of weeks ago. There is a great amount of upset and fear for the future. Not only have these people had eight years of continuous drought; they have now suffered the ultimate blow of lack of water. If you think about it, after the air we breathe, water would be the next basic need for human existence. I think those of us who live in areas where that is not a problem would find it very difficult to adapt to a life where every drop of water that is available to you has to come in on the back of a truck. Imagine living in a town where you cannot turn your tap on to get water; you have to go to a common reservoir and take delivery of your own water in a tank in the back of a utility and take it back to your place. In this day and age, that is a very poor state of affairs. I am not being critical of this government at all. This is uncharted territory. We have not been here before. All I am doing is asking that some of the funding that is now being spent for buybacks be diverted. A fraction of that funding could be diverted to the people of the lower Lachlan to ease the hardship that they are suffering. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on issues arising from recent public transport zoning decisions made by the state government in Victoria. This is an issue that has particular resonance for my electorate, which covers several inner eastern suburbs of Melbourne, including Box Hill, Burwood, Mount Waverley and Glen Waverley. These suburbs are between 12 and 20 kilometres east of Melbourne and this is a strong growth area of Victoria. My electorate is also home to two great universities, which I have spoken about many times in this parliament: the Clayton campus of Monash University and the Burwood campus of Deakin University. One of Australia’s leading TAFEs, Box Hill Institute, is also part of my electorate and caters to thousands of students, as do Monash and Deakin.
Residents of these suburbs and students studying at these tertiary institutions deserve access to affordable, efficient public transport options. I welcome the recent decision made by the Victorian government to introduce new zone boundary changes for buses travelling to Monash University’s Clayton campus which enable students to use single zone cards. This is a decision that is long overdue. It will be of immense benefit to many students who use public buses to travel between their homes and classes. The issue of public transport zoning is a huge one for commuters in Melbourne. The difference between only requiring a zone 1 ticket as opposed to a zone 1 and 2 ticket is substantial. Commuters who purchase a daily ticket for zone 1 face a $6.80 charge, significantly less than the $10.60 charge facing those who travel over zones 1and 2. The extra $3.80 a day is a lot of money when added up over time, particularly for university students, many of whom struggle to make ends meet as it is. Also, it is considerably cheaper to take public transport to university than purchase on-site parking permits.
Zone 1 expires on the western border of my electorate, on Warrigal Road, meaning that residents either working or residing in my electorate have to pay the zone 1 and 2 fare when travelling across this border on public transport. While I welcome the decision to include Monash uni in zone 1, I cannot understand the logic behind the state government’s failure to extend the courtesy to buses travelling to Deakin University in Burwood. Deakin attracts around 13,000 students to its Burwood campus. It is actually geographically closer to zone 1 than Monash University and is now the only metropolitan university in Melbourne that falls outside of zone 1. This is a matter that needs to be addressed out of fairness and, more importantly, student safety.
Deakin have carried out a study showing that some students are spending less than $20 a week on food because such a large proportion of their money is going on public transport. As it currently stands, students travelling to Deakin from inner suburbs are cramming onto overcrowded buses, getting off at the end of zone 1 on Warrigal Road and making the 30-minute walk to the campus. The same applies in the evening, when students walk in darkness from the campus to the Warrigal Road zone 1 boundary. This creates obvious issues such as increased numbers of pedestrians in a high-traffic area, whilst also putting students in the vulnerable position of walking for 30 minutes under the cover of darkness. A number of these students come from overseas and feel insecure about this situation. They are only in this position through their need to avoid stretching their already stretched budgets further to pay their public transport costs.
I commend the Deakin University Student Association and the university itself for their work over many years in raising awareness on this issue and in lobbying the state government to consider revising the zone 1 boundary. I want to particularly pay credit to the outgoing President of DUSA, Cayla Edwards, and to Megan Jenner, the paid manager of DUSA, for their great work. Unlike the claim made in some recent statements about VSU, DUSA has produced some amazing individuals—one will be the No. 1 candidate for the National Party at the next election. So, unlike the outcry that all student associations produce Labor Party hacks, the No. 1 Senate candidate for the Nationals is a former DUSA president. I also pay credit to Bridget for her work in this area.
I call on the state government to look at this issue from a practical perspective and understand why Deakin students feel they have been overlooked. The public transport zoning issue is not solely confined to Deakin University, however. The suburb of Box Hill—14 kilometres east of Melbourne CBD in the north of my electorate—is the second largest retail and office precinct out of Melbourne city. It is also one of the largest growth suburbs in metro Melbourne. But, to the frustration of local residents and the wider Whitehorse community, the state government continues to deny Box Hill zone 1 status. I have joined with the Box Hill community in campaigning on this issue for some time and it is frustrating that our pleas are falling on the deaf ears of the state government. Box Hill TAFE accommodates thousands of students and many who are too young to drive, with 35,000 students enrolled in the past 12 months. Like Deakin University the primary mode of transport for students to the TAFE is public transport and they continue to be stung by zone 1 and 2 charges. Surely the same consideration afforded to Monash should apply to the thousands that travel to Box Hill TAFE to study. The suburb also accommodates a vast amount of retail and office space. It is time the state government took a serious look at expanding zone 1 to Box Hill and to the buses that accommodate the students of Deakin University.
I congratulate the member for Chisholm for noting the outstanding educational contribution that Bridget McKenzie, the Senate candidate, has made in the past and will continue to make in the future. It is on another education issue that I rise today. I want to express my extreme disappointment and indeed frustration with the way the debate over the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2]the Youth Allowance bill—has been conducted. What we have seen has been enormously disappointing for not only the students involved, their parents and teachers but also the members of parliament who came in here with goodwill in an attempt to deliver an outcome which is in the best interests of students—particularly in my case from regional areas. I have been disappointed with the minister’s approach from day one. Rather than attempting to negotiate or to work through the issues that were presented in good faith, she has developed into something of an ideological warrior and tried to bludgeon everyone into submission. It has been very disappointing. Once the battle lines have been drawn the opportunity for any good faith negotiations has gone out the window. We have put ourselves in a situation where, as the minister acknowledged last night, basically the students are now in limbo. We have put ourselves into a stalemate, and I think we are better than that in this place. There are members on both sides of the House who have a great contribution to make in terms of student income support issues. It is a folly for any of us to believe that all wisdom resides on one side of the House.
After the first introduction of her proposals in May, by about July or August the minister conceded that the workforce criterion issues, which were going to affect students in their gap year, were misguided. Finally, after receiving multiple representations from members on both sides of the House, she conceded that there needed to be changes and she did make some amendments to the legislation. Now, six months after the proposal was first put to the parliament, we are in a stalemate position and the minister is lashing out and blaming everyone else but herself. I think if we had negotiated in better faith several months ago we would not have got ourselves into this position. There are many on both sides of the House who have advocated reform of student income support and I have listened closely to the contributions that others have made in this regard. I have advocated reform from the day I was elected 18 months ago, and I have spoken to the minister’s office and written to her on several occasions—starting from the day I was elected—in relation to opportunities to provide more support for students, particularly from rural and regional areas. I believe that there is an enormous amount of good faith on both sides of the House to deliver an outcome but what we had last night was a situation in the House that descended more into name-calling and trying to blame each other for the mess we have got ourselves into. The ones who are going to be left in no-man’s land, as it were—the students themselves and the people we were originally trying to help—are the ones who are going to miss out, the way things stand at the moment.
I have been one of those people who have certainly supported many aspects of the legislation that the minister put forward in relation to the income thresholds. They were good moves. But where the minister lost her way was when she started drawing up the ideological battlelines and trying to inflict these new regulations on students who were already in their gap year. The situation is that, basically, these students acted in good faith. They received information from their Centrelink advisers, their career advisers and their teachers and put plans in place two or three years ago; they did not make them overnight. Students in a lot of my regional schools made their plans in about year 10. To have the minister say, ‘We’re going to pull the rug out from under your feet; you’re not going to be entitled to the independent rate of youth allowance under the previous arrangements’ was an act of poor faith, I believe, on the minister’s behalf. I do concede that the minister’s amendments were intended to overcome that situation. However, there is still the 90-minute barrier in terms of the impact that the legislation will have on students who will miss out on the concessions that the minister made in her transitional arrangements. There is still the fact that thousands of students are not accommodated by the minister’s change of view.
My position on this legislation is well known. I have advocated strongly in my electorate and in the House at various times when I have had the opportunity to speak on it. I appeal to the minister that in future, when we have a situation where there is clearly a division across the parliament—and I know for a fact that backbenchers on her side were raising issues about these changes when they were first introduced—to take the time to talk with members who come to her and raise issues in good faith. When I have 50 students writing to me about issues of great concern to them, I forward those letters to the minister. It is not a scaremongering campaign. We do not deserve to be vilified in our local area as a result. I believe that the minister has done herself no favours in this regard. I encourage the minister to put out another media release in my electorate, like she did last week, and vilify me again, because the more she does that, the more the people of Gippsland realise that I am standing up for my constituents.
I rise today to talk about water issues, particularly those affecting South-East Queensland which have changed markedly in recent days with the rejection by Minister Garrett of the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal. The Traveston Dam was designed by the Queensland state government to provide water for South-East Queensland, the south-east water grid, and, as a consequence of the decision by the minister, the state government’s water strategies will to have change markedly.
Just to put it on the record: population growth in South-East Queensland is 2,000 people a week. A little earlier in this adjournment debate, the member for Parkes spoke of the township of Lake Cargelligo, which has 1,400 people arriving a week. Some members should reflect on what the effect would be of a whole new town turning up in their electorate every week. That is, in effect, what is happening in South-East Queensland.
In response to the proposed rejection of the Traveston Dam, the Queensland Premier indicated that the state government would go ahead with desalination plants to replace the dam. She announced that she hopes to have desalination plants in Marcoola and Lytton by 2017. She ruled out the sites at Bribie Island and an additional site at Tugun that had been identified by Water Commissioner Nosworthy, but the Premier said pointedly that she was unable to guarantee that a future government would not build desalination plants on those sites.
There are, of course, other options. Queensland does have a water purification plant that is working very well, except that the public of Queensland and, in particular, South-East Queensland are against the use of purified water in their water supplies. It was famously voted down by the township of Toowoomba. They were on the verge of running out of water but they still would not accept purified water as an alternative. That idea has some way to go before it will be accepted by the public. I am particularly enamoured of the idea of stormwater capture. I mentioned my colleague the member for Makin, Tony Zappia, who, as Mayor of Salisbury in South Australia, put in stormwater recapture systems. The entire area of Salisbury is now self-sufficient in water through stormwater recapture, which is put through wetlands and then back into the aquifer.
Bribie Island, a small portion of my electorate and where I happen to have my home, is an ideal location for that. It already has a natural wetland in the centre of the island and the aquifers are already being tapped for drinking water supplies. However, Bribie Island has long been targeted for industrialisation by all sorts of people. Not well known to a lot of people is the fact that Sandstone Point, on the mainland across from Bribie, was one of three locations considered for the capital of the fledgling colony then called Morton Bay, along with Ipswich and the eventual position of the capital. I should say to people that Sandstone Point was ruled out because of the mosquitoes. There are about 30,000 people living on Bribie and at Sandstone Point now.
In the Bjelke-Petersen days there were proposals for a coal-loading port and a woodchip-loading port. In the Mike Ahern days, Joe Emmanuel proposed a 300,000 person supercity for the north of Bribie Island—to Mike’s credit, I do not believe he supported it. During the 2007 election we discussed the issue of a nuclear power plant. In the 2009 state election the idea of a desalination plant on Bribie Island was raised because it was in Liberal-National Party policy. It was first raised by Mick Venardos, the mayor of Gympie, who was opposing the proposed Traveston Crossing dam. His solution to the Traveston dam was to put a desalination plant on Bribie Island—thanks very much, Mick! Now we have to fight against that.
The site at Marcoola will attract some protest, probably the same protestors who protested against Traveston, with claims that a desalination plant cannot exist on an industrial estate adjacent to an airport. We are calling on the people of Bribie Island to again rally behind their members of parliament, as they have done in the past, and reject the notion of industrialisation on Bribie Island. Desalination would be a foot in the door. The infrastructure needed to power a desalination plant would be so vast that other development would need to come to justify the expenditure. I say to the people of Bribie Island: let’s get behind and make sure that, if the Marcoola protest is successful, Bribie is not taken on. (Time expired)
After hearing that speech, I think the member for Longman and I are almost related. I have a great idea for you, member for Longman: in days gone past my dad used to run a cattle property on Bribie Island. He would swim the cattle across the channel to the Kilcoy meatworks. Perhaps we will see cattle return to Bribie Island.
Cattle are coming back? In a national park? We got rid of that.
Who knows? Last night during the adjournment debate in the House I tabled some documents in relation to a statutory declaration. I inadvertently overlooked tabling the additional supporting documents and I seek leave now to table those additional documents.
Leave granted.
In the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the ETS there will be a continuing realisation about how they might affect various sectors of the economy. Whilst the opposition negotiated in good faith with the government, and certainly the government negotiated in good faith with the opposition, and whilst many very significant amendments were accepted by the government, there will still be people who will find themselves in some difficulty. I believe that where we find instances of difficulty, where there is a local interest, an Australian interest or a national interest to protect those businesses that may well be harshly affected, we need a mechanism to address that. I will give you an example. In my electorate we have the Yabulu nickel refinery. It was only six months ago that it came within 12 hours of being closed because BHP Billiton, the operators and owners of the refinery, decided that they did not want to be in the nickel business any longer. But Clive Palmer and his group came through and rescued the refinery, much to the relief of the City of Townsville. The Yabulu refinery employs about 1,200 people and, of course, there is the flow-on effect of the businesses that support it. It is a very significant employer and a very important asset to our city.
The General Manager, Neil Meadows, overnight indicated that he believes the refinery will suffer difficulty under the ETS. I encourage him to engage with the government and put his case as to what the impact might be, because nobody wants to see—and I do not even believe the government does—the Yabulu nickel refinery under threat. We do not want to see that refinery closed. It is too important to our economy in the north and too important to our country in terms of exports.
The price of nickel goes up and down in a cyclical way. It is very difficult for people in that industry. There are good times and bad times. It is currently not a good time. When the Prime Minister comes to my electorate—on I think 8 December—our community will speak to him about the need to protect those jobs, about the need to protect Yabulu and the need to make sure that it continues.
It is frightening for families when they see before Christmas that their jobs and their family income might be under threat. No time of the year is a good time to think you might lose your job, but it is particularly difficult in the festive season. My message to the employees of Yabulu is: it is not yet time to have those worries because this has a long time to play out. It gives community leaders, operators of the refinery and the government time to address the issues facing Yabulu and to get a good outcome. It is vital that we get the right outcome for the families and for the business to continue to operate in a secure and stable way. After all, we need that certainty for our families and workers. I will be doing everything I can for my community and those employees to make sure that Yabulu remains open.
Last Friday was an exciting day for the people of Shortland. Stage 3 of the Fernleigh Track opened. This stage took the Fernleigh Track from Whitebridge to Redhead. There was $850,000 of federal money put in to enable this project to happen. The Fernleigh Track is a very historic track. It is an old railway line from Adamstown to Belmont that was closed in the 1970s. After its closure it lay idle for many years. The rail tracks rusted and a few walkers walked along it, but in effect it had no use whatsoever. The track goes through a very beautiful area and in the past it was a major transport corridor.
Now the people of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie can enjoy this fantastic pathway that goes as far as Redhead. It goes through some of the most beautiful scenery that you could imagine. It is a state-of-the-art bikeway and walkway. People with disabilities are able to walk along this path. This would not have happened without the foresight of a few people back in the 1970s. I remember when I was a Lake Macquarie councillor walking along this very rough rail track. I was there with Richard Face, the then minister for the Hunter, who played an enormous role in getting funding for the Fernleigh Track. He has been involved since the inception in seeing the track developed. I place on record my congratulations and, more appropriately, thanks to Richard.
John Jenkins, Gordon Hughes and Alan Shields were councillors on the Lake Macquarie council at that time. They were the inaugural members of the Fernleigh Track committee. The Fernleigh Track committee has on it people from Newcastle and Lake Macquarie council as well as community representatives. These people have worked tirelessly over the years to see that this fantastic cycleway/walkway is developed. It is a major tourist attraction and it is fast becoming a transport corridor. It would not have happened without the involvement of those people. I remember walking the track back in the mid to late nineties. You could see then what a beautiful environment it was, but you could also see that there needed to be a lot of work done to make it the transport corridor and the walking track it is today. It was through the vision of those that were involved that it actually happened.
Recently, under the national cycleways program, the minister has given $2 million to complete the cycleway. That will take it from Redhead to Belmont. It will be nearly 20 kilometres of cycleway. Contributing to the funds for this have been Newcastle council, Lake Macquarie council, the state government through a number of their departments, and the Australian government. The cycleway will benefit the community enormously, but the special aspect about it is that it is a whole-of-government approach and it has enormous support from the community. The community has been involved in the development of the plan and they have supported it. This Fernleigh Track is something of regional importance, state importance and national importance. It is unique; it is part of our history. I was very pleased to cycle Fernleigh Track after the opening last Friday. I would encourage all members to visit the Shortland electorate and either walk or cycle the Fernleigh Track. It is a wonderful experience.
I rise today to bring to the attention of members the concerns of residents in the Bellingen shire about the future of their hospital. Earlier this month a public meeting was held in Bellingen to form a new group Save our Services—SOS—which aims to halt any plans to close the hospital or further erode services.
Residents of the Bellingen shire have every reason to be worried about the future of their hospital. The bureaucracy which runs the hospital, the North Coast Area Health Service, has a long track record of overpromising and underdelivering. For example, for years the local community has been fighting the area health service over the provision of maternity services. The Chief Executive Officer of the North Coast Area Health Service, Chris Crawford, promised the community that maternity services would be maintained at Bellingen, but the reality is that the services have been allowed to be run down. In 2008 there were 50 births at the hospital. This year there has been just one—and the last birth occurred in May. Despite this, Chris Crawford continues to promise the community that maternity services will be restored. He says his hands are tied as he is awaiting the response to the Garling report. But this is nothing more than a hollow bureaucratic excuse.
What is causing great concern is speculation that the area health service’s real plan is to close the hospital. Recent media reports highlighted doctor concerns that a state government taskforce has recently visited Bellingen hospital as part of an overall review of the future of smaller regional hospitals. Doctors understand that one of the options on the table is to close the hospital. To some medical professionals, the area health service strategy appears to be to let services and infrastructure get so run down that the hospital will have to be closed for safety reasons. As local doctor Fi Lam recently pointed our in a local newspaper, over the past four years the number surgical procedures has dropped from 800 to 200 per year. The hospital is being used as a defacto palliative care ward for patients from Coffs Harbour and this is skewing data the bureaucrats will use in any determination of the hospital’s future.
Bellingen hospital is a vital part of the shire, and under no circumstances should it be closed down. We have all been reminded of the importance of the hospital after suffering five flood events this year. When Bellingen receives vast amounts of rain, the town becomes isolated and it is essential that the community is self-sufficient. Bellingen residents cannot rely on Coffs Harbour hospital and should not be expected to travel 30 kilometres to access health services. In flood events, it is impossible to get to Coffs Harbour. The Bellingen community fully supports the hospital and the staff who work there. The shire population is growing and the demand for hospital services is increasing. It therefore makes no sense to withdraw services and allow hospital infrastructure to fall into a state of disrepair.
Whilst the New South Wales government is responsible for the administration of this hospital, it is Kevin Rudd who must take responsibility because, at the 2007 election, Kevin Rudd told the Australian people that the buck would stop with him on health. He said he would end the blame game. He promised to take over public hospitals if the state government did not improve its performance by 30 June 2009. Well, the Rudd government celebrated its second anniversary this week, and the only thing that can be said about our public health system is that it has got worse. In question time recently, the Prime Minister was unable to mention one hospital which he had fixed. Medical staff are being asked to do more with less. Jobs are being cut right across the region, and the area health services are not paying their bills. It now appears that, to cover their mismanagement, the response from the bureaucracy is to cut services to smaller hospitals in regional areas.
After promising so much to the Australian people, Kevin Rudd cannot allow this cut in services to occur. He must deliver on his promises. There is no need for more reviews. There is no need for more bureaucratic time wasting. It is time to act. The residents of Bellingen shire should not be forced to fight to retain their health services, which have been delivered in Bellingen for generations. Hospitals are a vital part of the local community, and governments need to understand that the demand for services on the North Coast is only going to increase.
I am calling on the Rudd government and the New South Wales Rees government to ensure that the Bellingen community hospital will not be shut down or further downgraded. We need to ensure that maternity services are provided into the future. We need to ensure that Bellingen hospital is upgraded, not downgraded or closed.
I rise today to report on some very good news for Cairns, a real shot in the arm, with the announcement yesterday that a deal has been done between the Cairns Airport and Jetstar to see 300,000 new seats come into Cairns over the next 2½ years. I would like to congratulate Stephen Gregg, his team at the Cairns Airport and the board of Cairns Airport Pty Ltd, and also Bruce Buchanan and his team at Jetstar, for the work that they have done in bringing this deal to fruition. I also congratulate the state government, who I understand have provided some marketing support.
Aviation is a critical driver of the Cairns economy and has been a welcome shot in the arm for our local community. Last year we saw Qantas pull out a significant number of seats—more than 200,000 seats. This commitment of 300,000 in the next 2½ years will see an additional almost 100,000 seats come to Cairns. Tourism Tropical North Queensland in their statement yesterday said that this would inject an additional $220 million into the local economy in direct tourism spending and help to create up to 2,000 new jobs.
That is particularly welcome news because Cairns—as members would know because I speak about it regularly—has been hard hit by the global recession. We had unemployment hit almost 14 per cent a couple of months ago. All of the ABS statistics bounce around a bit, and we saw it drop significantly to 8.1 per cent, which was a positive sign. If you look at the three-month moving average, you are really looking at unemployment of around 12 per cent, which is still too high.
We are making commitments to support jobs in the local community through investments in infrastructure like the $460 million stimulus that is going to Leichhardt and Kennedy, and this commitment between Jetstar and the airport to growing the airport going forward is positive news. I have been working with Minister Albanese over the last couple of years on ways that we can look to improve the competitiveness of the Cairns Airport and encourage more international carriers into Cairns. Over the last 10 or 12 years, sadly, we have seen too many international carriers leave Cairns. I am hopeful that in the white paper that is due in the not too distant future the discussions that I have had with Minister Albanese will bear fruit. I am certainly looking forward to the white paper coming down. I know that the local tourism community and business community in Cairns are also looking forward to that.
I am very much committed to supporting jobs in my local community and tourism is a particularly important part of that. When Qantas pulled out last year, Minister Ferguson and the government committed $4 million to a tourism support package. That provided incentives for marketing. As a result of that we have seen Continental come back into Cairns with another 10,000 seats from Japan via Guam and we have also seen a number of charter operators come back into Cairns in the interim to provide support for the local community. We need to look at long-term support for tourism and the long-term future for tourism in Cairns.
Investments from that $4 million package also went into some market segments including in terms of what we can do in health tourism. We have a wonderful environment with the Great Barrier Reef, the wet tropics rainforest and great experiences. It is a place that you can come to and look forward to getting well. Health tourism is a segment that we think has opportunities going forward.
We are doing work at the moment in relation to what we can do as to food tourism. We have some fantastic seafood and some fantastic tropical fruits and produce. At the moment we are doing some great work in that area. In the last couple of days there have been meetings in Cairns in relation to a food tourism strategy continuing to happen.
Last week I launched Tourism Tropical North Queensland, a recently redeveloped website, after a $275,000 investment from our tourism support package, as a result of Qantas pulling out. It is a real portal into tropical North Queensland.
If members here are looking to go on holidays over Christmas or next year, I would encourage them to go to www.cairnsgreatbarrierreef.org.au. They will find great opportunities to go and experience the wonderful and friendly environment that we have up there. We are very much committed to working with the tourism industry. As I said, the white paper will come down soon. I am very hopeful that we will see some real benefits flow from that for the local tourism industry through aviation reform. We have also got Minister Ferguson recently bringing forward another $9 million in marketing support and I know that Tourism Tropical North Queensland and the local airport have also put in applications as to that package through Tourism Australia. I am hopeful that we are going to get some outcomes from the white paper and from that package and I will continue to work with the local tourism industry and Cairns Airport. I congratulate them all. (Time expired)
I rise to take this opportunity to reflect on the year 2009. As I, the member for Swan, know and as you, Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, would know, we have a fantastic airport in Perth and Perth is probably a better place in which to have a holiday than Cairns, and we welcome everyone to come to Perth. I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the work that you have done as the member for Pearce in getting an inquiry up in the Senate about Airservices Australia and their lack of performance in dealing with the constituents in both our electorates. I will leave that there because I think that at this time of year it is the last opportunity to speak and I have just come from the main chamber, where I heard both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speak and they were very generous to each other, so I will take this opportunity as well to be generous to members on the other side of the place when we talk about some of the achievements that have occurred in my electorate. Unfortunately, I do not have the same ability to get funding that the member for Leichhardt has.
Is there pork-barrelling up there?
Is that what you call it? As you know, airport noise has certainly been a major issue for the people in my electorate and in the electorates of Pearce and Canning, and the member for Stirling tells me it is an issue for him as well. Just after the beginning of the year, in early January, we started receiving phone calls from residents who were noticing changes in the air traffic noise above their houses. It soon emerged that in November 2008 Airservices Australia had made significant changes to the flight paths in the Perth metropolitan area without any community consultation. I did call for the Western Australia route review project to be reopened. However, to date the government has refused to do that.
Residents need to be compensated for these changes. I have been campaigning, along with the members for Pearce and Canning, for an airport noise insulation scheme in Perth that would be similar to the ones that operate in Adelaide and Sydney. I do note that members on the other side heavily campaigned, when they were in opposition, for noise insulation and amelioration programs in both Adelaide and Sydney. If such schemes are good enough for Adelaide and Sydney they should be good enough for Perth as well. I am pleased to see that yesterday the Senate agreed to an inquiry into the practices of Airservices Australia. If this inquiry shows that the government is at fault, the case for compensation will be boosted. I hope there will be a public hearing in Perth. Along with the member for Pearce I will certainly be happy to present to that inquiry.
I am also happy to report on the Belmont Medicare office. It has been announced five times since the last election as being opened. It is the office that is always being announced but is never actually opened. The last announcement that we heard was that it was going to be opened in January 2010, but my sources tell me it is now going to be secretly opened next week or the week after in December. I thank people in my electorate for informing me of that. It is great that the people of the Belmont have finally got a Medicare office. To all of my constituents who wrote back to me about the Medicare office, I am sure it will be a welcome service to them as they will no longer have to travel to Booragoon or to Cannington to get services.
We still have problems with the roads. It would be great if we could get some funding for the Great Eastern Highway, which was promised by both parties at the last election. I know the people of my electorate are looking forward to getting some action in that area.
The 2009 budget was a disappointment for people in Swan, but I must congratulate the government, particularly Gary Gray, the member for Brand, on his efforts to continue the funding to Southcare that was promised by the Howard government prior to the election. This particular group do an enormous amount of work for the local community, particularly in aged care, and I do thank the member for Brand for his support in getting that funding over the line and making sure it continued as per the Howard government’s promise.
I just want to finish off the end of the year for me by thanking my staff, who have been an enormous help to me in my office, particularly Karen McGrath and Helen Leslie and Jonathan Martin. In the Swan electorate office there are Kelly May, Alex Butterworth and Trish Rust, who have been of enormous service to me. I would also like to say hello to my son and wish him all the best for Christmas. I know he is down at schoolies this week, and I hope he survived. I know, as a parent, it is a worrying time for all of us. I would also like to thank Sarah Wylie from 2GB for her encouraging comments recently—(Time expired)
One year ago terrorists attacked Mumbai in India. Two Australians, Brett Taylor and Doug Markell, were killed in the attack on many sites including the Taj hotel. In the last few days some very surprising information has come to light that particularly affects Australia and all countries who had victims in that attack, particularly India. The FBI arrested in Chicago a man who now goes by the name of David Coleman Headley, who personally visited every target site of the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai last year. Obviously this now appears to have been a reconnoitre for Lashkar-e-Toiba. He posed as an American Jew and visited the Jewish centre, Chabad House, in July 2008, prior to the terror attacks. Born Daood Gilani, Headley changed his name and passport in 2006. The Calcutta Telegraph reported:
It is a mystery how he got into that building … We are probing to see if he had anybody helping him locally. The FBI—
when they arrested him—
seized a book called How to Pray Like a Jew from him at the time of his arrest in Chicago. He had prepared himself thoroughly—
for this reconnoitre.
There is a program tonight on the ABC that, in its promotion, quite propitiously says, in describing these attacks that the thing that is outstanding about them is that the terrorists from Lashkar-e-Toiba apparently knew the Taj hotel and the other sites better than the staff. So it is quite clear that Headley—Gilani—was there to scope the site and he was therefore involved in the murder of 170 people, including two Australians.
What is particularly ominous about his arrest in Chicago, and something that is reported in the newspapers today, is the fact that this person was also planning to do a similar thing in other countries. The first one we know about is Denmark, where they were planning to do a similar attack on the cartoonists who made some criticism, normally part of their craft, of one of the monotheistic religions of this world. The arrest of this man by the FBI subsequently led to the arrest yesterday in Pakistan of two serving lieutenant colonels in the Pakistani army and a retired major. This is the first established link that I know of between the Pakistani armed services and this Lashkar-e-Toiba organisation and the attack on Mumbai.
The parliament earlier this week, in the regular review of the intelligence committee’s framing of the terrorist legislation, there was bipartisan support for continuing the ban on Lashkar-e-Toiba. Anyone who has been following this organisation’s activities realises that Lashkar-e-Toiba is particularly focused on trying to bring terror incidents to Australia. The Australian laws on terrorism have led to the arrest, charging and conviction in our courts of several groups of people associated with Lashkar-e-Toiba. On this terrible anniversary of the murder of 170 innocents in India, I think it is important to remember these events. The fact that it now appears that certain members of the Pakistani security services were involved in this and other terror attacks.
I also want, on this occasion, to remember two of these very innocents: Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, who were murdered on that day. Like the Mishnaic rabbis murdered by the Romans in the story immortalised in the Jewish Yom Kippur liturgy, the evidence shows that the Holtzbergs were marked out for a violent death. Rivka Holtzberg was pregnant when she was tortured and murdered by the heartless terrorists. They were murdered not in spite of their righteous, selfless qualities but precisely because of them. (Time expired)
I rise today to talk about the issue of doctor shortages in regional, rural and remote Australia—and, indeed, across non-metropolitan Australia, in many ways. This is obviously not a new issue, as I spoke about the doctor shortages in this place in March last year, but it remains a significant issue. In any community health care should be of paramount importance and should have the focus not only of state authorities but also of our federal government and our federal minister.
There are a number of towns in my electorate which are trying desperately to attract doctors by improving local medical infrastructure and improving local services. One of those towns I want to talk about first is Aramac. Aramac used to be the headquarters of the Aramac Shire Council, before the Labor government in Queensland amalgamated the Aramac Shire Council with Barcaldine and Jericho shires—forced against the will of the people. But the Aramac Shire Council, which incorporates the community of Muttaburra, is a very significant community. It is not large in population but is strategically important. With the opening of the Galilee coal basin in the future, and the coal-seam methane gas industry, which is extending ahead of the development of those coal reserves, Aramac will be a significant dormitory town—and health services, as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, are important for the wellbeing of all who live there.
The town of Aramac is not in my electorate of Maranoa but in early December the boundaries will be gazetted and it will fall back into Maranoa. I would like to know what the member for Flynn, who was elected to represent that area, has been doing about the lack of doctors for the people of Aramac. I will be visiting there before Christmas, and I will certainly be interested to hear what he has been doing to address this issue.
When the Liberals and Nationals were in government we had a rural medical infrastructure program, a very successful program. Those on the other side said that it was a rort, but we notice that they still have it—under a different name and a different badge. We provided some $400,000-odd for rural medical infrastructure to be built in Aramac. They have a wonderful medical precinct. They have a house for a doctor, the hospital and of course the medical centre. I want to pay tribute to former Aramac shire mayor, Gary Peoples, and the way he led that community. He understands the importance of providing good quality health care to a community. I call on the health minister to look at the incentives that are provided by the Commonwealth government to see if there is a way that we can attract a doctor to this wonderful medical precinct that would service not only Aramac but also the Muttaburra community.
I want to talk about another town in my electorate, Dalby, and about the Myall Medical Practice, which is trying to address district workforce shortages. Dalby is in the Surat coal basin. That centre has recorded something like 2,000 new patients on its books because of the growth of the Surat coal basin. They are not getting much help from the state government—all they want is the royalty revenue and to suck it down to George Street to try and pay off the massive deficit that Anna Bligh, the Premier, who was Treasurer and infrastructure minister, has built up and continues to build up. They would like some of that money to not only help the community to attract doctors but also help with some medical infrastructure in the town of Dalby. As the Surat coal basin expands, it will be important for not only Queensland and Dalby and the communities of the Surat coal basin but also the nation.
I would also like to touch on the town of Killarney, in the very eastern part of my electorate. Killarney have been applying for rural medical infrastructure money under the program, which is now under the Health banner here in Canberra. They missed out the first time around. I am not quite sure why. Killarney want funding for the same reason that the Liberal and National parties put medical infrastructure money into Aramac: so that there is a place where doctors can practise and they do not have to invest in infrastructure. I will be supporting them in their quest to put in another application under the rural medical infrastructure program. I hope that the government listens to these communities. They are small rural communities and deserve the support of the federal government. They are taxpayers as well. (Time expired)
I would like to talk momentarily about education in my electorate. I will resist the temptation to respond to some of the provocative content of the former speaker’s contribution. I will leave that for another day. The Longman electorate, on the northern outskirts of Brisbane these days—I think it is fair to describe it that way—ranks 137th out of 150 in Australia with regard to the proportion of people aged over 15 with postsecondary qualifications, yet we have so few opportunities within our community to get qualifications. Longman is part of the Moreton Bay Regional Council area. Moreton Bay Regional Council is the third largest council in Australia, with over 300,000 people resident. This year, the Longman electorate is going to provide student kits to over 1,000 year 12 students who are graduating. I am sure that in the neighbouring electorates of Dickson and Petrie they will be doing similar, yet those electorates do not have an easily accessible university campus.
The Queensland University of Technology has a campus co-located with the TAFE college campus at Caboolture, where students are able to pursue a nursing degree, a primary teaching degree, a business degree with two majors, and the first year of creative industries. This is a very small course offering for a very large community. I do not wish to downplay the importance of the work that is done at the QUT campus but simply say that we need a little bit more than that. Traditional trades are not well catered to either, despite the work that has been going on. We have a campus of the Australian Technical College in the electorate of Petrie, adjacent to us, and at two Longman high schools we have trade training centres that were put in by the state and federal governments.
But very few of the skills that are on the shortage list and that this country needs are taught to students either at high school or post high school in either the TAFEs or those other centres that are available once people have left school. We are in a parlous situation; we are lost for choice. It is very difficult for students from our area to attend a university. You could spend 3½ hours to four hours a day on public transport to attend a one-hour lecture. A further disincentive has arisen in the last few days in that some 458 Longman students are going to miss out on funding for university as a consequence of the impasse that has been reached with the opposition in relation to student funding. Having spent a great deal of my life in north-western Victoria and western New South Wales, I understand the additional difficulties that students from that area face in accessing a university education. But I can tell you that I understand also that the gap year is an artifice; the gap year is something that has been developed so that people who come from families with incomes above the level that would provide them with youth allowance are able to obtain it. I am pretty sure that the independence test was put in to assist not school leavers taking a gap year but older people coming back.
I take a moment to take a leaf out of the book of the member for Swan, who spoke a little earlier, and thank my staff for the assistance that they have given me over the last two years as I have been doing this job. I thank Eileen and Avalon, Gaye and Jenny, Susan and Meagan and last, but not least, the only male on my staff—he keeps me sane—Robert. Thank you very much for the work that you have done in making sure that I am mostly in the right place at the right time, mostly prepared to do what I have to do and mostly able to do that on time.
I want to deal with two issues in relation to safety on the Mornington Peninsula and in my electorate as we approach the summer period. The first of those is the area of Blind Bight and the coastal villages. These are the towns of Blind Bight, Warneet, Cannons Creek and Tooradin. These towns have for a long while suffered from a severe fire risk. I met with the townspeople some months ago; we put together a fire safety and security plan. We have put that to the state government and the city of Casey. There has been some progress but the state government has failed in its duty to provide adequate protection for the people of the coastal villages. It has not engaged in proper clearance and preparation for the summer ahead. We have to put maximum pressure on the state to ensure that there has been appropriate clearance of what is an area of extreme and high fire danger going into another summer season which itself will have extreme and high fire danger. There is the combination of an area which is particularly vulnerable and a season which is likely to be particularly severe. Those are the risks facing the people of these small coastal villages. They are people who are alert and alarmed, people who are concerned and have taken their own action but have not been given support for the ongoing maintenance, care and protection of the coastal strip and high vegetation areas which is necessary.
I believe the council has done good work and I thank the council for that. I thank in particular the mayor, Geoff Ablett, who in terms of personal circumstances has had the most difficult of years. The council deserves to be congratulated, but the state must be held to account. I hope that steps can be taken to ensure that there is appropriate clearance of fallen and dead branches, overgrowth, pathways and fire breaks which will allow the people of the coastal villages to spend their summer secure in the knowledge that they will be markedly safer because of the efforts which can be, should be and must be taken.
This brings me to a second area of pressing human security in the town of Mount Martha, in the electorate of Flinders. Nepean Highway runs in front of the newly created Balcombe Grammar School. It is a beautiful school where numbers are growing; next year there will be well over 500 students in the school. I am delighted that Balcombe Grammar has taken off. A few short years ago Fay Weston came to see me with a proposal for a low-fee Christian school in Mount Martha. We worked to put the school together with the Reverend John Leaver, Evelyn Sayers and Barry Steggle. That school is now a reality, but there is a danger for students who attend the school. As families go up the hill to Balcombe Grammar School along Nepean Highway they have to make a dangerous right-hand turn. Students also have to cross a highway to get to a bus stop. They do not have a school crossing, a lollipop lady or a lollipop man. There are not adequate reductions in speed near the school. So it is very clear that for the coming school year VicRoads must act in conjunction with the state to ensure that there is either a school crossing or a set of lights or that there are appropriate reductions in speed limits.
The situation is foreseeable and people are forewarned. I do not want to be wise after the event and have to report to the House that actions which could have been taken were not taken and that there has been a tragedy. So right now I urge the state roads minister and the state education minister to stand up and acknowledge that there is the potential for tragedy. The school, which has grown exponentially over three years—it gone from nothing to having over 500 students next year—and abuts a major highway, must have adequate safety for students crossing the road. There is no compromise on this, but on the method—absolutely. A crossing, lights or a significant reduction in speeds during school hours are the options. The state must produce results this summer. (Time expired)
I welcome and support the call today by trade unions for a national inquiry into the disturbing trend towards the casualisation of the workforce in Australia. Australia has avoided the worst impacts on employment from the global financial crisis, which we have witnessed in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The Rudd government deserves strong praise for its decisive action, which has protected many jobs. However, it has been revealed by a study conducted by researchers at the University of Sydney that the conventional wisdom that workers have kept their jobs in the downturn but with shorter hours is not quite right. What the survey of 6,500 workers revealed was that eight per cent had lost their jobs in the past year, with less than half finding work again and indeed that one-third had dropped out of the workforce altogether. Those who did get re-employed could only get casual jobs, with the study showing that 34 per cent of people who changed jobs in 2008-09 moved into positions with no paid leave compared with 30 per cent for 2007-08.
Mark Lennon, from Unions NSW, correctly points out that this is a disturbing increase in the number of working Australians who lack job security and paid leave. As Andrew Stewart has identified in his book on employment law:
What seems more troubling is the growth in the number of Australians who are doing casual jobs simply because those are the only jobs on offer. The evidence suggests that, for many in this situation, casual work is not some sort of ‘bridge’ into permanent employment. It is more of a trap in which there is little training, little prospect of career advancement—and fewer entitlements. Their jobs are legally insecure, even if sometimes quite stable in reality.
Casual jobs have grown faster than all other forms of employment in the last 15 years, meaning more employees are in precarious and less stable workplace situations. As the Sydney university study outlined, only 22 per cent of employees reported that a collective agreement determined their pay and conditions and noted that the role of awards was more relevant to their situation. As the report noted, casual employees are much less likely than permanent employees to feel they have the opportunity to negotiate their pay and are much more likely to report reliance on awards for the determination of their pay and conditions.
Jeff Lawrence from the ACTU has called for a public inquiry into workers’ income security and job protection in 2010, indicating it should be wide ranging and include such areas as greater rights for casual workers and limits on offshoring and the unnecessary loss of Australian jobs overseas. I believe such an inquiry should also include consideration of the skilled migration program and its role in crowding out the opportunities for our domestic labour supply. In 1995-96 skilled migration was 24,100 and it rose to over 114,000 by 2008-09, four to five times what it used to be. I believe it should be cut back to 25,000.
It is worth noting that workforce participation by older Australians is rising, not falling, and could rise further. For 2008-09 average participation in the workforce was 81 per cent for 50- to 54-year-olds, 69 per cent for 55- to 59-year-olds and 49 per cent for 60- to 64-year-olds. Skilled migration undermines the ability of this group to find full-time employment. As reported today on AM, Larry Valesini, a 53-year-old building worker from Penrith who was retrenched after 14 years with Multiplex, has found himself competing for casual work, despite wanting full-time work.
We as a nation need to look at our own domestic labour supply before we seek a solution from abroad that undermines the opportunities for those who are willing within our own ranks to fill that requirement. I believe the skyrocketing of skilled migration and the skyrocketing of the subclass 457 visa program have diminished opportunities for local workers and taken the focus away from the skills, the training and the apprenticeships, which our universities and TAFEs should be providing. There should be an inquiry and it should consider the impact of the rapid rise in skilled migration and the temporary work subclass 457 visas.
I briefly wish to speak on the official last day of sitting—although we might return for another unofficial day next week—to thank a few people and wish them a Merry Christmas. I particularly want to thank my staff, who have worked so hard this year, in the electorate office: Alex Johnson, who has worked under difficult circumstances at times this year; Andrew Ockenden; Amelia Harris; Vanessa Juergens, who has just returned from maternity leave; and Andrew Coombe, who we lost to the state Leader of the Opposition’s office a couple of months ago. He is doing a fine job there and will shortly become the communications director to the Premier I am sure.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the staff in the Main Committee, the chamber attendants throughout this place, my colleagues and those of good nature and goodwill on the other side all the very best for Christmas. Finally, I wish to thank my family for all the support they give me in the travel that I have every few weeks. Estee does an amazing job with our two young ones, particularly when I am away. I very much look forward to returning this evening so I can do some of the early morning shifts that our youngest is currently testing us with. Merry Christmas to all.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you to the member for Mayo for his kind wishes. They are also extended to you and your family and to all those on the other side and to everyone in this House: a Merry Christmas to all. I am really pleased to have this opportunity today, in that we are in a celebratory mood around Christmas, and I hope on Monday I will be able to celebrate it even more—if we are not sitting here—in Burnie.
Burnie has had a chequered and rugged history over the last 15 years, from having its paper and pulp mill downgraded and still under threat to being labelled one of the dirtiest cities in Australia. It has invested in itself and called upon the spirit that made it in the first place a place of makers and doers. On Monday, I hope to be co-opening what is called the Makers Workshop Burnie, which is worth about $5.8 million, an exciting, innovative, creative centre near West Park, which is right on Bass Strait, overlooking the township of Burnie, which is now vibrant, fresh, invigorated and self-investing.
It is an extraordinary concept because it is trying to encapsulate the past, the present and the future of Burnie. As I said, Burnie’s history is made up of makers and doers, very practical people, people who do not require a handout so much as some help up sometimes, and they have certainly reflected that. I hope you will all get an opportunity to come and have a look at this makers workshop. It features a number of stands, as I suppose you could call them. I do not want to make it appear as if you are going into a museum; it is not that at all. It is an interactive meeting place. Some of the things that you will be able to see include, for instance, a beautiful six-metre working clock from 1913 in a magnificent glass container. The writing on the glass casing, which tells the history of Burnie, tells that history as the light comes in at different angles, so it is a moving history reflected in the clock, which was made in Burnie by a master clockmaker in 1913. It tells the history and it moves with the light which is so much part of the building itself, because it has a translucent covering on the outside so it changes shape and colour as you look at it. It is absolutely fantastic.
That is one thing, and then you move on to another area which is celebrating commerce and industry. It is actually a pen-ruling machine. As you all know, Burnie is well known for its paper making. It is a massive machine. It used to be able to make ledgers with different colours on them so you could do your figures. You probably used them to do your ABCs when you were a kid—well, you might not have, Member for Mayo, but I certainly did—and, of course, it also made ledgers for accounting. You can walk up and see this machine still working. Whilst you are doing that, and as you are moving up, you can hear and appreciate some of the stories about how paper has been used. It is fantastic.
Another magnificent display which is moving all the time is a bush violin made from myrtle and blackwood. It is very old. It was owned by a guy who used to go around the pubs in Burnie in the 1950s making music. It goes up and down inside the case. You can open up the case, crank up the music with the violin moving and at the same time see the tools that were used to fashion the magnificent timbers there.
I am running out of time, but there is also a section which celebrates global connections. It is the outside of a container, because Burnie is one of the largest container ports in Australia, successfully so. You can go in and see the history, and at the top you have all these beautiful sails reflecting our maritime history as well. Then, of course, there is a plough which is sitting on a bed of potatoes, which are so important in my area. Remember, ‘spud’ comes from Smithton, Penguin, Ulverstone and Devonport. That is celebrated there, and you can actually plough and see that. And then there is a magnificent Italian marble statue or column which celebrates the life of William Jones, who did everything in Burnie. He was Mr Burnie. He created Burnie in the 1860s and so forth. That is just part and parcel of it. And it is surrounded by a number of activity ports for kids and everyone else. Anyway, come and visit, and I certainly—
I note that the member for Braddon’s time has now expired. Does the member for Braddon seek an indulgence for an extension?
Merry Christmas!
Thank you.
I want to very quickly jump up and wish everyone in my electorate a merry and safe Christmas. It is a wonderful festive season in which families and friends get together, but we need to remember to stay safe on the roads and safe in the water. I want to put that message on the record, but also I really want to take the time to thank all the Speaker’s Panel members for their excellent work during the year. I know other people will be saying this downstairs but, as my office and I deal with the panel members, I really do want to express my sincere thanks, on behalf of myself and my staff member Lindy, for all the phenomenal work that the panel members have put in this year, and the flexibility that they have shown as we have sat an extraordinary amount of additional time at very short notice. So I really do want to say a very big thank you to them for all that work and, through the panel members, to their staff for the assistance they have given in juggling people’s diaries. We realise and appreciate how busy we all are up here with additional commitments to committees and people visiting. So I really do want to say a very large thank you to them and their staff for all the work that they have done, because it really does facilitate the operation of the House. Many people do not appreciate—and I do not think I appreciated this until I actually sat in the chair—how much goes into that and the fact that if we are not here doing it the place almost literally falls over.
Our thanks go to all the clerks at all levels who give us assistance and guidance while we are in the chair. We actually appreciate and understand who runs the place! They are the font of all knowledge and we are guided by them. Our thanks go to the people in the Table Office who prepare the material for us, the attendants—who assist us greatly when we are in the chair and often when we are stranded, when issues are going on in our office, and they assist us with getting notes in and out—the security guards and all the other people who make this wonderful place tick. I want to say thank you very much and wish everyone a merry Christmas. I hope that everyone does get a break over this Christmas because, as we know, next year we are going into an election year and we are all going to be very busy.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 12.07 pm, until Wednesday, 3 February 2010, at 9.30 am, unless in accordance with standing order 186 an alternative date or time is fixed.